History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 1
by Edward Gibbon · English · Gutenberg #731 · 1,786,018 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 1
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 1
Author: Edward Gibbon
Commentator: Henry Hart Milman
Release date: June 7, 2008 [eBook #731]
Most recently updated: March 7, 2021
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/731
Credits: David Reed and David Widger
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE — VOLUME 1 ***
HISTORY OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Edward Gibbon, Esq.
With notes by the Rev. H. H. Milman
Vol. 1
1782 (Written), 1845 (Revised)
CONTENTS
Introduction
Preface By The Editor.
Preface Of The Author.
Preface To The First Volume.
Preface To The Fourth Volume Of The Original Quarto Edition.
Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines—Part I.
The Extent And Military Force Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines.
Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part II.
Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part III.
Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part I.
Of The Union And Internal Prosperity Of The Roman Empire, In The
Age Of The Antonines.
Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part II.
Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part III.
Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The
Antonines. Part IV.
Chapter III: The Constitution In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part I.
Of The Constitution Of The Roman Empire, In The Age Of The
Antonines.
Chapter III: The Constitution In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part II.
Chapter IV: The Cruelty, Follies And Murder Of Commodus.—Part
I.
The Cruelty, Follies, And Murder Of Commodus—Election Of
Pertinax—His Attempts To Reform The State—His Assassination By The
Prætorian Guards.
Chapter IV: The Cruelty, Follies And Murder Of Commodus.—Part
II.
Chapter V: Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus.—Part I.
Public Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus By The Prætorian
Guards—Clodius Albinus In Britain, Pescennius Niger In Syria, And
Septimius Severus In Pannonia, Declare Against The Murderers Of
Pertinax—Civil Wars And Victory Of Severus Over His Three
Rivals—Relaxation Of Discipline—New Maxims Of Government.
Chapter V: Sale Of The Empire To Didius Julianus.—Part II.
Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation
Of Marcinus.—Part I.
The Death Of Severus.—Tyranny Of Caracalla.—Usurpation Of
Macrinus.—Follies Of Elagabalus.—Virtues Of Alexander
Severus.—Licentiousness Of The Army.—General State Of The Roman
Finances.
Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation
Of Marcinus.—Part II.
Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation
Of Marcinus.—Part III.
Chapter VI: Death Of Severus, Tyranny Of Caracalla, Usurpation
Of Marcinus.—Part IV.
Chapter VII: Tyranny Of Maximin, Rebellion, Civil Wars, Death
Of Maximin.—Part I.
The Elevation And Tyranny Of Maximin.—Rebellion In Africa And
Italy, Under The Authority Of The Senate.—Civil Wars And
Seditions.—Violent Deaths Of Maximin And His Son, Of Maximus And
Balbinus, And Of The Three Gordians.— Usurpation And Secular Games
Of Philip.
Chapter VII: Tyranny Of Maximin, Rebellion, Civil Wars, Death
Of Maximin.—Part II.
Chapter VII: Tyranny Of Maximin, Rebellion, Civil Wars, Death
Of Maximin.—Part III.
Chapter VIII: State Of Persia And Restoration Of The
Monarchy.—Part I.
Of The State Of Persia After The Restoration Of The Monarchy By
Artaxerxes.
Chapter VIII: State Of Persia And Restoration Of The
Monarchy.—Part II.
Chapter IX: State Of Germany Until The Barbarians.—Part I.
The State Of Germany Till The Invasion Of The Barbarians In The
Time Of The Emperor Decius.
Chapter IX: State Of Germany Until The Barbarians.—Part II.
Chapter IX: State Of Germany Until The Barbarians.—Part III.
Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And
Gallienus—Part I.
The Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian, And
Gallienus.—The General Irruption Of The Barbari Ans.—The Thirty
Tyrants.
Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And
Gallienus.—Part II.
Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And
Gallienus.—Part III.
Chapter X: Emperors Decius, Gallus, Æmilianus, Valerian And
Gallienus.—Part IV.
Chapter XI: Reign Of Claudius, Defeat Of The Goths.—Part I.
Reign Of Claudius.—Defeat Of The Goths.—Victories, Triumph, And
Death Of Aurelian.
Chapter XI: Reign Of Claudius, Defeat Of The Goths.—Part II.
Chapter XI: Reign Of Claudius, Defeat Of The Goths.—Part III.
Chapter XII: Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus And His
Sons.—Part I.
Conduct Of The Army And Senate After The Death Of Aurelian.
—Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus, And His Sons.
Chapter XII: Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus And His
Sons.—Part II.
Chapter XII: Reigns Of Tacitus, Probus, Carus And His
Sons.—Part III.
Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three
Associates.—Part I.
The Reign Of Diocletian And His Three Associates, Maximian,
Galerius, And Constantius.—General Reestablishment Of Order And
Tranquillity.—The Persian War, Victory, And Triumph.—The New Form
Of Administration.—Abdication And Retirement Of Diocletian And
Maximian.
Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three
Associates.—Part II.
Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three
Associates.—Part III.
Chapter XIII: Reign Of Diocletian And His Three
Associates.—Part IV.
Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The
Empire.—Part I.
Troubles After The Abdication Of Diocletian.—Death Of
Constantius.—Elevation Of Constantine And Maxen Tius.— Six
Emperors At The Same Time.—Death Of Maximian And
Galerius.—Victories Of Constantine Over Maxentius And
Licinus.—Reunion Of The Empire Under The Authority Of Constantine.
Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The
Empire.—Part II.
Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The
Empire.—Part III.
Chapter XIV: Six Emperors At The Same Time, Reunion Of The
Empire.—Part IV.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part I.
The Progress Of The Christian Religion, And The Sentiments,
Manners, Numbers, And Condition Of The Primitive Christians.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part II.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part III.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part IV.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part V.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part VI.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part VII
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part VIII.
Chapter XV: Progress Of The Christian Religion.—Part IX.
Introduction
Preface By The Editor.
The great work of Gibbon is indispensable to the student of
history. The literature of Europe offers no substitute for “The
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” It has obtained undisputed
possession, as rightful occupant, of the vast period which it
comprehends. However some subjects, which it embraces, may have
undergone more complete investigation, on the general view of the
whole period, this history is the sole undisputed authority to
which all defer, and from which few appeal to the original
writers, or to more modern compilers. The inherent interest of
the subject, the inexhaustible labor employed upon it; the
immense condensation of matter; the luminous arrangement; the
general accuracy; the style, which, however monotonous from its
uniform stateliness, and sometimes wearisome from its elaborate
ar., is throughout vigorous, animated, often picturesque, always
commands attention, always conveys its meaning with emphatic
energy, describes with singular breadth and fidelity, and
generalizes with unrivalled felicity of expression; all these
high qualifications have secured, and seem likely to secure, its
permanent place in historic literature.
This vast design of Gibbon, the magnificent whole into which he
has cast the decay and ruin of the ancient civilization, the
formation and birth of the new order of things, will of itself,
independent of the laborious execution of his immense plan,
render “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” an
unapproachable subject to the future historian: 101 in the
eloquent language of his recent French editor, M. Guizot:—
101 (return) [ A considerable portion of this preface has already
appeared before us public in the Quarterly Review.]
“The gradual decline of the most extraordinary dominion which has
ever invaded and oppressed the world; the fall of that immense
empire, erected on the ruins of so many kingdoms, republics, and
states both barbarous and civilized; and forming in its turn, by
its dismemberment, a multitude of states, republics, and
kingdoms; the annihilation of the religion of Greece and Rome;
the birth and the progress of the two new religions which have
shared the most beautiful regions of the earth; the decrepitude
of the ancient world, the spectacle of its expiring glory and
degenerate manners; the infancy of the modern world, the picture
of its first progress, of the new direction given to the mind and
character of man—such a subject must necessarily fix the
attention and excite the interest of men, who cannot behold with
indifference those memorable epochs, during which, in the fine
language of Corneille—
‘Un grand destin commence, un grand destin s’achève.’”
This extent and harmony of design is unquestionably that which
distinguishes the work of Gibbon from all other great historical
compositions. He has first bridged the abyss between ancient and
modern times, and connected together the two great worlds of
history. The great advantage which the classical historians
possess over those of modern times is in unity of plan, of course
greatly facilitated by the narrower sphere to which their
researches were confined. Except Herodotus, the great historians
of Greece—we exclude the more modern compilers, like Diodorus
Siculus—limited themselves to a single period, or at ‘east to the
contracted sphere of Grecian affairs. As far as the Barbarians
trespassed within the Grecian boundary, or were necessarily
mingled up with Grecian politics, they were admitted into the
pale of Grecian history; but to Thucydides and to Xenophon,
excepting in the Persian inroad of the latter, Greece was the
world. Natural unity confined their narrative almost to
chronological order, the episodes were of rare occurrence and
extremely brief. To the Roman historians the course was equally
clear and defined. Rome was their centre of unity; and the
uniformity with which the circle of the Roman dominion spread
around, the regularity with which their civil polity expanded,
forced, as it were, upon the Roman historian that plan which
Polybius announces as the subject of his history, the means and
the manner by which the whole world became subject to the Roman
sway. How different the complicated politics of the European
kingdoms! Every national history, to be complete, must, in a
certain sense, be the history of Europe; there is no knowing to
how remote a quarter it may be necessary to trace our most
domestic events; from a country, how apparently disconnected, may
originate the impulse which gives its direction to the whole
course of affairs.
In imitation of his classical models, Gibbon places _Rome_ as the
cardinal point from which his inquiries diverge, and to which
they bear constant reference; yet how immeasurable the space over
which those inquiries range! how complicated, how confused, how
apparently inextricable the causes which tend to the decline of
the Roman empire! how countless the nations which swarm forth, in
mingling and indistinct hordes, constantly changing the
geographical limits—incessantly confounding the natural
boundaries! At first sight, the whole period, the whole state of
the world, seems to offer no more secure footing to an historical
adventurer than the chaos of Milton—to be in a state of
irreclaimable disorder, best described in the language of the
poet:—
—“A dark Illimitable ocean, without bound, Without dimension,
where length, breadth, and height,
And time, and place, are lost: where eldest Night And Chaos,
ancestors of Nature, hold Eternal anarchy, amidst the noise Of
endless wars, and by confusion stand.”
We feel that the unity and harmony of narrative, which shall
comprehend this period of social disorganization, must be
ascribed entirely to the skill and luminous disposition of the
historian. It is in this sublime Gothic architecture of his work,
in which the boundless range, the infinite variety, the, at first
sight, incongruous gorgeousness of the separate parts,
nevertheless are all subordinate to one main and predominant
idea, that Gibbon is unrivalled. We cannot but admire the manner
in which he masses his materials, and arranges his facts in
successive groups, not according to chronological order, but to
their moral or political connection; the distinctness with which
he marks his periods of gradually increasing decay; and the skill
with which, though advancing on separate parallels of history, he
shows the common tendency of the slower or more rapid religious
or civil innovations. However these principles of composition may
demand more than ordinary attention on the part of the reader,
they can alone impress upon the memory the real course, and the
relative importance of the events. Whoever would justly
appreciate the superiority of Gibbon’s lucid arrangement, should
attempt to make his way through the regular but wearisome annals
of Tillemont, or even the less ponderous volumes of Le Beau. Both
these writers adhere, almost entirely, to chronological order;
the consequence is, that we are twenty times called upon to break
off, and resume the thread of six or eight wars in different
parts of the empire; to suspend the operations of a military
expedition for a court intrigue; to hurry away from a siege to a
council; and the same page places us in the middle of a campaign
against the barbarians, and in the depths of the Monophysite
controversy. In Gibbon it is not always easy to bear in mind the
exact dates but the course of events is ever clear and distinct;
like a skilful general, though his troops advance from the most
remote and opposite quarters, they are constantly bearing down
and concentrating themselves on one point—that which is still
occupied by the name, and by the waning power of Rome. Whether he
traces the progress of hostile religions, or leads from the
shores of the Baltic, or the verge of the Chinese empire, the
successive hosts of barbarians—though one wave has hardly burst
and discharged itself, before another swells up and
approaches—all is made to flow in the same direction, and the
impression which each makes upon the tottering fabric of the
Roman greatness, connects their distant movements, and measures
the relative importance assigned to them in the panoramic
history. The more peaceful and didactic episodes on the
development of the Roman law, or even on the details of
ecclesiastical history, interpose themselves as resting-places or
divisions between the periods of barbaric invasion. In short,
though distracted first by the two capitals, and afterwards by
the formal partition of the empire, the extraordinary felicity of
arrangement maintains an order and a regular progression. As our
horizon expands to reveal to us the gathering tempests which are
forming far beyond the boundaries of the civilized world—as we
follow their successive approach to the trembling frontier—the
compressed and receding line is still distinctly visible; though
gradually dismembered and the broken fragments assuming the form
of regular states and kingdoms, the real relation of those
kingdoms to the empire is maintained and defined; and even when
the Roman dominion has shrunk into little more than the province
of Thrace—when the name of Rome, confined, in Italy, to the walls
of the city—yet it is still the memory, the shade of the Roman
greatness, which extends over the wide sphere into which the
historian expands his later narrative; the whole blends into the
unity, and is manifestly essential to the double catastrophe of
his tragic drama.
But the amplitude, the magnificence, or the harmony of design,
are, though imposing, yet unworthy claims on our admiration,
unless the details are filled up with correctness and accuracy.
No writer has been more severely tried on this point than Gibbon.
He has undergone the triple scrutiny of theological zeal
quickened by just resentment, of literary emulation, and of that
mean and invidious vanity which delights in detecting errors in
writers of established fame. On the result of the trial, we may
be permitted to summon competent witnesses before we deliver our
own judgment.
M. Guizot, in his preface, after stating that in France and
Germany, as well as in England, in the most enlightened countries
of Europe, Gibbon is constantly cited as an authority, thus
proceeds:—
“I have had occasion, during my labors, to consult the writings
of philosophers, who have treated on the finances of the Roman
empire; of scholars, who have investigated the chronology; of
theologians, who have searched the depths of ecclesiastical
history; of writers on law, who have studied with care the Roman
jurisprudence; of Orientalists, who have occupied themselves with
the Arabians and the Koran; of modern historians, who have
entered upon extensive researches touching the crusades and their
influence; each of these writers has remarked and pointed out, in
the ‘History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ some
negligences, some false or imperfect views, some omissions, which
it is impossible not to suppose voluntary; they have rectified
some facts, combated with advantage some assertions; but in
general they have taken the researches and the ideas of Gibbon,
as points of departure, or as proofs of the researches or of the
new opinions which they have advanced.”
M. Guizot goes on to state his own impressions on reading
Gibbon’s history, and no authority will have greater weight with
those to whom the extent and accuracy of his historical
researches are known:—
“After a first rapid perusal, which allowed me to feel nothing
but the interest of a narrative, always animated, and,
notwithstanding its extent and the variety of objects which it
makes to pass before the view, always perspicuous, I entered upon
a minute examination of the details of which it was composed; and
the opinion which I then formed was, I confess, singularly
severe. I discovered, in certain chapters, errors which appeared
to me sufficiently important and numerous to make me believe that
they had been written with extreme negligence; in others, I was
struck with a certain tinge of partiality and prejudice, which
imparted to the exposition of the facts that want of truth and
justice, which the English express by their happy term
_misrepresentation_. Some imperfect (_tronquées_) quotations;
some passages, omitted unintentionally or designedly cast a
suspicion on the honesty (_bonne foi_) of the author; and his
violation of the first law of history—increased to my eye by the
prolonged attention with which I occupied myself with every
phrase, every note, every reflection—caused me to form upon the
whole work, a judgment far too rigorous. After having finished my
labors, I allowed some time to elapse before I reviewed the
whole. A second attentive and regular perusal of the entire work,
of the notes of the author, and of those which I had thought it
right to subjoin, showed me how much I had exaggerated the
importance of the reproaches which Gibbon really deserved; I was
struck with the same errors, the same partiality on certain
subjects; but I had been far from doing adequate justice to the
immensity of his researches, the variety of his knowledge, and
above all, to that truly philosophical discrimination (_justesse
d’esprit_) which judges the past as it would judge the present;
which does not permit itself to be blinded by the clouds which
time gathers around the dead, and which prevent us from seeing
that, under the toga, as under the modern dress, in the senate as
in our councils, men were what they still are, and that events
took place eighteen centuries ago, as they take place in our
days. I then felt that his book, in spite of its faults, will
always be a noble work—and that we may correct his errors and
combat his prejudices, without ceasing to admit that few men have
combined, if we are not to say in so high a degree, at least in a
manner so complete, and so well regulated, the necessary
qualifications for a writer of history.”
The present editor has followed the track of Gibbon through many
parts of his work; he has read his authorities with constant
reference to his pages, and must pronounce his deliberate
judgment, in terms of the highest admiration as to his general
accuracy. Many of his seeming errors are almost inevitable from
the close condensation of his matter. From the immense range of
his history, it was sometimes necessary to compress into a single
sentence, a whole vague and diffuse page of a Byzantine
chronicler. Perhaps something of importance may have thus
escaped, and his expressions may not quite contain the whole
substance of the passage from which they are taken. His limits,
at times, compel him to sketch; where that is the case, it is not
fair to expect the full details of the finished picture. At times
he can only deal with important results; and in his account of a
war, it sometimes requires great attention to discover that the
events which seem to be comprehended in a single campaign, occupy
several years. But this admirable skill in selecting and giving
prominence to the points which are of real weight and
importance—this distribution of light and shade—though perhaps it
may occasionally betray him into vague and imperfect statements,
is one of the highest excellencies of Gibbon’s historic manner.
It is the more striking, when we pass from the works of his chief
authorities, where, after laboring through long, minute, and
wearisome descriptions of the accessary and subordinate
circumstances, a single unmarked and undistinguished sentence,
which we may overlook from the inattention of fatigue, contains
the great moral and political result.
Gibbon’s method of arrangement, though on the whole most
favorable to the clear comprehension of the events, leads
likewise to apparent inaccuracy. That which we expect to find in
one part is reserved for another. The estimate which we are to
form, depends on the accurate balance of statements in remote
parts of the work; and we have sometimes to correct and modify
opinions, formed from one chapter by those of another. Yet, on
the other hand, it is astonishing how rarely we detect
contradiction; the mind of the author has already harmonized the
whole result to truth and probability; the general impression is
almost invariably the same. The quotations of Gibbon have
likewise been called in question;—I have, _in general_, been more
inclined to admire their exactitude, than to complain of their
indistinctness, or incompleteness. Where they are imperfect, it
is commonly from the study of brevity, and rather from the desire
of compressing the substance of his notes into pointed and
emphatic sentences, than from dishonesty, or uncandid suppression
of truth.
These observations apply more particularly to the accuracy and
fidelity of the historian as to his facts; his inferences, of
course, are more liable to exception. It is almost impossible to
trace the line between unfairness and unfaithfulness; between
intentional misrepresentation and undesigned false coloring. The
relative magnitude and importance of events must, in some
respect, depend upon the mind before which they are presented;
the estimate of character, on the habits and feelings of the
reader. Christians, like M. Guizot and ourselves, will see some
things, and some persons, in a different light from the historian
of the Decline and Fall. We may deplore the bias of his mind; we
may ourselves be on our guard against the danger of being misled,
and be anxious to warn less wary readers against the same perils;
but we must not confound this secret and unconscious departure
from truth, with the deliberate violation of that veracity which
is the only title of an historian to our confidence. Gibbon, it
may be fearlessly asserted, is rarely chargeable even with the
suppression of any material fact, which bears upon individual
character; he may, with apparently invidious hostility, enhance
the errors and crimes, and disparage the virtues of certain
persons; yet, in general, he leaves us the materials for forming
a fairer judgment; and if he is not exempt from his own
prejudices, perhaps we might write _passions_, yet it must be
candidly acknowledged, that his philosophical bigotry is not more
unjust than the theological partialities of those ecclesiastical
writers who were before in undisputed possession of this province
of history.
We are thus naturally led to that great misrepresentation which
pervades his history—his false estimate of the nature and
influence of Christianity.
But on this subject some preliminary caution is necessary, lest
that should be expected from a new edition, which it is
impossible that it should completely accomplish. We must first be
prepared with the only sound preservative against the false
impression likely to be produced by the perusal of Gibbon; and we
must see clearly the real cause of that false impression. The
former of these cautions will be briefly suggested in its proper
place, but it may be as well to state it, here, somewhat more at
length. The art of Gibbon, or at least the unfair impression
produced by his two memorable chapters, consists in his
confounding together, in one indistinguishable mass, the _origin_
and _apostolic_ propagation of the new religion, with its _later_
progress. No argument for the divine authority of Christianity
has been urged with greater force, or traced with higher
eloquence, than that deduced from its primary development,
explicable on no other hypothesis than a heavenly origin, and
from its rapid extension through great part of the Roman empire.
But this argument—one, when confined within reasonable limits, of
unanswerable force—becomes more feeble and disputable in
proportion as it recedes from the birthplace, as it were, of the
religion. The further Christianity advanced, the more causes
purely human were enlisted in its favor; nor can it be doubted
that those developed with such artful exclusiveness by Gibbon did
concur most essentially to its establishment. It is in the
Christian dispensation, as in the material world. In both it is
as the great First Cause, that the Deity is most undeniably
manifest. When once launched in regular motion upon the bosom of
space, and endowed with all their properties and relations of
weight and mutual attraction, the heavenly bodies appear to
pursue their courses according to secondary laws, which account
for all their sublime regularity. So Christianity proclaims its
Divine Author chiefly in its first origin and development. When
it had once received its impulse from above—when it had once been
infused into the minds of its first teachers—when it had gained
full possession of the reason and affections of the favored
few—it _might be_—and to the Protestant, the rationa Christian,
it is impossible to define _when_ it really _was_—left to make
its way by its native force, under the ordinary secret agencies
of all-ruling Providence. The main question, the _divine origin
of the religion_, was dexterously eluded, or speciously conceded
by Gibbon; his plan enabled him to commence his account, in most
parts, _below the apostolic times;_ and it was only by the
strength of the dark coloring with which he brought out the
failings and the follies of the succeeding ages, that a shadow of
doubt and suspicion was thrown back upon the primitive period of
Christianity.
“The theologian,” says Gibbon, “may indulge the pleasing task of
describing religion as she descended from heaven, arrayed in her
native purity; a more melancholy duty is imposed upon the
historian:—he must discover the inevitable mixture of error and
corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon earth
among a weak and degenerate race of beings.” Divest this passage
of the latent sarcasm betrayed by the subsequent tone of the
whole disquisition, and it might commence a Christian history
written in the most Christian spirit of candor. But as the
historian, by seeming to respect, yet by dexterously confounding
the limits of the sacred land, contrived to insinuate that it was
an Utopia which had no existence but in the imagination of the
theologian—as he _suggested_ rather than affirmed that the days
of Christian purity were a kind of poetic golden age;—so the
theologian, by venturing too far into the domain of the
historian, has been perpetually obliged to contest points on
which he had little chance of victory—to deny facts established
on unshaken evidence—and thence, to retire, if not with the shame
of defeat, yet with but doubtful and imperfect success. Paley,
with his intuitive sagacity, saw through the difficulty of
answering Gibbon by the ordinary arts of controversy; his
emphatic sentence, “Who can refute a sneer?” contains as much
truth as point. But full and pregnant as this phrase is, it is
not quite the whole truth; it is the tone in which the progress
of Christianity is traced, in _comparison_ with the rest of the
splendid and prodigally ornamented work, which is the radical
defect in the “Decline and Fall.” Christianity alone receives no
embellishment from the magic of Gibbon’s language; his
imagination is dead to its moral dignity; it is kept down by a
general zone of jealous disparagement, or neutralized by a
painfully elaborate exposition of its darker and degenerate
periods. There are occasions, indeed, when its pure and exalted
humanity, when its manifestly beneficial influence, can compel
even him, as it were, to fairness, and kindle his unguarded
eloquence to its usual fervor; but, in general, he soon relapses
into a frigid apathy; _affects_ an ostentatiously severe
impartiality; notes all the faults of Christians in every age
with bitter and almost malignant sarcasm; reluctantly, and with
exception and reservation, admits their claim to admiration. This
inextricable bias appears even to influence his manner of
composition. While all the other assailants of the Roman empire,
whether warlike or religious, the Goth, the Hun, the Arab, the
Tartar, Alaric and Attila, Mahomet, and Zengis, and Tamerlane,
are each introduced upon the scene almost with dramatic
animation—their progress related in a full, complete, and
unbroken narrative—the triumph of Christianity alone takes the
form of a cold and critical disquisition. The successes of
barbarous energy and brute force call forth all the consummate
skill of composition; while the moral triumphs of Christian
benevolence—the tranquil heroism of endurance, the blameless
purity, the contempt of guilty fame and of honors destructive to
the human race, which, had they assumed the proud name of
philosophy, would have been blazoned in his brightest words,
because they own religion as their principle—sink into narrow
asceticism. The _glories_ of Christianity, in short, touch on no
chord in the heart of the writer; his imagination remains
unkindled; his words, though they maintain their stately and
measured march, have become cool, argumentative, and inanimate.
Who would obscure one hue of that gorgeous coloring in which
Gibbon has invested the dying forms of Paganism, or darken one
paragraph in his splendid view of the rise and progress of
Mahometanism? But who would not have wished that the same equal
justice had been done to Christianity; that its real character
and deeply penetrating influence had been traced with the same
philosophical sagacity, and represented with more sober, as would
become its quiet course, and perhaps less picturesque, but still
with lively and attractive, descriptiveness? He might have thrown
aside, with the same scorn, the mass of ecclesiastical fiction
which envelops the early history of the church, stripped off the
legendary romance, and brought out the facts in their primitive
nakedness and simplicity—if he had but allowed those facts the
benefit of the glowing eloquence which he denied to them alone.
He might have annihilated the whole fabric of post-apostolic
miracles, if he had left uninjured by sarcastic insinuation those
of the New Testament; he might have cashiered, with Dodwell, the
whole host of martyrs, which owe their existence to the prodigal
invention of later days, had he but bestowed fair room, and dwelt
with his ordinary energy on the sufferings of the genuine
witnesses to the truth of Christianity, the Polycarps, or the
martyrs of Vienne. And indeed, if, after all, the view of the
early progress of Christianity be melancholy and humiliating we
must beware lest we charge the whole of this on the infidelity of
the historian. It is idle, it is disingenuous, to deny or to
dissemble the early depravations of Christianity, its gradual but
rapid departure from its primitive simplicity and purity, still
more, from its spirit of universal love. It may be no unsalutary
lesson to the Christian world, that this silent, this
unavoidable, perhaps, yet fatal change shall have been drawn by
an impartial, or even an hostile hand. The Christianity of every
age may take warning, lest by its own narrow views, its want of
wisdom, and its want of charity, it give the same advantage to
the future unfriendly historian, and disparage the cause of true
religion.
The design of the present edition is partly corrective, partly
supplementary: corrective, by notes, which point out (it is
hoped, in a perfectly candid and dispassionate spirit with no
desire but to establish the truth) such inaccuracies or
misstatements as may have been detected, particularly with regard
to Christianity; and which thus, with the previous caution, may
counteract to a considerable extent the unfair and unfavorable
impression created against rational religion: supplementary, by
adding such additional information as the editor’s reading may
have been able to furnish, from original documents or books, not
accessible at the time when Gibbon wrote.
The work originated in the editor’s habit of noting on the margin
of his copy of Gibbon references to such authors as had
discovered errors, or thrown new light on the subjects treated by
Gibbon. These had grown to some extent, and seemed to him likely
to be of use to others. The annotations of M. Guizot also
appeared to him worthy of being better known to the English
public than they were likely to be, as appended to the French
translation.
The chief works from which the editor has derived his materials
are, I. The French translation, with notes by M. Guizot; 2d
edition, Paris, 1828. The editor has translated almost all the
notes of M. Guizot. Where he has not altogether agreed with him,
his respect for the learning and judgment of that writer has, in
general, induced him to retain the statement from which he has
ventured to differ, with the grounds on which he formed his own
opinion. In the notes on Christianity, he has retained all those
of M. Guizot, with his own, from the conviction, that on such a
subject, to many, the authority of a French statesman, a
Protestant, and a rational and sincere Christian, would appear
more independent and unbiassed, and therefore be more commanding,
than that of an English clergyman.
The editor has not scrupled to transfer the notes of M. Guizot to
the present work. The well-known zeal for knowledge, displayed in
all the writings of that distinguished historian, has led to the
natural inference, that he would not be displeased at the attempt
to make them of use to the English readers of Gibbon. The notes
of M. Guizot are signed with the letter G.
II. The German translation, with the notes of Wenck.
Unfortunately this learned translator died, after having
completed only the first volume; the rest of the work was
executed by a very inferior hand.
The notes of Wenck are extremely valuable; many of them have been
adopted by M. Guizot; they are distinguished by the letter W. 102
102 (return) [ The editor regrets that he has not been able to
find the Italian translation, mentioned by Gibbon himself with
some respect. It is not in our great libraries, the Museum or the
Bodleian; and he has never found any bookseller in London who has
seen it.]
III. The new edition of Le Beau’s “Histoire du Bas Empire, with
notes by M. St. Martin, and M. Brosset.” That distinguished
Armenian scholar, M. St. Martin (now, unhappily, deceased) had
added much information from Oriental writers, particularly from
those of Armenia, as well as from more general sources. Many of
his observations have been found as applicable to the work of
Gibbon as to that of Le Beau.
IV. The editor has consulted the various answers made to Gibbon
on the first appearance of his work; he must confess, with little
profit. They were, in general, hastily compiled by inferior and
now forgotten writers, with the exception of Bishop Watson, whose
able apology is rather a general argument, than an examination of
misstatements. The name of Milner stands higher with a certain
class of readers, but will not carry much weight with the severe
investigator of history.
V. Some few classical works and fragments have come to light,
since the appearance of Gibbon’s History, and have been noticed
in their respective places; and much use has been made, in the
latter volumes particularly, of the increase to our stores of
Oriental literature. The editor cannot, indeed, pretend to have
followed his author, in these gleanings, over the whole vast
field of his inquiries; he may have overlooked or may not have
been able to command some works, which might have thrown still
further light on these subjects; but he trusts that what he has
adduced will be of use to the student of historic truth.
The editor would further observe, that with regard to some other
objectionable passages, which do not involve misstatement or
inaccuracy, he has intentionally abstained from directing
particular attention towards them by any special protest.
The editor’s notes are marked M.
A considerable part of the quotations (some of which in the later
editions had fallen into great confusion) have been verified, and
have been corrected by the latest and best editions of the
authors.
June, 1845.
In this new edition, the text and the notes have been carefully
revised, the latter by the editor.
Some additional notes have been subjoined, distinguished by the
signature M. 1845.
Preface Of The Author.
It is not my intention to detain the reader by expatiating on the
variety or the importance of the subject, which I have undertaken
to treat; since the merit of the choice would serve to render the
weakness of the execution still more apparent, and still less
excusable. But as I have presumed to lay before the public a
_first_ volume only 1 of the History of the Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire, it will, perhaps, be expected that I should
explain, in a few words, the nature and limits of my general
plan.
1 (return) [ The first volume of the quarto, which contained the
sixteen first chapters.]
The memorable series of revolutions, which in the course of about
thirteen centuries gradually undermined, and at length destroyed,
the solid fabric of human greatness, may, with some propriety, be
divided into the three following periods:
I. The first of these periods may be traced from the age of
Trajan and the Antonines, when the Roman monarchy, having
attained its full strength and maturity, began to verge towards
its decline; and will extend to the subversion of the Western
Empire, by the barbarians of Germany and Scythia, the rude
ancestors of the most polished nations of modern Europe. This
extraordinary revolution, which subjected Rome to the power of a
Gothic conqueror, was completed about the beginning of the sixth
century.
II. The second period of the Decline and Fall of Rome may be
supposed to commence with the reign of Justinian, who, by his
laws, as well as by his victories, restored a transient splendor
to the Eastern Empire. It will comprehend the invasion of Italy
by the Lombards; the conquest of the Asiatic and African
provinces by the Arabs, who embraced the religion of Mahomet; the
revolt of the Roman people against the feeble princes of
Constantinople; and the elevation of Charlemagne, who, in the
year eight hundred, established the second, or German Empire of
the West.
III. The last and longest of these periods includes about six
centuries and a half; from the revival of the Western Empire,
till the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and the
extinction of a degenerate race of princes, who continued to
assume the titles of Cæsar and Augustus, after their dominions
were contracted to the limits of a single city; in which the
language, as well as manners, of the ancient Romans, had been
long since forgotten. The writer who should undertake to relate
the events of this period, would find himself obliged to enter
into the general history of the Crusades, as far as they
contributed to the ruin of the Greek Empire; and he would
scarcely be able to restrain his curiosity from making some
inquiry into the state of the city of Rome, during the darkness
and confusion of the middle ages.
As I have ventured, perhaps too hastily, to commit to the press a
work which in every sense of the word, deserves the epithet of
imperfect. I consider myself as contracting an engagement to
finish, most probably in a second volume, 2a the first of these
memorable periods; and to deliver to the Public the complete
History of the Decline and Fall of Rome, from the age of the
Antonines to the subversion of the Western Empire. With regard to
the subsequent periods, though I may entertain some hopes, I dare
not presume to give any assurances. The execution of the
extensive plan which I have described, would connect the ancient
and modern history of the world; but it would require many years
of health, of leisure, and of perseverance.
2a (return) [ The Author, as it frequently happens, took an
inadequate measure of his growing work. The remainder of the
first period has filled _two_ volumes in quarto, being the third,
fourth, fifth, and sixth volumes of the octavo edition.]
BENTINCK STREET, _February_ 1, 1776.
P. S. The entire History, which is now published, of the Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, abundantly discharges
my engagements with the Public. Perhaps their favorable opinion
may encourage me to prosecute a work, which, however laborious it
may seem, is the most agreeable occupation of my leisure hours.
BENTINCK STREET, _March_ 1, 1781.
An Author easily persuades himself that the public opinion is
still favorable to his labors; and I have now embraced the
serious resolution of proceeding to the last period of my
original design, and of the Roman Empire, the taking of
Constantinople by the Turks, in the year one thousand four
hundred and fifty-three. The most patient Reader, who computes
that three ponderous 3 volumes have been already employed on the
events of four centuries, may, perhaps, be alarmed at the long
prospect of nine hundred years. But it is not my intention to
expatiate with the same minuteness on the whole series of the
Byzantine history. At our entrance into this period, the reign of
Justinian, and the conquests of the Mahometans, will deserve and
detain our attention, and the last age of Constantinople (the
Crusades and the Turks) is connected with the revolutions of
Modern Europe. From the seventh to the eleventh century, the
obscure interval will be supplied by a concise narrative of such
facts as may still appear either interesting or important.
BENTINCK STREET, _March_ 1, 1782.
3 (return) [ The first six volumes of the octavo edition.]
Preface To The First Volume.
Diligence and accuracy are the only merits which an historical
writer may ascribe to himself; if any merit, indeed, can be
assumed from the performance of an indispensable duty. I may
therefore be allowed to say, that I have carefully examined all
the original materials that could illustrate the subject which I
had undertaken to treat. Should I ever complete the extensive
design which has been sketched out in the Preface, I might
perhaps conclude it with a critical account of the authors
consulted during the progress of the whole work; and however such
an attempt might incur the censure of ostentation, I am persuaded
that it would be susceptible of entertainment, as well as
information.
At present I shall content myself with a single observation.
The biographers, who, under the reigns of Diocletian and
Constantine, composed, or rather compiled, the lives of the
Emperors, from Hadrian to the sons of Carus, are usually
mentioned under the names of Ælius Spartianus, Julius
Capitolinus, Ælius Lampridius, Vulcatius Gallicanus, Trebellius
Pollio and Flavius Vopiscus. But there is so much perplexity in
the titles of the MSS., and so many disputes have arisen among
the critics (see Fabricius, Biblioth. Latin. l. iii. c. 6)
concerning their number, their names, and their respective
property, that for the most part I have quoted them without
distinction, under the general and well-known title of the
_Augustan History_.
Preface To The Fourth Volume Of The Original Quarto Edition.
I now discharge my promise, and complete my design, of writing
the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, both in
the West and the East. The whole period extends from the age of
Trajan and the Antonines, to the taking of Constantinople by
Mahomet the Second; and includes a review of the Crusades, and
the state of Rome during the middle ages. Since the publication
of the first volume, twelve years have elapsed; twelve years,
according to my wish, “of health, of leisure, and of
perseverance.” I may now congratulate my deliverance from a long
and laborious service, and my satisfaction will be pure and
perfect, if the public favor should be extended to the conclusion
of my work.
It was my first intention to have collected, under one view, the
numerous authors, of every age and language, from whom I have
derived the materials of this history; and I am still convinced
that the apparent ostentation would be more than compensated by
real use. If I have renounced this idea, if I have declined an
undertaking which had obtained the approbation of a
master-artist,4 my excuse may be found in the extreme difficulty
of assigning a proper measure to such a catalogue. A naked list
of names and editions would not be satisfactory either to myself
or my readers: the characters of the principal Authors of the
Roman and Byzantine History have been occasionally connected with
the events which they describe; a more copious and critical
inquiry might indeed deserve, but it would demand, an elaborate
volume, which might swell by degrees into a general library of
historical writers. For the present, I shall content myself with
renewing my serious protestation, that I have always endeavored
to draw from the fountain-head; that my curiosity, as well as a
sense of duty, has always urged me to study the originals; and
that, if they have sometimes eluded my search, I have carefully
marked the secondary evidence, on whose faith a passage or a fact
were reduced to depend.
4 (return) [ See Dr. Robertson’s Preface to his History of
America.]
I shall soon revisit the banks of the Lake of Lausanne, a country
which I have known and loved from my early youth. Under a mild
government, amidst a beauteous landscape, in a life of leisure
and independence, and among a people of easy and elegant manners,
I have enjoyed, and may again hope to enjoy, the varied pleasures
of retirement and society. But I shall ever glory in the name and
character of an Englishman: I am proud of my birth in a free and
enlightened country; and the approbation of that country is the
best and most honorable reward of my labors. Were I ambitious of
any other Patron than the Public, I would inscribe this work to a
Statesman, who, in a long, a stormy, and at length an unfortunate
administration, had many political opponents, almost without a
personal enemy; who has retained, in his fall from power, many
faithful and disinterested friends; and who, under the pressure
of severe infirmity, enjoys the lively vigor of his mind, and the
felicity of his incomparable temper. Lord North will permit me to
express the feelings of friendship in the language of truth: but
even truth and friendship should be silent, if he still dispensed
the favors of the crown.
In a remote solitude, vanity may still whisper in my ear, that my
readers, perhaps, may inquire whether, in the conclusion of the
present work, I am now taking an everlasting farewell. They shall
hear all that I know myself, and all that I could reveal to the
most intimate friend. The motives of action or silence are now
equally balanced; nor can I pronounce, in my most secret
thoughts, on which side the scale will preponderate. I cannot
dissemble that six quartos must have tried, and may have
exhausted, the indulgence of the Public; that, in the repetition
of similar attempts, a successful Author has much more to lose
than he can hope to gain; that I am now descending into the vale
of years; and that the most respectable of my countrymen, the men
whom I aspire to imitate, have resigned the pen of history about
the same period of their lives. Yet I consider that the annals of
ancient and modern times may afford many rich and interesting
subjects; that I am still possessed of health and leisure; that
by the practice of writing, some skill and facility must be
acquired; and that, in the ardent pursuit of truth and knowledge,
I am not conscious of decay. To an active mind, indolence is more
painful than labor; and the first months of my liberty will be
occupied and amused in the excursions of curiosity and taste. By
such temptations, I have been sometimes seduced from the rigid
duty even of a pleasing and voluntary task: but my time will now
be my own; and in the use or abuse of independence, I shall no
longer fear my own reproaches or those of my friends. I am fairly
entitled to a year of jubilee: next summer and the following
winter will rapidly pass away; and experience only can determine
whether I shall still prefer the freedom and variety of study to
the design and composition of a regular work, which animates,
while it confines, the daily application of the Author.
Caprice and accident may influence my choice; but the dexterity
of self-love will contrive to applaud either active industry or
philosophic repose.
DOWNING STREET, _May_ 1, 1788.
P. S. I shall embrace this opportunity of introducing two
_verbal_ remarks, which have not conveniently offered themselves
to my notice. 1. As often as I use the definitions of _beyond_
the Alps, the Rhine, the Danube, &c., I generally suppose myself
at Rome, and afterwards at Constantinople; without observing
whether this relative geography may agree with the local, but
variable, situation of the reader, or the historian. 2. In proper
names of foreign, and especially of Oriental origin, it should be
always our aim to express, in our English version, a faithful
copy of the original. But this rule, which is founded on a just
regard to uniformity and truth, must often be relaxed; and the
exceptions will be limited or enlarged by the custom of the
language and the taste of the interpreter. Our alphabets may be
often defective; a harsh sound, an uncouth spelling, might offend
the ear or the eye of our countrymen; and some words, notoriously
corrupt, are fixed, and, as it were, naturalized in the vulgar
tongue. The prophet _Mohammed_ can no longer be stripped of the
famous, though improper, appellation of Mahomet: the well-known
cities of Aleppo, Damascus, and Cairo, would almost be lost in
the strange descriptions of _Haleb, Demashk_, and _Al Cahira:_
the titles and offices of the Ottoman empire are fashioned by the
practice of three hundred years; and we are pleased to blend the
three Chinese monosyllables, _Con-fû-tzee_, in the respectable
name of Confucius, or even to adopt the Portuguese corruption of
Mandarin. But I would vary the use of Zoroaster and _Zerdusht_,
as I drew my information from Greece or Persia: since our
connection with India, the genuine _Timour_ is restored to the
throne of Tamerlane: our most correct writers have retrenched the
_Al_, the superfluous article, from the Koran; and we escape an
ambiguous termination, by adopting _Moslem_ instead of Musulman,
in the plural number. In these, and in a thousand examples, the
shades of distinction are often minute; and I can feel, where I
cannot explain, the motives of my choice.
Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines—Part I.
Introduction.
The Extent And Military Force Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines.
In the second century of the Christian Æra, the empire of Rome
comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most
civilized portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive
monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valor.
The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had
gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful
inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and
luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with
decent reverence: the Roman senate appeared to possess the
sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the
executive powers of government. During a happy period of more
than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by
the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two
Antonines. It is the design of this, and of the two succeeding
chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire;
and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the
most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a
revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by
the nations of the earth.
The principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under the
republic; and the emperors, for the most part, were satisfied
with preserving those dominions which had been acquired by the
policy of the senate, the active emulations of the consuls, and
the martial enthusiasm of the people. The seven first centuries
were filled with a rapid succession of triumphs; but it was
reserved for Augustus to relinquish the ambitious design of
subduing the whole earth, and to introduce a spirit of moderation
into the public councils. Inclined to peace by his temper and
situation, it was easy for him to discover that Rome, in her
present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear
from the chance of arms; and that, in the prosecution of remote
wars, the undertaking became every day more difficult, the event
more doubtful, and the possession more precarious, and less
beneficial. The experience of Augustus added weight to these
salutary reflections, and effectually convinced him that, by the
prudent vigor of his counsels, it would be easy to secure every
concession which the safety or the dignity of Rome might require
from the most formidable barbarians. Instead of exposing his
person and his legions to the arrows of the Parthians, he
obtained, by an honorable treaty, the restitution of the
standards and prisoners which had been taken in the defeat of
Crassus. 1a
1 (return) [ Dion Cassius, (l. liv. p. 736,) with the annotations
of Reimar, who has collected all that Roman vanity has left upon
the subject. The marble of Ancyra, on which Augustus recorded his
own exploits, asserted that _he compelled_ the Parthians to
restore the ensigns of Crassus.]
His generals, in the early part of his reign, attempted the
reduction of Ethiopia and Arabia Felix. They marched near a
thousand miles to the south of the tropic; but the heat of the
climate soon repelled the invaders, and protected the un-warlike
natives of those sequestered regions. 2c The northern countries
of Europe scarcely deserved the expense and labor of conquest.
The forests and morasses of Germany were filled with a hardy race
of barbarians, who despised life when it was separated from
freedom; and though, on the first attack, they seemed to yield to
the weight of the Roman power, they soon, by a signal act of
despair, regained their independence, and reminded Augustus of
the vicissitude of fortune. 3a On the death of that emperor, his
testament was publicly read in the senate. He bequeathed, as a
valuable legacy to his successors, the advice of confining the
empire within those limits which nature seemed to have placed as
its permanent bulwarks and boundaries: on the west, the Atlantic
Ocean; the Rhine and Danube on the north; the Euphrates on the
east; and towards the south, the sandy deserts of Arabia and
Africa. 4a
2c (return) [ Strabo, (l. xvi. p. 780,) Pliny the elder, (Hist.
Natur. l. vi. c. 32, 35, [28, 29,]) and Dion Cassius, (l. liii.
p. 723, and l. liv. p. 734,) have left us very curious details
concerning these wars. The Romans made themselves masters of
Mariaba, or Merab, a city of Arabia Felix, well known to the
Orientals. (See Abulfeda and the Nubian geography, p. 52) They
were arrived within three days’ journey of the spice country, the
rich object of their invasion.
Note: It is this city of Merab that the Arabs say was the
residence of Belkis, queen of Saba, who desired to see Solomon. A
dam, by which the waters collected in its neighborhood were kept
back, having been swept away, the sudden inundation destroyed
this city, of which, nevertheless, vestiges remain. It bordered
on a country called Adramout, where a particular aromatic plant
grows: it is for this reason that we real in the history of the
Roman expedition, that they were arrived within three days’
journey of the spice country.—G. Compare _Malte-Brun, Geogr_.
Eng. trans. vol. ii. p. 215. The period of this flood has been
copiously discussed by Reiske, (_Program. de vetustâ Epochâ
Arabum, rupturâ cataractæ Merabensis_.) Add. Johannsen, _Hist.
Yemanæ_, p. 282. Bonn, 1828; and see Gibbon, note 16. to Chap.
L.—M.
Note: Two, according to Strabo. The detailed account of Strabo
makes the invaders fail before Marsuabæ this cannot be the same
place as Mariaba. Ukert observes, that Ælius Gallus would not
have failed for want of water before Mariaba. (See M. Guizot’s
note above.) “Either, therefore, they were different places, or
Strabo is mistaken.” (Ukert, _Geographie der Griechen und Römer_,
vol. i. p. 181.) Strabo, indeed, mentions Mariaba distinct from
Marsuabæ. Gibbon has followed Pliny in reckoning Mariaba among
the conquests of Gallus. There can be little doubt that he is
wrong, as Gallus did not approach the capital of Sabæa. Compare
the note of the Oxford editor of Strabo.—M.]
3a (return) [ By the slaughter of Varus and his three legions.
See the first book of the Annals of Tacitus. Sueton. in August.
c. 23, and Velleius Paterculus, l. ii. c. 117, &c. Augustus did
not receive the melancholy news with all the temper and firmness
that might have been expected from his character.]
4a (return) [ Tacit. Annal. l. ii. Dion Cassius, l. lvi. p. 833,
and the speech of Augustus himself, in Julian’s Cæsars. It
receives great light from the learned notes of his French
translator, M. Spanheim.]
Happily for the repose of mankind, the moderate system
recommended by the wisdom of Augustus, was adopted by the fears
and vices of his immediate successors. Engaged in the pursuit of
pleasure, or in the exercise of tyranny, the first Cæsars seldom
showed themselves to the armies, or to the provinces; nor were
they disposed to suffer, that those triumphs which _their_
indolence neglected, should be usurped by the conduct and valor
of their lieutenants. The military fame of a subject was
considered as an insolent invasion of the Imperial prerogative;
and it became the duty, as well as interest, of every Roman
general, to guard the frontiers intrusted to his care, without
aspiring to conquests which might have proved no less fatal to
himself than to the vanquished barbarians. 5
5 (return) [ Germanicus, Suetonius Paulinus, and Agricola were
checked and recalled in the course of their victories. Corbulo
was put to death. Military merit, as it is admirably expressed by
Tacitus, was, in the strictest sense of the word, _imperatoria
virtus_.]
The only accession which the Roman empire received, during the
first century of the Christian Æra, was the province of Britain.
In this single instance, the successors of Cæsar and Augustus
were persuaded to follow the example of the former, rather than
the precept of the latter. The proximity of its situation to the
coast of Gaul seemed to invite their arms; the pleasing though
doubtful intelligence of a pearl fishery attracted their avarice;
6 and as Britain was viewed in the light of a distinct and
insulated world, the conquest scarcely formed any exception to
the general system of continental measures. After a war of about
forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, 7 maintained by the
most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the
emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the
Roman yoke. 8 The various tribes of Britain possessed valor
without conduct, and the love of freedom without the spirit of
union. They took up arms with savage fierceness; they laid them
down, or turned them against each other, with wild inconsistency;
and while they fought singly, they were successively subdued.
Neither the fortitude of Caractacus, nor the despair of Boadicea,
nor the fanaticism of the Druids, could avert the slavery of
their country, or resist the steady progress of the Imperial
generals, who maintained the national glory, when the throne was
disgraced by the weakest, or the most vicious of mankind. At the
very time when Domitian, confined to his palace, felt the terrors
which he inspired, his legions, under the command of the virtuous
Agricola, defeated the collected force of the Caledonians, at the
foot of the Grampian Hills; and his fleets, venturing to explore
an unknown and dangerous navigation, displayed the Roman arms
round every part of the island. The conquest of Britain was
considered as already achieved; and it was the design of Agricola
to complete and insure his success, by the easy reduction of
Ireland, for which, in his opinion, one legion and a few
auxiliaries were sufficient. 9 The western isle might be improved
into a valuable possession, and the Britons would wear their
chains with the less reluctance, if the prospect and example of
freedom were on every side removed from before their eyes.
6 (return) [ Cæsar himself conceals that ignoble motive; but it
is mentioned by Suetonius, c. 47. The British pearls proved,
however, of little value, on account of their dark and livid
color. Tacitus observes, with reason, (in Agricola, c. 12,) that
it was an inherent defect. “Ego facilius crediderim, naturam
margaritis deesse quam nobis avaritiam.”]
7 (return) [ Claudius, Nero, and Domitian. A hope is expressed by
Pomponius Mela, l. iii. c. 6, (he wrote under Claudius,) that, by
the success of the Roman arms, the island and its savage
inhabitants would soon be better known. It is amusing enough to
peruse such passages in the midst of London.]
8 (return) [ See the admirable abridgment given by Tacitus, in
the life of Agricola, and copiously, though perhaps not
completely, illustrated by our own antiquarians, Camden and
Horsley.]
9 (return) [ The Irish writers, jealous of their national honor,
are extremely provoked on this occasion, both with Tacitus and
with Agricola.]
But the superior merit of Agricola soon occasioned his removal
from the government of Britain; and forever disappointed this
rational, though extensive scheme of conquest. Before his
departure, the prudent general had provided for security as well
as for dominion. He had observed, that the island is almost
divided into two unequal parts by the opposite gulfs, or, as they
are now called, the Friths of Scotland. Across the narrow
interval of about forty miles, he had drawn a line of military
stations, which was afterwards fortified, in the reign of
Antoninus Pius, by a turf rampart, erected on foundations of
stone. 10 This wall of Antoninus, at a small distance beyond the
modern cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, was fixed as the limit of
the Roman province. The native Caledonians preserved, in the
northern extremity of the island, their wild independence, for
which they were not less indebted to their poverty than to their
valor. Their incursions were frequently repelled and chastised;
but their country was never subdued. 11 The masters of the
fairest and most wealthy climates of the globe turned with
contempt from gloomy hills, assailed by the winter tempest, from
lakes concealed in a blue mist, and from cold and lonely heaths,
over which the deer of the forest were chased by a troop of naked
barbarians. 12
10 (return) [ See Horsley’s Britannia Romana, l. i. c. 10. Note:
Agricola fortified the line from Dumbarton to Edinburgh,
consequently within Scotland. The emperor Hadrian, during his
residence in Britain, about the year 121, caused a rampart of
earth to be raised between Newcastle and Carlisle. Antoninus
Pius, having gained new victories over the Caledonians, by the
ability of his general, Lollius, Urbicus, caused a new rampart of
earth to be constructed between Edinburgh and Dumbarton. Lastly,
Septimius Severus caused a wall of stone to be built parallel to
the rampart of Hadrian, and on the same locality. See John
Warburton’s Vallum Romanum, or the History and Antiquities of the
Roman Wall. London, 1754, 4to.—W. See likewise a good note on the
Roman wall in Lingard’s History of England, vol. i. p. 40, 4to
edit—M.]
11 (return) [ The poet Buchanan celebrates with elegance and
spirit (see his Sylvæ, v.) the unviolated independence of his
native country. But, if the single testimony of Richard of
Cirencester was sufficient to create a Roman province of
Vespasiana to the north of the wall, that independence would be
reduced within very narrow limits.]
12 (return) [ See Appian (in Proœm.) and the uniform imagery of
Ossian’s Poems, which, according to every hypothesis, were
composed by a native Caledonian.]
Such was the state of the Roman frontiers, and such the maxims of
Imperial policy, from the death of Augustus to the accession of
Trajan. That virtuous and active prince had received the
education of a soldier, and possessed the talents of a general.
13 The peaceful system of his predecessors was interrupted by
scenes of war and conquest; and the legions, after a long
interval, beheld a military emperor at their head. The first
exploits of Trajan were against the Dacians, the most warlike of
men, who dwelt beyond the Danube, and who, during the reign of
Domitian, had insulted, with impunity, the Majesty of Rome. 14 To
the strength and fierceness of barbarians they added a contempt
for life, which was derived from a warm persuasion of the
immortality and transmigration of the soul. 15 Decebalus, the
Dacian king, approved himself a rival not unworthy of Trajan; nor
did he despair of his own and the public fortune, till, by the
confession of his enemies, he had exhausted every resource both
of valor and policy. 16 This memorable war, with a very short
suspension of hostilities, lasted five years; and as the emperor
could exert, without control, the whole force of the state, it
was terminated by an absolute submission of the barbarians. 17
The new province of Dacia, which formed a second exception to the
precept of Augustus, was about thirteen hundred miles in
circumference. Its natural boundaries were the Niester, the Teyss
or Tibiscus, the Lower Danube, and the Euxine Sea. The vestiges
of a military road may still be traced from the banks of the
Danube to the neighborhood of Bender, a place famous in modern
history, and the actual frontier of the Turkish and Russian
empires. 18
13 (return) [ See Pliny’s Panegyric, which seems founded on
facts.]
14 (return) [ Dion Cassius, l. lxvii.]
15 (return) [ Herodotus, l. iv. c. 94. Julian in the Cæsars, with
Spanheims observations.]
16 (return) [ Plin. Epist. viii. 9.]
17 (return) [ Dion Cassius, l. lxviii. p. 1123, 1131. Julian in
Cæsaribus Eutropius, viii. 2, 6. Aurelius Victor in Epitome.]
18 (return) [ See a Memoir of M. d’Anville, on the Province of
Dacia, in the Academie des Inscriptions, tom. xxviii. p.
444—468.]
Trajan was ambitious of fame; and as long as mankind shall
continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than
on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be
the vice of the most exalted characters. The praises of
Alexander, transmitted by a succession of poets and historians,
had kindled a dangerous emulation in the mind of Trajan. Like
him, the Roman emperor undertook an expedition against the
nations of the East; but he lamented with a sigh, that his
advanced age scarcely left him any hopes of equalling the renown
of the son of Philip. 19 Yet the success of Trajan, however
transient, was rapid and specious. The degenerate Parthians,
broken by intestine discord, fled before his arms. He descended
the River Tigris in triumph, from the mountains of Armenia to the
Persian Gulf. He enjoyed the honor of being the first, as he was
the last, of the Roman generals, who ever navigated that remote
sea. His fleets ravaged the coast of Arabia; and Trajan vainly
flattered himself that he was approaching towards the confines of
India. 20 Every day the astonished senate received the
intelligence of new names and new nations, that acknowledged his
sway. They were informed that the kings of Bosphorus, Colchos,
Iberia, Albania, Osrhoene, and even the Parthian monarch himself,
had accepted their diadems from the hands of the emperor; that
the independent tribes of the Median and Carduchian hills had
implored his protection; and that the rich countries of Armenia,
Mesopotamia, and Assyria, were reduced into the state of
provinces. 21 But the death of Trajan soon clouded the splendid
prospect; and it was justly to be dreaded, that so many distant
nations would throw off the unaccustomed yoke, when they were no
longer restrained by the powerful hand which had imposed it.
19 (return) [ Trajan’s sentiments are represented in a very just
and lively manner in the Cæsars of Julian.]
20 (return) [ Eutropius and Sextus Rufus have endeavored to
perpetuate the illusion. See a very sensible dissertation of M.
Freret in the Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xxi. p. 55.]
21 (return) [Dion Cassius, l. lxviii.; and the Abbreviators.]
Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part II.
It was an ancient tradition, that when the Capitol was founded by
one of the Roman kings, the god Terminus (who presided over
boundaries, and was represented, according to the fashion of that
age, by a large stone) alone, among all the inferior deities,
refused to yield his place to Jupiter himself. A favorable
inference was drawn from his obstinacy, which was interpreted by
the augurs as a sure presage that the boundaries of the Roman
power would never recede. 22 During many ages, the prediction, as
it is usual, contributed to its own accomplishment. But though
Terminus had resisted the Majesty of Jupiter, he submitted to the
authority of the emperor Hadrian. 23 The resignation of all the
eastern conquests of Trajan was the first measure of his reign.
He restored to the Parthians the election of an independent
sovereign; withdrew the Roman garrisons from the provinces of
Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria; and, in compliance with the
precept of Augustus, once more established the Euphrates as the
frontier of the empire. 24 Censure, which arraigns the public
actions and the private motives of princes, has ascribed to envy,
a conduct which might be attributed to the prudence and
moderation of Hadrian. The various character of that emperor,
capable, by turns, of the meanest and the most generous
sentiments, may afford some color to the suspicion. It was,
however, scarcely in his power to place the superiority of his
predecessor in a more conspicuous light, than by thus confessing
himself unequal to the task of defending the conquests of Trajan.
22 (return) [ Ovid. Fast. l. ii. ver. 667. See Livy, and
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, under the reign of Tarquin.]
23 (return) [ St. Augustin is highly delighted with the proof of
the weakness of Terminus, and the vanity of the Augurs. See De
Civitate Dei, iv. 29. * Note: The turn of Gibbon’s sentence is
Augustin’s: “Plus Hadrianum regem hominum, quam regem Deorum
timuisse videatur.”—M]
24 (return) [ See the Augustan History, p. 5, Jerome’s Chronicle,
and all the Epitomizers. It is somewhat surprising, that this
memorable event should be omitted by Dion, or rather by
Xiphilin.]
The martial and ambitious spirit of Trajan formed a very singular
contrast with the moderation of his successor. The restless
activity of Hadrian was not less remarkable when compared with
the gentle repose of Antoninus Pius. The life of the former was
almost a perpetual journey; and as he possessed the various
talents of the soldier, the statesman, and the scholar, he
gratified his curiosity in the discharge of his duty.
Careless of the difference of seasons and of climates, he marched
on foot, and bare-headed, over the snows of Caledonia, and the
sultry plains of the Upper Egypt; nor was there a province of the
empire which, in the course of his reign, was not honored with
the presence of the monarch. 25 But the tranquil life of
Antoninus Pius was spent in the bosom of Italy, and, during the
twenty-three years that he directed the public administration,
the longest journeys of that amiable prince extended no farther
than from his palace in Rome to the retirement of his Lanuvian
villa. 26
25 (return) [ Dion, l. lxix. p. 1158. Hist. August. p. 5, 8. If
all our historians were lost, medals, inscriptions, and other
monuments, would be sufficient to record the travels of Hadrian.
Note: The journeys of Hadrian are traced in a note on Solvet’s
translation of Hegewisch, Essai sur l’Epoque de Histoire Romaine
la plus heureuse pour Genre Humain Paris, 1834, p. 123.—M.]
26 (return) [ See the Augustan History and the Epitomes.]
Notwithstanding this difference in their personal conduct, the
general system of Augustus was equally adopted and uniformly
pursued by Hadrian and by the two Antonines. They persisted in
the design of maintaining the dignity of the empire, without
attempting to enlarge its limits. By every honorable expedient
they invited the friendship of the barbarians; and endeavored to
convince mankind that the Roman power, raised above the
temptation of conquest, was actuated only by the love of order
and justice. During a long period of forty-three years, their
virtuous labors were crowned with success; and if we except a few
slight hostilities, that served to exercise the legions of the
frontier, the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius offer the fair
prospect of universal peace. 27 The Roman name was revered among
the most remote nations of the earth. The fiercest barbarians
frequently submitted their differences to the arbitration of the
emperor; and we are informed by a contemporary historian that he
had seen ambassadors who were refused the honor which they came
to solicit of being admitted into the rank of subjects. 28
27 (return) [ We must, however, remember, that in the time of
Hadrian, a rebellion of the Jews raged with religious fury,
though only in a single province. Pausanias (l. viii. c. 43)
mentions two necessary and successful wars, conducted by the
generals of Pius: 1st. Against the wandering Moors, who were
driven into the solitudes of Atlas. 2d. Against the Brigantes of
Britain, who had invaded the Roman province. Both these wars
(with several other hostilities) are mentioned in the Augustan
History, p. 19.]
28 (return) [ Appian of Alexandria, in the preface to his History
of the Roman Wars.]
The terror of the Roman arms added weight and dignity to the
moderation of the emperors. They preserved peace by a constant
preparation for war; and while justice regulated their conduct,
they announced to the nations on their confines, that they were
as little disposed to endure, as to offer an injury. The military
strength, which it had been sufficient for Hadrian and the elder
Antoninus to display, was exerted against the Parthians and the
Germans by the emperor Marcus. The hostilities of the barbarians
provoked the resentment of that philosophic monarch, and, in the
prosecution of a just defence, Marcus and his generals obtained
many signal victories, both on the Euphrates and on the Danube.
29 The military establishment of the Roman empire, which thus
assured either its tranquillity or success, will now become the
proper and important object of our attention.
29 (return) [ Dion, l. lxxi. Hist. August. in Marco. The Parthian
victories gave birth to a crowd of contemptible historians, whose
memory has been rescued from oblivion and exposed to ridicule, in
a very lively piece of criticism of Lucian.]
In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was
reserved for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a
property to defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which
it was their interest as well as duty to maintain. But in
proportion as the public freedom was lost in extent of conquest,
war was gradually improved into an art, and degraded into a
trade. 30 The legions themselves, even at the time when they were
recruited in the most distant provinces, were supposed to consist
of Roman citizens. That distinction was generally considered,
either as a legal qualification or as a proper recompense for the
soldier; but a more serious regard was paid to the essential
merit of age, strength, and military stature. 31 In all levies, a
just preference was given to the climates of the North over those
of the South: the race of men born to the exercise of arms was
sought for in the country rather than in cities; and it was very
reasonably presumed, that the hardy occupations of smiths,
carpenters, and huntsmen, would supply more vigor and resolution
than the sedentary trades which are employed in the service of
luxury. 32 After every qualification of property had been laid
aside, the armies of the Roman emperors were still commanded, for
the most part, by officers of liberal birth and education; but
the common soldiers, like the mercenary troops of modern Europe,
were drawn from the meanest, and very frequently from the most
profligate, of mankind.
30 (return) [ The poorest rank of soldiers possessed above forty
pounds sterling, (Dionys. Halicarn. iv. 17,) a very high
qualification at a time when money was so scarce, that an ounce
of silver was equivalent to seventy pounds weight of brass. The
populace, excluded by the ancient constitution, were
indiscriminately admitted by Marius. See Sallust. de Bell.
Jugurth. c. 91. * Note: On the uncertainty of all these
estimates, and the difficulty of fixing the relative value of
brass and silver, compare Niebuhr, vol. i. p. 473, &c. Eng.
trans. p. 452. According to Niebuhr, the relative disproportion
in value, between the two metals, arose, in a great degree from
the abundance of brass or copper.—M. Compare also Dureau ‘de la
Malle Economie Politique des Romains especially L. l. c. ix.—M.
1845.]
31 (return) [ Cæsar formed his legion Alauda of Gauls and
strangers; but it was during the license of civil war; and after
the victory, he gave them the freedom of the city for their
reward.]
32 (return) [ See Vegetius, de Re Militari, l. i. c. 2—7.]
That public virtue, which among the ancients was denominated
patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in
the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which
we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions
of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble
impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it
became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a
different, but not less forcible nature—honor and religion. The
peasant, or mechanic, imbibed the useful prejudice that he was
advanced to the more dignified profession of arms, in which his
rank and reputation would depend on his own valor; and that,
although the prowess of a private soldier must often escape the
notice of fame, his own behavior might sometimes confer glory or
disgrace on the company, the legion, or even the army, to whose
honors he was associated. On his first entrance into the service,
an oath was administered to him with every circumstance of
solemnity. He promised never to desert his standard, to submit
his own will to the commands of his leaders, and to sacrifice his
life for the safety of the emperor and the empire. 33 The
attachment of the Roman troops to their standards was inspired by
the united influence of religion and of honor. The golden eagle,
which glittered in the front of the legion, was the object of
their fondest devotion; nor was it esteemed less impious than it
was ignominious, to abandon that sacred ensign in the hour of
danger. 34 These motives, which derived their strength from the
imagination, were enforced by fears and hopes of a more
substantial kind. Regular pay, occasional donatives, and a stated
recompense, after the appointed time of service, alleviated the
hardships of the military life, 35 whilst, on the other hand, it
was impossible for cowardice or disobedience to escape the
severest punishment. The centurions were authorized to chastise
with blows, the generals had a right to punish with death; and it
was an inflexible maxim of Roman discipline, that a good soldier
should dread his officers far more than the enemy. From such
laudable arts did the valor of the Imperial troops receive a
degree of firmness and docility unattainable by the impetuous and
irregular passions of barbarians.
33 (return) [ The oath of service and fidelity to the emperor was
annually renewed by the troops on the first of January.]
34 (return) [ Tacitus calls the Roman eagles, Bellorum Deos. They
were placed in a chapel in the camp, and with the other deities
received the religious worship of the troops. * Note: See also
Dio. Cass. xl. c. 18. —M.]
35 (return) [ See Gronovius de Pecunia vetere, l. iii. p. 120,
&c. The emperor Domitian raised the annual stipend of the
legionaries to twelve pieces of gold, which, in his time, was
equivalent to about ten of our guineas. This pay, somewhat higher
than our own, had been, and was afterwards, gradually increased,
according to the progress of wealth and military government.
After twenty years’ service, the veteran received three thousand
denarii, (about one hundred pounds sterling,) or a proportionable
allowance of land. The pay and advantages of the guards were, in
general, about double those of the legions.]
And yet so sensible were the Romans of the imperfection of valor
without skill and practice, that, in their language, the name of
an army was borrowed from the word which signified exercise. 36
Military exercises were the important and unremitted object of
their discipline. The recruits and young soldiers were constantly
trained, both in the morning and in the evening, nor was age or
knowledge allowed to excuse the veterans from the daily
repetition of what they had completely learnt. Large sheds were
erected in the winter-quarters of the troops, that their useful
labors might not receive any interruption from the most
tempestuous weather; and it was carefully observed, that the arms
destined to this imitation of war, should be of double the weight
which was required in real action. 37 It is not the purpose of
this work to enter into any minute description of the Roman
exercises. We shall only remark, that they comprehended whatever
could add strength to the body, activity to the limbs, or grace
to the motions. The soldiers were diligently instructed to march,
to run, to leap, to swim, to carry heavy burdens, to handle every
species of arms that was used either for offence or for defence,
either in distant engagement or in a closer onset; to form a
variety of evolutions; and to move to the sound of flutes in the
Pyrrhic or martial dance. 38 In the midst of peace, the Roman
troops familiarized themselves with the practice of war; and it
is prettily remarked by an ancient historian who had fought
against them, that the effusion of blood was the only
circumstance which distinguished a field of battle from a field
of exercise. 39 It was the policy of the ablest generals, and
even of the emperors themselves, to encourage these military
studies by their presence and example; and we are informed that
Hadrian, as well as Trajan, frequently condescended to instruct
the unexperienced soldiers, to reward the diligent, and sometimes
to dispute with them the prize of superior strength or dexterity.
40 Under the reigns of those princes, the science of tactics was
cultivated with success; and as long as the empire retained any
vigor, their military instructions were respected as the most
perfect model of Roman discipline.
36 (return) [ _Exercitus ab exercitando_, Varro de Lingua Latina,
l. iv. Cicero in Tusculan. l. ii. 37. 15. There is room for a
very interesting work, which should lay open the connection
between the languages and manners of nations. * Note I am not
aware of the existence, at present, of such a work; but the
profound observations of the late William von Humboldt, in the
introduction to his posthumously published Essay on the Language
of the Island of Java, (uber die Kawi-sprache, Berlin, 1836,) may
cause regret that this task was not completed by that
accomplished and universal scholar.—M.]
37 (return) [ Vegatius, l. ii. and the rest of his first book.]
38 (return) [ The Pyrrhic dance is extremely well illustrated by
M. le Beau, in the Academie des Inscriptions, tom. xxxv. p. 262,
&c. That learned academician, in a series of memoirs, has
collected all the passages of the ancients that relate to the
Roman legion.]
39 (return) [ Joseph. de Bell. Judaico, l. iii. c. 5. We are
indebted to this Jew for some very curious details of Roman
discipline.]
40 (return) [ Plin. Panegyr. c. 13. Life of Hadrian, in the
Augustan History.]
Nine centuries of war had gradually introduced into the service
many alterations and improvements. The legions, as they are
described by Polybius, 41 in the time of the Punic wars, differed
very materially from those which achieved the victories of Cæsar,
or defended the monarchy of Hadrian and the Antonines. The
constitution of the Imperial legion may be described in a few
words. 42 The heavy-armed infantry, which composed its principal
strength, 43 was divided into ten cohorts, and fifty-five
companies, under the orders of a correspondent number of tribunes
and centurions. The first cohort, which always claimed the post
of honor and the custody of the eagle, was formed of eleven
hundred and five soldiers, the most approved for valor and
fidelity. The remaining nine cohorts consisted each of five
hundred and fifty-five; and the whole body of legionary infantry
amounted to six thousand one hundred men. Their arms were
uniform, and admirably adapted to the nature of their service: an
open helmet, with a lofty crest; a breastplate, or coat of mail;
greaves on their legs, and an ample buckler on their left arm.
The buckler was of an oblong and concave figure, four feet in
length, and two and a half in breadth, framed of a light wood,
covered with a bull’s hide, and strongly guarded with plates of
brass. Besides a lighter spear, the legionary soldier grasped in
his right hand the formidable _pilum_, a ponderous javelin, whose
utmost length was about six feet, and which was terminated by a
massy triangular point of steel of eighteen inches. 44 This
instrument was indeed much inferior to our modern fire-arms;
since it was exhausted by a single discharge, at the distance of
only ten or twelve paces. Yet when it was launched by a firm and
skilful hand, there was not any cavalry that durst venture within
its reach, nor any shield or corselet that could sustain the
impetuosity of its weight. As soon as the Roman had darted his
_pilum_, he drew his sword, and rushed forwards to close with the
enemy. His sword was a short well-tempered Spanish blade, that
carried a double edge, and was alike suited to the purpose of
striking or of pushing; but the soldier was always instructed to
prefer the latter use of his weapon, as his own body remained
less exposed, whilst he inflicted a more dangerous wound on his
adversary. 45 The legion was usually drawn up eight deep; and the
regular distance of three feet was left between the files as well
as ranks. 46 A body of troops, habituated to preserve this open
order, in a long front and a rapid charge, found themselves
prepared to execute every disposition which the circumstances of
war, or the skill of their leader, might suggest. The soldier
possessed a free space for his arms and motions, and sufficient
intervals were allowed, through which seasonable reinforcements
might be introduced to the relief of the exhausted combatants. 47
The tactics of the Greeks and Macedonians were formed on very
different principles. The strength of the phalanx depended on
sixteen ranks of long pikes, wedged together in the closest
array. 48 But it was soon discovered by reflection, as well as by
the event, that the strength of the phalanx was unable to contend
with the activity of the legion. 49
41 (return) [ See an admirable digression on the Roman
discipline, in the sixth book of his History.]
42 (return) [ Vegetius de Re Militari, l. ii. c. 4, &c.
Considerable part of his very perplexed abridgment was taken from
the regulations of Trajan and Hadrian; and the legion, as he
describes it, cannot suit any other age of the Roman empire.]
43 (return) [Vegetius de Re Militari, l. ii. c. 1. In the purer
age of Cæsar and Cicero, the word miles was almost confined to
the infantry. Under the lower empire, and the times of chivalry,
it was appropriated almost as exclusively to the men at arms, who
fought on horseback.]
44 (return) [ In the time of Polybius and Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, (l. v. c. 45,) the steel point of the pilum seems
to have been much longer. In the time of Vegetius, it was reduced
to a foot, or even nine inches. I have chosen a medium.]
45 (return) [ For the legionary arms, see Lipsius de Militia
Romana, l. iii. c. 2—7.]
46 (return) [ See the beautiful comparison of Virgil, Georgic ii.
v. 279.]
47 (return) [ M. Guichard, Memoires Militaires, tom. i. c. 4, and
Nouveaux Memoires, tom. i. p. 293—311, has treated the subject
like a scholar and an officer.]
48 (return) [ See Arrian’s Tactics. With the true partiality of a
Greek, Arrian rather chose to describe the phalanx, of which he
had read, than the legions which he had commanded.]
49 (return) [ Polyb. l. xvii. (xviii. 9.)]
The cavalry, without which the force of the legion would have
remained imperfect, was divided into ten troops or squadrons; the
first, as the companion of the first cohort, consisted of a
hundred and thirty-two men; whilst each of the other nine
amounted only to sixty-six. The entire establishment formed a
regiment, if we may use the modern expression, of seven hundred
and twenty-six horse, naturally connected with its respective
legion, but occasionally separated to act in the line, and to
compose a part of the wings of the army. 50 The cavalry of the
emperors was no longer composed, like that of the ancient
republic, of the noblest youths of Rome and Italy, who, by
performing their military service on horseback, prepared
themselves for the offices of senator and consul; and solicited,
by deeds of valor, the future suffrages of their countrymen. 51
Since the alteration of manners and government, the most wealthy
of the equestrian order were engaged in the administration of
justice, and of the revenue; 52 and whenever they embraced the
profession of arms, they were immediately intrusted with a troop
of horse, or a cohort of foot. 53 Trajan and Hadrian formed their
cavalry from the same provinces, and the same class of their
subjects, which recruited the ranks of the legion. The horses
were bred, for the most part, in Spain or Cappadocia. The Roman
troopers despised the complete armor with which the cavalry of
the East was encumbered. _Their_ more useful arms consisted in a
helmet, an oblong shield, light boots, and a coat of mail. A
javelin, and a long broad sword, were their principal weapons of
offence. The use of lances and of iron maces they seem to have
borrowed from the barbarians. 54
50 (return) [ Veget. de Re Militari, l. ii. c. 6. His positive
testimony, which might be supported by circumstantial evidence,
ought surely to silence those critics who refuse the Imperial
legion its proper body of cavalry. Note: See also Joseph. B. J.
iii. vi. 2.—M.]
51 (return) [ See Livy almost throughout, particularly xlii. 61.]
52 (return) [ Plin. Hist. Natur. xxxiii. 2. The true sense of
that very curious passage was first discovered and illustrated by
M. de Beaufort, Republique Romaine, l. ii. c. 2.]
53 (return) [ As in the instance of Horace and Agricola. This
appears to have been a defect in the Roman discipline; which
Hadrian endeavored to remedy by ascertaining the legal age of a
tribune. * Note: These details are not altogether accurate.
Although, in the latter days of the republic, and under the first
emperors, the young Roman nobles obtained the command of a
squadron or a cohort with greater facility than in the former
times, they never obtained it without passing through a tolerably
long military service. Usually they served first in the prætorian
cohort, which was intrusted with the guard of the general: they
were received into the companionship (contubernium) of some
superior officer, and were there formed for duty. Thus Julius
Cæsar, though sprung from a great family, served first as
contubernalis under the prætor, M. Thermus, and later under
Servilius the Isaurian. (Suet. Jul. 2, 5. Plut. in Par. p. 516.
Ed. Froben.) The example of Horace, which Gibbon adduces to prove
that young knights were made tribunes immediately on entering the
service, proves nothing. In the first place, Horace was not a
knight; he was the son of a freedman of Venusia, in Apulia, who
exercised the humble office of coactor exauctionum, (collector of
payments at auctions.) (Sat. i. vi. 45, or 86.) Moreover, when
the poet was made tribune, Brutus, whose army was nearly entirely
composed of Orientals, gave this title to all the Romans of
consideration who joined him. The emperors were still less
difficult in their choice; the number of tribunes was augmented;
the title and honors were conferred on persons whom they wished
to attack to the court. Augustus conferred on the sons of
senators, sometimes the tribunate, sometimes the command of a
squadron. Claudius gave to the knights who entered into the
service, first the command of a cohort of auxiliaries, later that
of a squadron, and at length, for the first time, the tribunate.
(Suet in Claud. with the notes of Ernesti.) The abuses that arose
caused by the edict of Hadrian, which fixed the age at which that
honor could be attained. (Spart. in Had. &c.) This edict was
subsequently obeyed; for the emperor Valerian, in a letter
addressed to Mulvius Gallinnus, prætorian præfect, excuses
himself for having violated it in favor of the young Probus
afterwards emperor, on whom he had conferred the tribunate at an
earlier age on account of his rare talents. (Vopisc. in Prob.
iv.)—W. and G. Agricola, though already invested with the title
of tribune, was contubernalis in Britain with Suetonius Paulinus.
Tac. Agr. v.—M.]
54 (return) [ See Arrian’s Tactics.]
The safety and honor of the empire was principally intrusted to
the legions, but the policy of Rome condescended to adopt every
useful instrument of war. Considerable levies were regularly made
among the provincials, who had not yet deserved the honorable
distinction of Romans. Many dependent princes and communities,
dispersed round the frontiers, were permitted, for a while, to
hold their freedom and security by the tenure of military
service. 55 Even select troops of hostile barbarians were
frequently compelled or persuaded to consume their dangerous
valor in remote climates, and for the benefit of the state. 56
All these were included under the general name of auxiliaries;
and howsoever they might vary according to the difference of
times and circumstances, their numbers were seldom much inferior
to those of the legions themselves. 57 Among the auxiliaries, the
bravest and most faithful bands were placed under the command of
præfects and centurions, and severely trained in the arts of
Roman discipline; but the far greater part retained those arms,
to which the nature of their country, or their early habits of
life, more peculiarly adapted them. By this institution, each
legion, to whom a certain proportion of auxiliaries was allotted,
contained within itself every species of lighter troops, and of
missile weapons; and was capable of encountering every nation,
with the advantages of its respective arms and discipline. 58 Nor
was the legion destitute of what, in modern language, would be
styled a train of artillery. It consisted in ten military engines
of the largest, and fifty-five of a smaller size; but all of
which, either in an oblique or horizontal manner, discharged
stones and darts with irresistible violence. 59
55 (return) [ Such, in particular, was the state of the
Batavians. Tacit. Germania, c. 29.]
56 (return) [ Marcus Antoninus obliged the vanquished Quadi and
Marcomanni to supply him with a large body of troops, which he
immediately sent into Britain. Dion Cassius, l. lxxi. (c. 16.)]
57 (return) [ Tacit. Annal. iv. 5. Those who fix a regular
proportion of as many foot, and twice as many horse, confound the
auxiliaries of the emperors with the Italian allies of the
republic.]
58 (return) [ Vegetius, ii. 2. Arrian, in his order of march and
battle against the Alani.]
59 (return) [ The subject of the ancient machines is treated with
great knowledge and ingenuity by the Chevalier Folard, (Polybe,
tom. ii. p. 233-290.) He prefers them in many respects to our
modern cannon and mortars. We may observe, that the use of them
in the field gradually became more prevalent, in proportion as
personal valor and military skill declined with the Roman empire.
When men were no longer found, their place was supplied by
machines. See Vegetius, ii. 25. Arrian.]
Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part III.
The camp of a Roman legion presented the appearance of a
fortified city. 60 As soon as the space was marked out, the
pioneers carefully levelled the ground, and removed every
impediment that might interrupt its perfect regularity. Its form
was an exact quadrangle; and we may calculate, that a square of
about seven hundred yards was sufficient for the encampment of
twenty thousand Romans; though a similar number of our own troops
would expose to the enemy a front of more than treble that
extent. In the midst of the camp, the prætorium, or general’s
quarters, rose above the others; the cavalry, the infantry, and
the auxiliaries occupied their respective stations; the streets
were broad and perfectly straight, and a vacant space of two
hundred feet was left on all sides between the tents and the
rampart. The rampart itself was usually twelve feet high, armed
with a line of strong and intricate palisades, and defended by a
ditch of twelve feet in depth as well as in breadth. This
important labor was performed by the hands of the legionaries
themselves; to whom the use of the spade and the pickaxe was no
less familiar than that of the sword or _pilum_. Active valor may
often be the present of nature; but such patient diligence can be
the fruit only of habit and discipline. 61
60 (return) [ Vegetius finishes his second book, and the
description of the legion, with the following emphatic
words:—“Universa quæ in quoque belli genere necessaria esse
creduntur, secum legio debet ubique portare, ut in quovis loco
fixerit castra, armatam faciat civitatem.”]
61 (return) [ For the Roman Castrametation, see Polybius, l. vi.
with Lipsius de Militia Romana, Joseph. de Bell. Jud. l. iii. c.
5. Vegetius, i. 21—25, iii. 9, and Memoires de Guichard, tom. i.
c. 1.]
Whenever the trumpet gave the signal of departure, the camp was
almost instantly broke up, and the troops fell into their ranks
without delay or confusion. Besides their arms, which the
legionaries scarcely considered as an encumbrance, they were
laden with their kitchen furniture, the instruments of
fortification, and the provision of many days. 62 Under this
weight, which would oppress the delicacy of a modern soldier,
they were trained by a regular step to advance, in about six
hours, near twenty miles. 63 On the appearance of an enemy, they
threw aside their baggage, and by easy and rapid evolutions
converted the column of march into an order of battle. 64 The
slingers and archers skirmished in the front; the auxiliaries
formed the first line, and were seconded or sustained by the
strength of the legions; the cavalry covered the flanks, and the
military engines were placed in the rear.
62 (return) [ Cicero in Tusculan. ii. 37, [15.]—Joseph. de Bell.
Jud. l. iii. 5, Frontinus, iv. 1.]
63 (return) [ Vegetius, i. 9. See Memoires de l’Academie des
Inscriptions, tom. xxv. p. 187.]
64 (return) [ See those evolutions admirably well explained by M.
Guichard Nouveaux Memoires, tom. i. p. 141—234.]
Such were the arts of war, by which the Roman emperors defended
their extensive conquests, and preserved a military spirit, at a
time when every other virtue was oppressed by luxury and
despotism. If, in the consideration of their armies, we pass from
their discipline to their numbers, we shall not find it easy to
define them with any tolerable accuracy. We may compute, however,
that the legion, which was itself a body of six thousand eight
hundred and thirty-one Romans, might, with its attendant
auxiliaries, amount to about twelve thousand five hundred men.
The peace establishment of Hadrian and his successors was
composed of no less than thirty of these formidable brigades; and
most probably formed a standing force of three hundred and
seventy-five thousand men. Instead of being confined within the
walls of fortified cities, which the Romans considered as the
refuge of weakness or pusillanimity, the legions were encamped on
the banks of the great rivers, and along the frontiers of the
barbarians. As their stations, for the most part, remained fixed
and permanent, we may venture to describe the distribution of the
troops. Three legions were sufficient for Britain. The principal
strength lay upon the Rhine and Danube, and consisted of sixteen
legions, in the following proportions: two in the Lower, and
three in the Upper Germany; one in Rhætia, one in Noricum, four
in Pannonia, three in Mæsia, and two in Dacia. The defence of the
Euphrates was intrusted to eight legions, six of whom were
planted in Syria, and the other two in Cappadocia. With regard to
Egypt, Africa, and Spain, as they were far removed from any
important scene of war, a single legion maintained the domestic
tranquillity of each of those great provinces. Even Italy was not
left destitute of a military force. Above twenty thousand chosen
soldiers, distinguished by the titles of City Cohorts and
Prætorian Guards, watched over the safety of the monarch and the
capital. As the authors of almost every revolution that
distracted the empire, the Prætorians will, very soon, and very
loudly, demand our attention; but, in their arms and
institutions, we cannot find any circumstance which discriminated
them from the legions, unless it were a more splendid appearance,
and a less rigid discipline. 65
65 (return) [ Tacitus (Annal. iv. 5) has given us a state of the
legions under Tiberius; and Dion Cassius (l. lv. p. 794) under
Alexander Severus. I have endeavored to fix on the proper medium
between these two periods. See likewise Lipsius de Magnitudine
Romana, l. i. c. 4, 5.]
The navy maintained by the emperors might seem inadequate to
their greatness; but it was fully sufficient for every useful
purpose of government. The ambition of the Romans was confined to
the land; nor was that warlike people ever actuated by the
enterprising spirit which had prompted the navigators of Tyre, of
Carthage, and even of Marseilles, to enlarge the bounds of the
world, and to explore the most remote coasts of the ocean. To the
Romans the ocean remained an object of terror rather than of
curiosity; 66 the whole extent of the Mediterranean, after the
destruction of Carthage, and the extirpation of the pirates, was
included within their provinces. The policy of the emperors was
directed only to preserve the peaceful dominion of that sea, and
to protect the commerce of their subjects. With these moderate
views, Augustus stationed two permanent fleets in the most
convenient ports of Italy, the one at Ravenna, on the Adriatic,
the other at Misenum, in the Bay of Naples. Experience seems at
length to have convinced the ancients, that as soon as their
galleys exceeded two, or at the most three ranks of oars, they
were suited rather for vain pomp than for real service. Augustus
himself, in the victory of Actium, had seen the superiority of
his own light frigates (they were called Liburnians) over the
lofty but unwieldy castles of his rival. 67 Of these Liburnians
he composed the two fleets of Ravenna and Misenum, destined to
command, the one the eastern, the other the western division of
the Mediterranean; and to each of the squadrons he attached a
body of several thousand marines. Besides these two ports, which
may be considered as the principal seats of the Roman navy, a
very considerable force was stationed at Frejus, on the coast of
Provence, and the Euxine was guarded by forty ships, and three
thousand soldiers. To all these we add the fleet which preserved
the communication between Gaul and Britain, and a great number of
vessels constantly maintained on the Rhine and Danube, to harass
the country, or to intercept the passage of the barbarians. 68 If
we review this general state of the Imperial forces; of the
cavalry as well as infantry; of the legions, the auxiliaries, the
guards, and the navy; the most liberal computation will not allow
us to fix the entire establishment by sea and by land at more
than four hundred and fifty thousand men: a military power,
which, however formidable it may seem, was equalled by a monarch
of the last century, whose kingdom was confined within a single
province of the Roman empire. 69
66 (return) [ The Romans tried to disguise, by the pretence of
religious awe their ignorance and terror. See Tacit. Germania, c.
34.]
67 (return) [ Plutarch, in Marc. Anton. [c. 67.] And yet, if we
may credit Orosius, these monstrous castles were no more than ten
feet above the water, vi. 19.]
68 (return) [ See Lipsius, de Magnitud. Rom. l. i. c. 5. The
sixteen last chapters of Vegetius relate to naval affairs.]
69 (return) [ Voltaire, Siecle de Louis XIV. c. 29. It must,
however, be remembered, that France still feels that
extraordinary effort.]
We have attempted to explain the spirit which moderated, and the
strength which supported, the power of Hadrian and the Antonines.
We shall now endeavor, with clearness and precision, to describe
the provinces once united under their sway, but, at present,
divided into so many independent and hostile states. Spain, the
western extremity of the empire, of Europe, and of the ancient
world, has, in every age, invariably preserved the same natural
limits; the Pyrenæan Mountains, the Mediterranean, and the
Atlantic Ocean. That great peninsula, at present so unequally
divided between two sovereigns, was distributed by Augustus into
three provinces, Lusitania, Bætica, and Tarraconensis. The
kingdom of Portugal now fills the place of the warlike country of
the Lusitanians; and the loss sustained by the former on the side
of the East, is compensated by an accession of territory towards
the North. The confines of Grenada and Andalusia correspond with
those of ancient Bætica. The remainder of Spain, Gallicia, and
the Asturias, Biscay, and Navarre, Leon, and the two Castiles,
Murcia, Valencia, Catalonia, and Arragon, all contributed to form
the third and most considerable of the Roman governments, which,
from the name of its capital, was styled the province of
Tarragona. 70 Of the native barbarians, the Celtiberians were the
most powerful, as the Cantabrians and Asturians proved the most
obstinate. Confident in the strength of their mountains, they
were the last who submitted to the arms of Rome, and the first
who threw off the yoke of the Arabs.
70 (return) [ See Strabo, l. ii. It is natural enough to suppose,
that Arragon is derived from Tarraconensis, and several moderns
who have written in Latin use those words as synonymous. It is,
however, certain, that the Arragon, a little stream which falls
from the Pyrenees into the Ebro, first gave its name to a
country, and gradually to a kingdom. See d’Anville, Geographie du
Moyen Age, p. 181.]
Ancient Gaul, as it contained the whole country between the
Pyrenees, the Alps, the Rhine, and the Ocean, was of greater
extent than modern France. To the dominions of that powerful
monarchy, with its recent acquisitions of Alsace and Lorraine, we
must add the duchy of Savoy, the cantons of Switzerland, the four
electorates of the Rhine, and the territories of Liege,
Luxemburgh, Hainault, Flanders, and Brabant. When Augustus gave
laws to the conquests of his father, he introduced a division of
Gaul, equally adapted to the progress of the legions, to the
course of the rivers, and to the principal national distinctions,
which had comprehended above a hundred independent states. 71 The
sea-coast of the Mediterranean, Languedoc, Provence, and
Dauphiné, received their provincial appellation from the colony
of Narbonne. The government of Aquitaine was extended from the
Pyrenees to the Loire. The country between the Loire and the
Seine was styled the Celtic Gaul, and soon borrowed a new
denomination from the celebrated colony of Lugdunum, or Lyons.
The Belgic lay beyond the Seine, and in more ancient times had
been bounded only by the Rhine; but a little before the age of
Cæsar, the Germans, abusing their superiority of valor, had
occupied a considerable portion of the Belgic territory. The
Roman conquerors very eagerly embraced so flattering a
circumstance, and the Gallic frontier of the Rhine, from Basil to
Leyden, received the pompous names of the Upper and the Lower
Germany. 72 Such, under the reign of the Antonines, were the six
provinces of Gaul; the Narbonnese, Aquitaine, the Celtic, or
Lyonnese, the Belgic, and the two Germanies.
71 (return) [ One hundred and fifteen _cities_ appear in the
Notitia of Gaul; and it is well known that this appellation was
applied not only to the capital town, but to the whole territory
of each state. But Plutarch and Appian increase the number of
tribes to three or four hundred.]
72 (return) [ D’Anville. Notice de l’Ancienne Gaule.]
We have already had occasion to mention the conquest of Britain,
and to fix the boundary of the Roman Province in this island. It
comprehended all England, Wales, and the Lowlands of Scotland, as
far as the Friths of Dumbarton and Edinburgh. Before Britain lost
her freedom, the country was irregularly divided between thirty
tribes of barbarians, of whom the most considerable were the
Belgæ in the West, the Brigantes in the North, the Silures in
South Wales, and the Iceni in Norfolk and Suffolk. 73 As far as
we can either trace or credit the resemblance of manners and
language, Spain, Gaul, and Britain were peopled by the same hardy
race of savages. Before they yielded to the Roman arms, they
often disputed the field, and often renewed the contest. After
their submission, they constituted the western division of the
European provinces, which extended from the columns of Hercules
to the wall of Antoninus, and from the mouth of the Tagus to the
sources of the Rhine and Danube.
73 (return) [ Whittaker’s History of Manchester, vol. i. c. 3.]
Before the Roman conquest, the country which is now called
Lombardy, was not considered as a part of Italy. It had been
occupied by a powerful colony of Gauls, who, settling themselves
along the banks of the Po, from Piedmont to Romagna, carried
their arms and diffused their name from the Alps to the Apennine.
The Ligurians dwelt on the rocky coast which now forms the
republic of Genoa. Venice was yet unborn; but the territories of
that state, which lie to the east of the Adige, were inhabited by
the Venetians. 74 The middle part of the peninsula, that now
composes the duchy of Tuscany and the ecclesiastical state, was
the ancient seat of the Etruscans and Umbrians; to the former of
whom Italy was indebted for the first rudiments of civilized
life. 75 The Tyber rolled at the foot of the seven hills of Rome,
and the country of the Sabines, the Latins, and the Volsci, from
that river to the frontiers of Naples, was the theatre of her
infant victories. On that celebrated ground the first consuls
deserved triumphs, their successors adorned villas, and _their_
posterity have erected convents. 76 Capua and Campania possessed
the immediate territory of Naples; the rest of the kingdom was
inhabited by many warlike nations, the Marsi, the Samnites, the
Apulians, and the Lucanians; and the sea-coasts had been covered
by the flourishing colonies of the Greeks. We may remark, that
when Augustus divided Italy into eleven regions, the little
province of Istria was annexed to that seat of Roman sovereignty.
77
74 (return) [ The Italian Veneti, though often confounded with
the Gauls, were more probably of Illyrian origin. See M. Freret,
Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions, tom. xviii. * Note: Or
Liburnian, according to Niebuhr. Vol. i. p. 172.—M.]
75 (return) [ See Maffei Verona illustrata, l. i. * Note: Add
Niebuhr, vol. i., and Otfried Müller, _die Etrusker_, which
contains much that is known, and much that is conjectured, about
this remarkable people. Also Micali, Storia degli antichi popoli
Italiani. Florence, 1832—M.]
76 (return) [ The first contrast was observed by the ancients.
See Florus, i. 11. The second must strike every modern
traveller.]
77 (return) [ Pliny (Hist. Natur. l. iii.) follows the division
of Italy by Augustus.]
The European provinces of Rome were protected by the course of
the Rhine and the Danube. The latter of those mighty streams,
which rises at the distance of only thirty miles from the former,
flows above thirteen hundred miles, for the most part to the
south-east, collects the tribute of sixty navigable rivers, and
is, at length, through six mouths, received into the Euxine,
which appears scarcely equal to such an accession of waters. 78
The provinces of the Danube soon acquired the general appellation
of Illyricum, or the Illyrian frontier, 79 and were esteemed the
most warlike of the empire; but they deserve to be more
particularly considered under the names of Rhætia, Noricum,
Pannonia, Dalmatia, Dacia, Mæsia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece.
78 (return) [ Tournefort, Voyages en Grece et Asie Mineure,
lettre xviii.]
79 (return) [ The name of Illyricum originally belonged to the
sea-coast of the Adriatic, and was gradually extended by the
Romans from the Alps to the Euxine Sea. See Severini Pannonia, l.
i. c. 3.]
The province of Rhætia, which soon extinguished the name of the
Vindelicians, extended from the summit of the Alps to the banks
of the Danube; from its source, as far as its conflux with the
Inn. The greatest part of the flat country is subject to the
elector of Bavaria; the city of Augsburg is protected by the
constitution of the German empire; the Grisons are safe in their
mountains, and the country of Tirol is ranked among the numerous
provinces of the house of Austria.
The wide extent of territory which is included between the Inn,
the Danube, and the Save,—Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola,
the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia,—was known to the ancients under
the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their original state of
independence, their fierce inhabitants were intimately connected.
Under the Roman government they were frequently united, and they
still remain the patrimony of a single family. They now contain
the residence of a German prince, who styles himself Emperor of
the Romans, and form the centre, as well as strength, of the
Austrian power. It may not be improper to observe, that if we
except Bohemia, Moravia, the northern skirts of Austria, and a
part of Hungary between the Teyss and the Danube, all the other
dominions of the House of Austria were comprised within the
limits of the Roman Empire.
Dalmatia, to which the name of Illyricum more properly belonged,
was a long, but narrow tract, between the Save and the Adriatic.
The best part of the sea-coast, which still retains its ancient
appellation, is a province of the Venetian state, and the seat of
the little republic of Ragusa. The inland parts have assumed the
Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia; the former obeys an
Austrian governor, the latter a Turkish pacha; but the whole
country is still infested by tribes of barbarians, whose savage
independence irregularly marks the doubtful limit of the
Christian and Mahometan power. 80
80 (return) [ A Venetian traveller, the Abbate Fortis, has lately
given us some account of those very obscure countries. But the
geography and antiquities of the western Illyricum can be
expected only from the munificence of the emperor, its
sovereign.]
After the Danube had received the waters of the Teyss and the
Save, it acquired, at least among the Greeks, the name of Ister.
81 It formerly divided Mæsia and Dacia, the latter of which, as
we have already seen, was a conquest of Trajan, and the only
province beyond the river. If we inquire into the present state
of those countries, we shall find that, on the left hand of the
Danube, Temeswar and Transylvania have been annexed, after many
revolutions, to the crown of Hungary; whilst the principalities
of Moldavia and Wallachia acknowledge the supremacy of the
Ottoman Porte. On the right hand of the Danube, Mæsia, which,
during the middle ages, was broken into the barbarian kingdoms of
Servia and Bulgaria, is again united in Turkish slavery.
81 (return) [ The Save rises near the confines of _Istria_, and
was considered by the more early Greeks as the principal stream
of the Danube.]
The appellation of Roumelia, which is still bestowed by the Turks
on the extensive countries of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece,
preserves the memory of their ancient state under the Roman
empire. In the time of the Antonines, the martial regions of
Thrace, from the mountains of Hæmus and Rhodope, to the Bosphorus
and the Hellespont, had assumed the form of a province.
Notwithstanding the change of masters and of religion, the new
city of Rome, founded by Constantine on the banks of the
Bosphorus, has ever since remained the capital of a great
monarchy. The kingdom of Macedonia, which, under the reign of
Alexander, gave laws to Asia, derived more solid advantages from
the policy of the two Philips; and with its dependencies of
Epirus and Thessaly, extended from the Ægean to the Ionian Sea.
When we reflect on the fame of Thebes and Argos, of Sparta and
Athens, we can scarcely persuade ourselves, that so many immortal
republics of ancient Greece were lost in a single province of the
Roman empire, which, from the superior influence of the Achæan
league, was usually denominated the province of Achaia.
Such was the state of Europe under the Roman emperors. The
provinces of Asia, without excepting the transient conquests of
Trajan, are all comprehended within the limits of the Turkish
power. But, instead of following the arbitrary divisions of
despotism and ignorance, it will be safer for us, as well as more
agreeable, to observe the indelible characters of nature. The
name of Asia Minor is attributed with some propriety to the
peninsula, which, confined betwixt the Euxine and the
Mediterranean, advances from the Euphrates towards Europe. The
most extensive and flourishing district, westward of Mount Taurus
and the River Halys, was dignified by the Romans with the
exclusive title of Asia. The jurisdiction of that province
extended over the ancient monarchies of Troy, Lydia, and Phrygia,
the maritime countries of the Pamphylians, Lycians, and Carians,
and the Grecian colonies of Ionia, which equalled in arts, though
not in arms, the glory of their parent. The kingdoms of Bithynia
and Pontus possessed the northern side of the peninsula from
Constantinople to Trebizond. On the opposite side, the province
of Cilicia was terminated by the mountains of Syria: the inland
country, separated from the Roman Asia by the River Halys, and
from Armenia by the Euphrates, had once formed the independent
kingdom of Cappadocia. In this place we may observe, that the
northern shores of the Euxine, beyond Trebizond in Asia, and
beyond the Danube in Europe, acknowledged the sovereignty of the
emperors, and received at their hands either tributary princes or
Roman garrisons. Budzak, Crim Tartary, Circassia, and Mingrelia,
are the modern appellations of those savage countries. 82
82 (return) [ See the Periplus of Arrian. He examined the coasts
of the Euxine, when he was governor of Cappadocia.]
Under the successors of Alexander, Syria was the seat of the
Seleucidæ, who reigned over Upper Asia, till the successful
revolt of the Parthians confined their dominions between the
Euphrates and the Mediterranean. When Syria became subject to the
Romans, it formed the eastern frontier of their empire: nor did
that province, in its utmost latitude, know any other bounds than
the mountains of Cappadocia to the north, and towards the south,
the confines of Egypt, and the Red Sea. Phœnicia and Palestine
were sometimes annexed to, and sometimes separated from, the
jurisdiction of Syria. The former of these was a narrow and rocky
coast; the latter was a territory scarcely superior to Wales,
either in fertility or extent. 821 Yet Phœnicia and Palestine
will forever live in the memory of mankind; since America, as
well as Europe, has received letters from the one, and religion
from the other. 83 A sandy desert, alike destitute of wood and
water, skirts along the doubtful confine of Syria, from the
Euphrates to the Red Sea. The wandering life of the Arabs was
inseparably connected with their independence; and wherever, on
some spots less barren than the rest, they ventured to for many
settled habitations, they soon became subjects to the Roman
empire. 84
821 (return) [ This comparison is exaggerated, with the
intention, no doubt, of attacking the authority of the Bible,
which boasts of the fertility of Palestine. Gibbon’s only
authorities were that of Strabo (l. xvi. 1104) and the present
state of the country. But Strabo only speaks of the neighborhood
of Jerusalem, which he calls barren and arid to the extent of
sixty stadia round the city: in other parts he gives a favorable
testimony to the fertility of many parts of Palestine: thus he
says, “Near Jericho there is a grove of palms, and a country of a
hundred stadia, full of springs, and well peopled.” Moreover,
Strabo had never seen Palestine; he spoke only after reports,
which may be as inaccurate as those according to which he has
composed that description of Germany, in which Gluverius has
detected so many errors. (Gluv. Germ. iii. 1.) Finally, his
testimony is contradicted and refuted by that of other ancient
authors, and by medals. Tacitus says, in speaking of Palestine,
“The inhabitants are healthy and robust; the rains moderate; the
soil fertile.” (Hist. v. 6.) Ammianus Macellinus says also, “The
last of the Syrias is Palestine, a country of considerable
extent, abounding in clean and well-cultivated land, and
containing some fine cities, none of which yields to the other;
but, as it were, being on a parallel, are rivals.”—xiv. 8. See
also the historian Josephus, Hist. vi. 1. Procopius of Cæserea,
who lived in the sixth century, says that Chosroes, king of
Persia, had a great desire to make himself master of Palestine,
_on account of its_ extraordinary fertility, its opulence, and
the great number of its inhabitants. The Saracens thought the
same, and were afraid that Omar. when he went to Jerusalem,
charmed with the fertility of the soil and the purity of the air,
would never return to Medina. (Ockley, Hist. of Sarac. i. 232.)
The importance attached by the Romans to the conquest of
Palestine, and the obstacles they encountered, prove also the
richness and population of the country. Vespasian and Titus
caused medals to be struck with trophies, in which Palestine is
represented by a female under a palm-tree, to signify the
richness of he country, with this legend: _Judæa capta_. Other
medals also indicate this fertility; for instance, that of Herod
holding a bunch of grapes, and that of the young Agrippa
displaying fruit. As to the present state of he country, one
perceives that it is not fair to draw any inference against its
ancient fertility: the disasters through which it has passed, the
government to which it is subject, the disposition of the
inhabitants, explain sufficiently the wild and uncultivated
appearance of the land, where, nevertheless, fertile and
cultivated districts are still found, according to the testimony
of travellers; among others, of Shaw, Maundrel, La Rocque, &c.—G.
The Abbé Guénée, in his _Lettres de quelques Juifs à Mons. de
Voltaire_, has exhausted the subject of the fertility of
Palestine; for Voltaire had likewise indulged in sarcasm on this
subject. Gibbon was assailed on this point, not, indeed, by Mr.
Davis, who, he slyly insinuates, was prevented by his patriotism
as a Welshman from resenting the comparison with Wales, but by
other writers. In his Vindication, he first established the
correctness of his measurement of Palestine, which he estimates
as 7600 square English miles, while Wales is about 7011. As to
fertility, he proceeds in the following dexterously composed and
splendid passage: “The emperor Frederick II., the enemy and the
victim of the clergy, is accused of saying, after his return from
his crusade, that the God of the Jews would have despised his
promised land, if he had once seen the fruitful realms of Sicily
and Naples.” (See Giannone, Istor. Civ. del R. di Napoli, ii.
245.) This raillery, which malice has, perhaps, falsely imputed
to Frederick, is inconsistent with truth and piety; yet it must
be confessed that the soil of Palestine does not contain that
inexhaustible, and, as it were, spontaneous principle of
fertility, which, under the most unfavorable circumstances, has
covered with rich harvests the banks of the Nile, the fields of
Sicily, or the plains of Poland. The Jordan is the only navigable
river of Palestine: a considerable part of the narrow space is
occupied, or rather lost, in the _Dead Sea_ whose horrid aspect
inspires every sensation of disgust, and countenances every tale
of horror. The districts which border on Arabia partake of the
sandy quality of the adjacent desert. The face of the country,
except the sea-coast, and the valley of the Jordan, is covered
with mountains, which appear, for the most part, as naked and
barren rocks; and in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, there is a
real scarcity of the two elements of earth and water. (See
Maundrel’s Travels, p. 65, and Reland’s Palestin. i. 238, 395.)
These disadvantages, which now operate in their fullest extent,
were formerly corrected by the labors of a numerous people, and
the active protection of a wise government. The hills were
clothed with rich beds of artificial mould, the rain was
collected in vast cisterns, a supply of fresh water was conveyed
by pipes and aqueducts to the dry lands. The breed of cattle was
encouraged in those parts which were not adapted for tillage, and
almost every spot was compelled to yield some production for the
use of the inhabitants.
Pater ispe colendi Haud facilem esse viam voluit, primusque par
artem Movit agros; curis acuens mortalia corda, Nec torpere gravi
passus sua Regna veterno. Gibbon, Misc. Works, iv. 540.
But Gibbon has here eluded the question about the land “flowing
with milk and honey.” He is describing Judæa only, without
comprehending Galilee, or the rich pastures beyond the Jordan,
even now proverbial for their flocks and herds. (See Burckhardt’s
Travels, and Hist of Jews, i. 178.) The following is believed to
be a fair statement: “The extraordinary fertility of the whole
country must be taken into the account. No part was waste; very
little was occupied by unprofitable wood; the more fertile hills
were cultivated in artificial terraces, others were hung with
orchards of fruit trees the more rocky and barren districts were
covered with vineyards.” Even in the present day, the wars and
misgovernment of ages have not exhausted the natural richness of
the soil. “Galilee,” says Malte Brun, “would be a paradise were
it inhabited by an industrious people under an enlightened
government. No land could be less dependent on foreign
importation; it bore within itself every thing that could be
necessary for the subsistence and comfort of a simple
agricultural people. The climate was healthy, the seasons
regular; the former rains, which fell about October, after the
vintage, prepared the ground for the seed; that latter, which
prevailed during March and the beginning of April, made it grow
rapidly. Directly the rains ceased, the grain ripened with still
greater rapidity, and was gathered in before the end of May. The
summer months were dry and very hot, but the nights cool and
refreshed by copious dews. In September, the vintage was
gathered. Grain of all kinds, wheat, barley, millet, zea, and
other sorts, grew in abundance; the wheat commonly yielded thirty
for one. Besides the vine and the olive, the almond, the date,
figs of many kinds, the orange, the pomegranate, and many other
fruit trees, flourished in the greatest luxuriance. Great
quantity of honey was collected. The balm-tree, which produced
the opobalsamum, a great object of trade, was probably introduced
from Arabia, in the time of Solomon. It flourished about Jericho
and in Gilead.”—Milman’s Hist. of Jews. i. 177.—M.]
83 (return) [ The progress of religion is well known. The use of
letter was introduced among the savages of Europe about fifteen
hundred years before Christ; and the Europeans carried them to
America about fifteen centuries after the Christian Æra. But in a
period of three thousand years, the Phœnician alphabet received
considerable alterations, as it passed through the hands of the
Greeks and Romans.]
84 (return) [ Dion Cassius, lib. lxviii. p. 1131.]
The geographers of antiquity have frequently hesitated to what
portion of the globe they should ascribe Egypt. 85 By its
situation that celebrated kingdom is included within the immense
peninsula of Africa; but it is accessible only on the side of
Asia, whose revolutions, in almost every period of history, Egypt
has humbly obeyed. A Roman præfect was seated on the splendid
throne of the Ptolemies; and the iron sceptre of the Mamelukes is
now in the hands of a Turkish pacha. The Nile flows down the
country, above five hundred miles from the tropic of Cancer to
the Mediterranean, and marks on either side the extent of
fertility by the measure of its inundations. Cyrene, situate
towards the west, and along the sea-coast, was first a Greek
colony, afterwards a province of Egypt, and is now lost in the
desert of Barca. 851
85 (return) [ Ptolemy and Strabo, with the modern geographers,
fix the Isthmus of Suez as the boundary of Asia and Africa.
Dionysius, Mela, Pliny, Sallust, Hirtius, and Solinus, have
preferred for that purpose the western branch of the Nile, or
even the great Catabathmus, or descent, which last would assign
to Asia, not only Egypt, but part of Libya.]
851 (return) [ The French editor has a long and unnecessary note
on the History of Cyrene. For the present state of that coast and
country, the volume of Captain Beechey is full of interesting
details. Egypt, now an independent and improving kingdom,
appears, under the enterprising rule of Mahommed Ali, likely to
revenge its former oppression upon the decrepit power of the
Turkish empire.—M.—This note was written in 1838. The future
destiny of Egypt is an important problem, only to be solved by
time. This observation will also apply to the new French colony
in Algiers.—M. 1845.]
From Cyrene to the ocean, the coast of Africa extends above
fifteen hundred miles; yet so closely is it pressed between the
Mediterranean and the Sahara, or sandy desert, that its breadth
seldom exceeds fourscore or a hundred miles. The eastern division
was considered by the Romans as the more peculiar and proper
province of Africa. Till the arrival of the Phœnician colonies,
that fertile country was inhabited by the Libyans, the most
savage of mankind. Under the immediate jurisdiction of Carthage,
it became the centre of commerce and empire; but the republic of
Carthage is now degenerated into the feeble and disorderly states
of Tripoli and Tunis. The military government of Algiers
oppresses the wide extent of Numidia, as it was once united under
Massinissa and Jugurtha; but in the time of Augustus, the limits
of Numidia were contracted; and, at least, two thirds of the
country acquiesced in the name of Mauritania, with the epithet of
Cæsariensis. The genuine Mauritania, or country of the Moors,
which, from the ancient city of Tingi, or Tangier, was
distinguished by the appellation of Tingitana, is represented by
the modern kingdom of Fez. Salle, on the Ocean, so infamous at
present for its piratical depredations, was noticed by the
Romans, as the extreme object of their power, and almost of their
geography. A city of their foundation may still be discovered
near Mequinez, the residence of the barbarian whom we condescend
to style the Emperor of Morocco; but it does not appear, that his
more southern dominions, Morocco itself, and Segelmessa, were
ever comprehended within the Roman province. The western parts of
Africa are intersected by the branches of Mount Atlas, a name so
idly celebrated by the fancy of poets; 86 but which is now
diffused over the immense ocean that rolls between the ancient
and the new continent. 87
86 (return) [ The long range, moderate height, and gentle
declivity of Mount Atlas, (see Shaw’s Travels, p. 5,) are very
unlike a solitary mountain which rears its head into the clouds,
and seems to support the heavens. The peak of Teneriff, on the
contrary, rises a league and a half above the surface of the sea;
and, as it was frequently visited by the Phœnicians, might engage
the notice of the Greek poets. See Buffon, Histoire Naturelle,
tom. i. p. 312. Histoire des Voyages, tom. ii.]
87 (return) [ M. de Voltaire, tom. xiv. p. 297, unsupported by
either fact or probability, has generously bestowed the Canary
Islands on the Roman empire.]
Having now finished the circuit of the Roman empire, we may
observe, that Africa is divided from Spain by a narrow strait of
about twelve miles, through which the Atlantic flows into the
Mediterranean. The columns of Hercules, so famous among the
ancients, were two mountains which seemed to have been torn
asunder by some convulsion of the elements; and at the foot of
the European mountain, the fortress of Gibraltar is now seated.
The whole extent of the Mediterranean Sea, its coasts and its
islands, were comprised within the Roman dominion. Of the larger
islands, the two Baleares, which derive their name of Majorca and
Minorca from their respective size, are subject at present, the
former to Spain, the latter to Great Britain. 871 It is easier to
deplore the fate, than to describe the actual condition, of
Corsica. 872 Two Italian sovereigns assume a regal title from
Sardinia and Sicily. Crete, or Candia, with Cyprus, and most of
the smaller islands of Greece and Asia, have been subdued by the
Turkish arms, whilst the little rock of Malta defies their power,
and has emerged, under the government of its military Order, into
fame and opulence. 873
871 (return) [ Minorca was lost to Great Britain in 1782. Ann.
Register for that year.—M.]
872 (return) [ The gallant struggles of the Corsicans for their
independence, under Paoli, were brought to a close in the year
1769. This volume was published in 1776. See Botta, Storia
d’Italia, vol. xiv.—M.]
873 (return) [ Malta, it need scarcely be said, is now in the
possession of the English. We have not, however, thought it
necessary to notice every change in the political state of the
world, since the time of Gibbon.—M]
This long enumeration of provinces, whose broken fragments have
formed so many powerful kingdoms, might almost induce us to
forgive the vanity or ignorance of the ancients. Dazzled with the
extensive sway, the irresistible strength, and the real or
affected moderation of the emperors, they permitted themselves to
despise, and sometimes to forget, the outlying countries which
had been left in the enjoyment of a barbarous independence; and
they gradually usurped the license of confounding the Roman
monarchy with the globe of the earth. 88 But the temper, as well
as knowledge, of a modern historian, require a more sober and
accurate language. He may impress a juster image of the greatness
of Rome, by observing that the empire was above two thousand
miles in breadth, from the wall of Antoninus and the northern
limits of Dacia, to Mount Atlas and the tropic of Cancer; that it
extended in length more than three thousand miles from the
Western Ocean to the Euphrates; that it was situated in the
finest part of the Temperate Zone, between the twenty-fourth and
fifty-sixth degrees of northern latitude; and that it was
supposed to contain above sixteen hundred thousand square miles,
for the most part of fertile and well-cultivated land. 89
88 (return) [ Bergier, Hist. des Grands Chemins, l. iii. c. 1, 2,
3, 4, a very useful collection.]
89 (return) [ See Templeman’s Survey of the Globe; but I distrust
both the Doctor’s learning and his maps.]
Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part I.
Of The Union And Internal Prosperity Of The Roman Empire, In The
Age Of The Antonines.
It is not alone by the rapidity, or extent of conquest, that we
should estimate the greatness of Rome. The sovereign of the
Russian deserts commands a larger portion of the globe. In the
seventh summer after his passage of the Hellespont, Alexander
erected the Macedonian trophies on the banks of the Hyphasis. 1
Within less than a century, the irresistible Zingis, and the
Mogul princes of his race, spread their cruel devastations and
transient empire from the Sea of China, to the confines of Egypt
and Germany. 2 But the firm edifice of Roman power was raised and
preserved by the wisdom of ages. The obedient provinces of Trajan
and the Antonines were united by laws, and adorned by arts. They
might occasionally suffer from the partial abuse of delegated
authority; but the general principle of government was wise,
simple, and beneficent. They enjoyed the religion of their
ancestors, whilst in civil honors and advantages they were
exalted, by just degrees, to an equality with their conquerors.
1 (return) [ They were erected about the midway between Lahor and
Delhi. The conquests of Alexander in Hindostan were confined to
the Punjab, a country watered by the five great streams of the
Indus. * Note: The Hyphasis is one of the five rivers which join
the Indus or the Sind, after having traversed the province of the
Pendj-ab—a name which in Persian, signifies _five rivers_. * * *
G. The five rivers were, 1. The Hydaspes, now the Chelum, Behni,
or Bedusta, (_Sanscrit_, Vitashà, Arrow-swift.) 2. The Acesines,
the Chenab, (_Sanscrit_, Chandrabhágâ, Moon-gift.) 3. Hydraotes,
the Ravey, or Iraoty, (_Sanscrit_, Irâvatî.) 4. Hyphasis, the
Beyah, (_Sanscrit_, Vepâsà, Fetterless.) 5. The Satadru,
(_Sanscrit_, the Hundred Streamed,) the Sutledj, known first to
the Greeks in the time of Ptolemy. Rennel. Vincent, Commerce of
Anc. book 2. Lassen, Pentapotam. Ind. Wilson’s Sanscrit Dict.,
and the valuable memoir of Lieut. Burnes, Journal of London
Geogr. Society, vol. iii. p. 2, with the travels of that very
able writer. Compare Gibbon’s own note, c. lxv. note 25.—M
substit. for G.]
2 (return) [ See M. de Guignes, Histoire des Huns, l. xv. xvi.
and xvii.]
I. The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it
concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of
the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of
their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in
the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally
true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the
magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not
only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.
The superstition of the people was not imbittered by any mixture
of theological rancor; nor was it confined by the chains of any
speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached
to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different
religions of the earth. 3 Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream
or an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey,
perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief,
and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of
the Pagan mythology was interwoven with various but not
discordant materials. As soon as it was allowed that sages and
heroes, who had lived or who had died for the benefit of their
country, were exalted to a state of power and immortality, it was
universally confessed, that they deserved, if not the adoration,
at least the reverence, of all mankind. The deities of a thousand
groves and a thousand streams possessed, in peace, their local
and respective influence; nor could the Romans who deprecated the
wrath of the Tiber, deride the Egyptian who presented his
offering to the beneficent genius of the Nile. The visible powers
of nature, the planets, and the elements were the same throughout
the universe. The invisible governors of the moral world were
inevitably cast in a similar mould of fiction and allegory. Every
virtue, and even vice, acquired its divine representative; every
art and profession its patron, whose attributes, in the most
distant ages and countries, were uniformly derived from the
character of their peculiar votaries. A republic of gods of such
opposite tempers and interests required, in every system, the
moderating hand of a supreme magistrate, who, by the progress of
knowledge and flattery, was gradually invested with the sublime
perfections of an Eternal Parent, and an Omnipotent Monarch. 4
Such was the mild spirit of antiquity, that the nations were less
attentive to the difference, than to the resemblance, of their
religious worship. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as
they met before their respective altars, easily persuaded
themselves, that under various names, and with various
ceremonies, they adored the same deities. 5 The elegant mythology
of Homer gave a beautiful, and almost a regular form, to the
polytheism of the ancient world.
3 (return) [ There is not any writer who describes in so lively a
manner as Herodotus the true genius of polytheism. The best
commentary may be found in Mr. Hume’s Natural History of
Religion; and the best contrast in Bossuet’s Universal History.
Some obscure traces of an intolerant spirit appear in the conduct
of the Egyptians, (see Juvenal, Sat. xv.;) and the Christians, as
well as Jews, who lived under the Roman empire, formed a very
important exception; so important indeed, that the discussion
will require a distinct chapter of this work. * Note: M.
Constant, in his very learned and eloquent work, “Sur la
Religion,” with the two additional volumes, “Du Polytheisme
Romain,” has considered the whole history of polytheism in a tone
of philosophy, which, without subscribing to all his opinions, we
may be permitted to admire. “The boasted tolerance of polytheism
did not rest upon the respect due from society to the freedom of
individual opinion. The polytheistic nations, tolerant as they
were towards each other, as separate states, were not the less
ignorant of the eternal principle, the only basis of enlightened
toleration, that every one has a right to worship God in the
manner which seems to him the best. Citizens, on the contrary,
were bound to conform to the religion of the state; they had not
the liberty to adopt a foreign religion, though that religion
might be legally recognized in their own city, for the strangers
who were its votaries.” —Sur la Religion, v. 184. Du. Polyth.
Rom. ii. 308. At this time, the growing religious indifference,
and the general administration of the empire by Romans, who,
being strangers, would do no more than protect, not enlist
themselves in the cause of the local superstitions, had
introduced great laxity. But intolerance was clearly the theory
both of the Greek and Roman law. The subject is more fully
considered in another place.—M.]
4 (return) [ The rights, powers, and pretensions of the sovereign
of Olympus are very clearly described in the xvth book of the
Iliad; in the Greek original, I mean; for Mr. Pope, without
perceiving it, has improved the theology of Homer. * Note: There
is a curious coincidence between Gibbon’s expressions and those
of the newly-recovered “De Republica” of Cicero, though the
argument is rather the converse, lib. i. c. 36. “Sive hæc ad
utilitatem vitæ constitute sint a principibus rerum publicarum,
ut rex putaretur unus esse in cœlo, qui nutu, ut ait Homerus,
totum Olympum converteret, idemque et rex et patos haberetur
omnium.”—M.]
5 (return) [ See, for instance, Cæsar de Bell. Gall. vi. 17.
Within a century or two, the Gauls themselves applied to their
gods the names of Mercury, Mars, Apollo, &c.]
The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature
of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, on
the Divine Nature, as a very curious and important speculation;
and in the profound inquiry, they displayed the strength and
weakness of the human understanding. 6 Of the four most
celebrated schools, the Stoics and the Platonists endeavored to
reconcile the jaring interests of reason and piety. They have
left us the most sublime proofs of the existence and perfections
of the first cause; but, as it was impossible for them to
conceive the creation of matter, the workman in the Stoic
philosophy was not sufficiently distinguished from the work;
whilst, on the contrary, the spiritual God of Plato and his
disciples resembled an idea, rather than a substance. The
opinions of the Academics and Epicureans were of a less religious
cast; but whilst the modest science of the former induced them to
doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny,
the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry,
prompted by emulation, and supported by freedom, had divided the
public teachers of philosophy into a variety of contending sects;
but the ingenious youth, who, from every part, resorted to
Athens, and the other seats of learning in the Roman empire, were
alike instructed in every school to reject and to despise the
religion of the multitude. How, indeed, was it possible that a
philosopher should accept, as divine truths, the idle tales of
the poets, and the incoherent traditions of antiquity; or that he
should adore, as gods, those imperfect beings whom he must have
despised, as men? Against such unworthy adversaries, Cicero
condescended to employ the arms of reason and eloquence; but the
satire of Lucian was a much more adequate, as well as more
efficacious, weapon. We may be well assured, that a writer,
conversant with the world, would never have ventured to expose
the gods of his country to public ridicule, had they not already
been the objects of secret contempt among the polished and
enlightened orders of society. 7
6 (return) [ The admirable work of Cicero de Natura Deorum is the
best clew we have to guide us through the dark and profound
abyss. He represents with candor, and confutes with subtlety, the
opinions of the philosophers.]
7 (return) [ I do not pretend to assert, that, in this
irreligious age, the natural terrors of superstition, dreams,
omens, apparitions, &c., had lost their efficacy.]
Notwithstanding the fashionable irreligion which prevailed in the
age of the Antonines, both the interest of the priests and the
credulity of the people were sufficiently respected. In their
writings and conversation, the philosophers of antiquity asserted
the independent dignity of reason; but they resigned their
actions to the commands of law and of custom. Viewing, with a
smile of pity and indulgence, the various errors of the vulgar,
they diligently practised the ceremonies of their fathers,
devoutly frequented the temples of the gods; and sometimes
condescending to act a part on the theatre of superstition, they
concealed the sentiments of an atheist under the sacerdotal
robes. Reasoners of such a temper were scarcely inclined to
wrangle about their respective modes of faith, or of worship. It
was indifferent to them what shape the folly of the multitude
might choose to assume; and they approached with the same inward
contempt, and the same external reverence, the altars of the
Libyan, the Olympian, or the Capitoline Jupiter. 8
8 (return) [ Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, and Plutarch always
inculcated a decent reverence for the religion of their own
country, and of mankind. The devotion of Epicurus was assiduous
and exemplary. Diogen. Lært. x. 10.]
It is not easy to conceive from what motives a spirit of
persecution could introduce itself into the Roman councils. The
magistrates could not be actuated by a blind, though honest
bigotry, since the magistrates were themselves philosophers; and
the schools of Athens had given laws to the senate. They could
not be impelled by ambition or avarice, as the temporal and
ecclesiastical powers were united in the same hands. The pontiffs
were chosen among the most illustrious of the senators; and the
office of Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the
emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of
religion, as it is connected with civil government. They
encouraged the public festivals which humanize the manners of the
people. They managed the arts of divination as a convenient
instrument of policy; and they respected, as the firmest bond of
society, the useful persuasion, that, either in this or in a
future life, the crime of perjury is most assuredly punished by
the avenging gods. 9 But whilst they acknowledged the general
advantages of religion, they were convinced that the various
modes of worship contributed alike to the same salutary purposes;
and that, in every country, the form of superstition, which had
received the sanction of time and experience, was the best
adapted to the climate, and to its inhabitants. Avarice and taste
very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant
statues of their gods, and the rich ornaments of their temples;
10 but, in the exercise of the religion which they derived from
their ancestors, they uniformly experienced the indulgence, and
even protection, of the Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul
seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal
toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human
sacrifices, the emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the
dangerous power of the Druids: 11 but the priests themselves,
their gods and their altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till
the final destruction of Paganism. 12
9 (return) [ Polybius, l. vi. c. 53, 54. Juvenal, Sat. xiii.
laments that in his time this apprehension had lost much of its
effect.]
10 (return) [ See the fate of Syracuse, Tarentum, Ambracia,
Corinth, &c., the conduct of Verres, in Cicero, (Actio ii. Orat.
4,) and the usual practice of governors, in the viiith Satire of
Juvenal.]
11 (return) [ Seuton. in Claud.—Plin. Hist. Nat. xxx. 1.]
12 (return) [ Pelloutier, Histoire des Celtes, tom. vi. p.
230—252.]
Rome, the capital of a great monarchy, was incessantly filled
with subjects and strangers from every part of the world, 13 who
all introduced and enjoyed the favorite superstitions of their
native country. 14 Every city in the empire was justified in
maintaining the purity of its ancient ceremonies; and the Roman
senate, using the common privilege, sometimes interposed, to
check this inundation of foreign rites. 141 The Egyptian
superstition, of all the most contemptible and abject, was
frequently prohibited: the temples of Serapis and Isis
demolished, and their worshippers banished from Rome and Italy.
15 But the zeal of fanaticism prevailed over the cold and feeble
efforts of policy. The exiles returned, the proselytes
multiplied, the temples were restored with increasing splendor,
and Isis and Serapis at length assumed their place among the
Roman Deities. 151 16 Nor was this indulgence a departure from
the old maxims of government. In the purest ages of the
commonwealth, Cybele and Æsculapius had been invited by solemn
embassies; 17 and it was customary to tempt the protectors of
besieged cities, by the promise of more distinguished honors than
they possessed in their native country. 18 Rome gradually became
the common temple of her subjects; and the freedom of the city
was bestowed on all the gods of mankind. 19
13 (return) [ Seneca, Consolat. ad Helviam, p. 74. Edit., Lips.]
14 (return) [ Dionysius Halicarn. Antiquitat. Roman. l. ii. (vol.
i. p. 275, edit. Reiske.)]
141 (return) [ Yet the worship of foreign gods at Rome was only
guarantied to the natives of those countries from whence they
came. The Romans administered the priestly offices only to the
gods of their fathers. Gibbon, throughout the whole preceding
sketch of the opinions of the Romans and their subjects, has
shown through what causes they were free from religious hatred
and its consequences. But, on the other hand the internal state
of these religions, the infidelity and hypocrisy of the upper
orders, the indifference towards all religion, in even the better
part of the common people, during the last days of the republic,
and under the Cæsars, and the corrupting principles of the
philosophers, had exercised a very pernicious influence on the
manners, and even on the constitution.—W.]
15 (return) [ In the year of Rome 701, the temple of Isis and
Serapis was demolished by the order of the Senate, (Dion Cassius,
l. xl. p. 252,) and even by the hands of the consul, (Valerius
Maximus, l. 3.) After the death of Cæsar it was restored at the
public expense, (Dion. l. xlvii. p. 501.) When Augustus was in
Egypt, he revered the majesty of Serapis, (Dion, l. li. p. 647;)
but in the Pomærium of Rome, and a mile round it, he prohibited
the worship of the Egyptian gods, (Dion, l. liii. p. 679; l. liv.
p. 735.) They remained, however, very fashionable under his reign
(Ovid. de Art. Amand. l. i.) and that of his successor, till the
justice of Tiberius was provoked to some acts of severity. (See
Tacit. Annal. ii. 85. Joseph. Antiquit. l. xviii. c. 3.) * Note:
See, in the pictures from the walls of Pompeii, the
representation of an Isiac temple and worship. Vestiges of
Egyptian worship have been traced in Gaul, and, I am informed,
recently in Britain, in excavations at York.— M.]
151 (return) [ Gibbon here blends into one, two events, distant a
hundred and sixty-six years from each other. It was in the year
of Rome 535, that the senate having ordered the destruction of
the temples of Isis and Serapis, the workman would lend his hand;
and the consul, L. Paulus himself (Valer. Max. 1, 3) seized the
axe, to give the first blow. Gibbon attribute this circumstance
to the second demolition, which took place in the year 701 and
which he considers as the first.—W.]
16 (return) [ Tertullian in Apologetic. c. 6, p. 74. Edit.
Havercamp. I am inclined to attribute their establishment to the
devotion of the Flavian family.]
17 (return) [ See Livy, l. xi. [Suppl.] and xxix.]
18 (return) [ Macrob. Saturnalia, l. iii. c. 9. He gives us a
form of evocation.]
19 (return) [ Minutius Fælix in Octavio, p. 54. Arnobius, l. vi.
p. 115.]
II. The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture,
the pure blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune,
and hastened the ruin, of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring genius
of Rome sacrificed vanity to ambition, and deemed it more
prudent, as well as honorable, to adopt virtue and merit for her
own wheresoever they were found, among slaves or strangers,
enemies or barbarians. 20 During the most flourishing æra of the
Athenian commonwealth, the number of citizens gradually decreased
from about thirty 21 to twenty-one thousand. 22 If, on the
contrary, we study the growth of the Roman republic, we may
discover, that, notwithstanding the incessant demands of wars and
colonies, the citizens, who, in the first census of Servius
Tullius, amounted to no more than eighty-three thousand, were
multiplied, before the commencement of the social war, to the
number of four hundred and sixty-three thousand men, able to bear
arms in the service of their country. 23 When the allies of Rome
claimed an equal share of honors and privileges, the senate
indeed preferred the chance of arms to an ignominious concession.
The Samnites and the Lucanians paid the severe penalty of their
rashness; but the rest of the Italian states, as they
successively returned to their duty, were admitted into the bosom
of the republic, 24 and soon contributed to the ruin of public
freedom. Under a democratical government, the citizens exercise
the powers of sovereignty; and those powers will be first abused,
and afterwards lost, if they are committed to an unwieldy
multitude. But when the popular assemblies had been suppressed by
the administration of the emperors, the conquerors were
distinguished from the vanquished nations, only as the first and
most honorable order of subjects; and their increase, however
rapid, was no longer exposed to the same dangers. Yet the wisest
princes, who adopted the maxims of Augustus, guarded with the
strictest care the dignity of the Roman name, and diffused the
freedom of the city with a prudent liberality. 25
20 (return) [ Tacit. Annal. xi. 24. The Orbis Romanus of the
learned Spanheim is a complete history of the progressive
admission of Latium, Italy, and the provinces, to the freedom of
Rome. * Note: Democratic states, observes Denina, (delle Revoluz.
d’ Italia, l. ii. c. l.), are most jealous of communication the
privileges of citizenship; monarchies or oligarchies willingly
multiply the numbers of their free subjects. The most remarkable
accessions to the strength of Rome, by the aggregation of
conquered and foreign nations, took place under the regal and
patrician—we may add, the Imperial government.—M.]
21 (return) [ Herodotus, v. 97. It should seem, however, that he
followed a large and popular estimation.]
22 (return) [ Athenæus, Deipnosophist. l. vi. p. 272. Edit.
Casaubon. Meursius de Fortunâ Atticâ, c. 4. * Note: On the number
of citizens in Athens, compare Bœckh, Public Economy of Athens,
(English Tr.,) p. 45, et seq. Fynes Clinton, Essay in Fasti Hel
lenici, vol. i. 381.—M.]
23 (return) [ See a very accurate collection of the numbers of
each Lustrum in M. de Beaufort, Republique Romaine, l. iv. c. 4.
Note: All these questions are placed in an entirely new point of
view by Niebuhr, (Römische Geschichte, vol. i. p. 464.) He
rejects the census of Servius fullius as unhistoric, (vol. ii. p.
78, et seq.,) and he establishes the principle that the census
comprehended all the confederate cities which had the right of
Isopolity.—M.]
24 (return) [ Appian. de Bell. Civil. l. i. Velleius Paterculus,
l. ii. c. 15, 16, 17.]
25 (return) [ Mæcenas had advised him to declare, by one edict,
all his subjects citizens. But we may justly suspect that the
historian Dion was the author of a counsel so much adapted to the
practice of his own age, and so little to that of Augustus.]
Chapter II: The Internal Prosperity In The Age Of The
Antonines.—Part II.
Till the privileges of Romans had been progressively extended to
all the inhabitants of the empire, an important distinction was
preserved between Italy and the provinces. The former was
esteemed the centre of public unity, and the firm basis of the
constitution. Italy claimed the birth, or at least the residence,
of the emperors and the senate. 26 The estates of the Italians
were exempt from taxes, their persons from the arbitrary
jurisdiction of governors. Their municipal corporations, formed
after the perfect model of the capital, 261 were intrusted, under
the immediate eye of the supreme power, with the execution of the
laws. From the foot of the Alps to the extremity of Calabria, all
the natives of Italy were born citizens of Rome. Their partial
distinctions were obliterated, and they insensibly coalesced into
one great nation, united by language, manners, and civil
institutions, and equal to the weight of a powerful empire. The
republic gloried in her generous policy, and was frequently
rewarded by the merit and services of her adopted sons. Had she
always confined the distinction of Romans to the ancient families
within the walls of the city, that immortal name would have been
deprived of some of its noblest ornaments. Virgil was a native of
Mantua; Horace was inclined to doubt whether he should call
himself an Apulian or a Lucanian; it was in Padua that an
historian was found worthy to record the majestic series of Roman
victories. The patriot family of the Catos emerged from Tusculum;
and the little town of Arpinum claimed the double honor of
producing Marius and Cicero, the former of whom deserved, after
Romulus and Camillus, to be styled the Third Founder of Rome; and
the latter, after saving his country from the designs of
Catiline, enabled her to contend with Athens for the palm of
eloquence. 27
26 (return) [ The senators were obliged to have one third of
their own landed property in Italy. See Plin. l. vi. ep. 19. The
qualification was reduced by Marcus to one fourth. Since the
reign of Trajan, Italy had sunk nearer to the level of the
provinces.]
261 (return) [ It may be doubted whether the municipal government
of the cities was not the old Italian constitution rather than a
transcript from that of Rome. The free government of the cities,
observes Savigny, was the leading characteristic of Italy.
Geschichte des Römischen Rechts, i. p. G.—M.]
27 (return) [ The first part of the Verona Illustrata of the
Marquis Maffei gives the clearest and most comprehensive view of
the state of Italy under the Cæsars. * Note: Compare Denina,
Revol. d’ Italia, l. ii. c. 6, p. 100, 4 to edit.]
The provinces of the empire (as they have been described in the
preceding chapter) were destitute of any public force, or
constitutional freedom. In Etruria, in Greece, 28 and in Gaul, 29
it was the first care of the senate to dissolve those dangerous
confederacies, which taught mankind that, as the Roman arms
prevailed by division, they might be resisted by union. Those
princes, whom the ostentation of gratitude or generosity
permitted for a while to hold a precarious sceptre, were
dismissed from their thrones, as soon as they had performed their
appointed task of fashioning to the yoke the vanquished nations.
The free states and cities which had embraced the cause of Rome
were rewarded with a nominal alliance, and insensibly sunk into
real servitude. The public authority was everywhere exercised by
the ministers of the senate and of the emperors, and that
authority was absolute, and without control. 291 But the same
salutary maxims of government, which had secured the peace and
obedience of Italy were extended to the most distant conquests. A
nation of Romans was gradually formed in the provinces, by the
double expedient of introducing colonies, and of admitting the
most faithful and deserving of the provincials to the freedom of
Rome.
28 (return) [ See Pausanias, l. vii. The Romans condescended to
restore the names of those assemblies, when they could no longer
be dangerous.]
29 (return) [ They are frequently mentioned by Cæsar. The Abbé
Dubos attempts, with very little success, to prove that the
assemblies of Gaul were continued under the emperors. Histoire de
l’Etablissement de la Monarchie Francoise, l. i. c. 4.]
291 (return) [ This is, perhaps, rather overstated. Most cities
retained the choice of their municipal officers: some retained
valuable privileges; Athens, for instance, in form was still a
confederate city. (Tac. Ann. ii. 53.) These privileges, indeed,
depended entirely on the arbitrary will of the emperor, who
revoked or restored them according to his caprice. See Walther
Geschichte des Römischen Rechts, i. 324—an admirable summary of
the Roman constitutional history.—M.]
“Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits,” is a very just
observation of Seneca, 30 confirmed by history and experience.
The natives of Italy, allured by pleasure or by interest,
hastened to enjoy the advantages of victory; and we may remark,
that, about forty years after the reduction of Asia, eighty
thousand Romans were massacred in one day, by the cruel orders of
Mithridates. 31 These voluntary exiles were engaged, for the most
part, in the occupations of commerce, agriculture, and the farm
of the revenue. But after the legions were rendered permanent by
the emperors, the provinces were peopled by a race of soldiers;
and the veterans, whether they received the reward of their
service in land or in money, usually settled with their families
in the country, where they had honorably spent their youth.
Throughout the empire, but more particularly in the western
parts, the most fertile districts, and the most convenient
situations, were reserved for the establishment of colonies; some
of which were of a civil, and others of a military nature. In
their manners and internal policy, the colonies formed a perfect
representation of their great parent; and they were soon endeared
to the natives by the ties of friendship and alliance, they
effectually diffused a reverence for the Roman name, and a
desire, which was seldom disappointed, of sharing, in due time,
its honors and advantages. 32 The municipal cities insensibly
equalled the rank and splendor of the colonies; and in the reign
of Hadrian, it was disputed which was the preferable condition,
of those societies which had issued from, or those which had been
received into, the bosom of Rome. 33 The right of Latium, as it
was called, 331 conferred on the cities to which it had been
granted, a more partial favor. The magistrates only, at the
expiration of their office, assumed the quality of Roman
citizens; but as those offices were annual, in a few years they
circulated round the principal families. 34 Those of the
provincials who were permitted to bear arms in the legions; 35
those who exercised any civil employment; all, in a word, who
performed any public service, or displayed any personal talents,
were rewarded with a present, whose value was continually
diminished by the increasing liberality of the emperors. Yet
even, in the age of the Antonines, when the freedom of the city
had been bestowed on the greater number of their subjects, it was
still accompanied with very solid advantages. The bulk of the
people acquired, with that title, the benefit of the Roman laws,
particularly in the interesting articles of marriage, testaments,
and inheritances; and the road of fortune was open to those whose
pretensions were seconded by favor or merit. The grandsons of the
Gauls, who had besieged Julius Cæsar in Alesia, commanded
legions, governed provinces, and were admitted into the senate of
Rome. 36 Their ambition, instead of disturbing the tranquillity
of the state, was intimately connected with its safety and
greatness.
30 (return) [ Seneca in Consolat. ad Helviam, c. 6.]
31 (return) [ Memnon apud Photium, (c. 33,) [c. 224, p. 231, ed
Bekker.] Valer. Maxim. ix. 2. Plutarch and Dion Cassius swell the
massacre to 150,000 citizens; but I should esteem the smaller
number to be more than sufficient.]
32 (return) [ Twenty-five colonies were settled in Spain, (see
Plin. Hist. Nat. iii. 3, 4; iv. 35;) and nine in Britain, of
which London, Colchester, Lincoln, Chester, Gloucester, and Bath
still remain considerable cities. (See Richard of Cirencester, p.
36, and Whittaker’s History of Manchester, l. i. c. 3.)]
33 (return) [ Aul. Gel. Noctes Atticæ, xvi 13. The Emperor
Hadrian expressed his surprise, that the cities of Utica, Gades,
and Italica, which already enjoyed the rights of _Municipia_,
should solicit the title of _colonies_. Their example, however,
became fashionable, and the empire was filled with honorary
colonies. See Spanheim, de Usu Numismatum Dissertat. xiii.]
331 (return) [ The right of Latium conferred an exemption from
the government of the Roman præfect. Strabo states this
distinctly, l. iv. p. 295, edit. Cæsar’s. See also Walther, p.
233.—M]
34 (return) [ Spanheim, Orbis Roman. c. 8, p. 62.]
35 (return) [ Aristid. in Romæ Encomio. tom. i. p. 218, edit.
Jebb.]
36 (return) [ Tacit. Annal. xi. 23, 24. Hist. iv. 74.]
So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over
national manners, that it was their most serious care to extend,
with the progress of their arms, the use of the Latin tongue. 37
The ancient dialects of Italy, the Sabine, the Etruscan, and the
Venetian, sunk into oblivion; but in the provinces, the east was
less docile than the west to the voice of its victorious
preceptors. This obvious difference marked the two portions of
the empire with a distinction of colors, which, though it was in
some degree concealed during the meridian splendor of prosperity,
became gradually more visible, as the shades of night descended
upon the Roman world. The western countries were civilized by the
same hands which subdued them. As soon as the barbarians were
reconciled to obedience, their minds were open to any new
impressions of knowledge and politeness. The language of Virgil
and Cicero, though with some inevitable mixture of corruption,
was so universally adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and
Pannonia, 38 that the faint traces of the Punic or Celtic idioms
were preserved only in the mountains, or among the peasants. 39
Education and study insensibly inspired the natives of those
countries with the sentiments of Romans; and Italy gave fashions,
as well as laws, to her Latin provincials. They solicited with
more ardor, and obtained with more facility, the freedom and
honors of the state; supported the national dignity in letters 40
and in arms; and at length, in the person of Trajan, produced an
emperor whom the Scipios would not have disowned for their
countryman. The situation of the Greeks was very different from
that of the barbarians. The former had been long since civilized
and corrupted. They had too much taste to relinquish their
language, and too much vanity to adopt any foreign institutions.
Still preserving the prejudices, after they had lost the virtues,
of their ancestors, they affected to despise the unpolished
manners of the Roman conquerors, whilst they were compelled to
respect their superior wisdom and power. 41 Nor was the influence
of the Grecian language and sentiments confined to the narrow
limits of that once celebrated country. Their empire, by the
progress of colonies and conquest, had been diffused from the
Adriatic to the Euphrates and the Nile. Asia was covered with
Greek cities, and the long reign of the Macedonian kings had
introduced a silent revolution into Syria and Egypt. In their
pompous courts, those princes united the elegance of Athens with
the luxury of the East, and the example of the court was
imitated, at an humble distance, by the higher ranks of their
subjects. Such was the general division of the Roman empire into
the Latin and Greek languages. To these we may add a third
distinction for the body of the natives in Syria, and especially
in Egypt, the use of their ancient dialects, by secluding them
from the commerce of mankind, checked the improvements of those
barbarians. 42 The slothful effeminacy of the former exposed them
to the contempt, the sullen ferociousness of the latter excited
the aversion, of the conquerors. 43 Those nations had submitted
to the Roman power, but they seldom desired or deserved the
freedom of the city: and it was remarked, that more than two
hundred and thirty years elapsed after the ruin of the Ptolemies,
before an Egyptian was admitted into the senate of Rome. 44
37 (return) [ See Plin. Hist. Natur. iii. 5. Augustin. de
Civitate Dei, xix 7 Lipsius de Pronunciatione Linguæ Latinæ, c.
3.]
38 (return) [ Apuleius and Augustin will answer for Africa;
Strabo for Spain and Gaul; Tacitus, in the life of Agricola, for
Britain; and Velleius Paterculus, for Pannonia. To them we may
add the language of the Inscriptions. * Note: Mr. Hallam contests
this assertion as regards Britain. “Nor did the Romans ever
establish their language—I know not whether they wished to do
so—in this island, as we perceive by that stubborn British tongue
which has survived two conquests.” In his note, Mr. Hallam
examines the passage from Tacitus (Agric. xxi.) to which Gibbon
refers. It merely asserts the progress of Latin studies among the
higher orders. (Midd. Ages, iii. 314.) Probably it was a kind of
court language, and that of public affairs and prevailed in the
Roman colonies.—M.]
39 (return) [ The Celtic was preserved in the mountains of Wales,
Cornwall, and Armorica. We may observe, that Apuleius reproaches
an African youth, who lived among the populace, with the use of
the Punic; whilst he had almost forgot Greek, and neither could
nor would speak Latin, (Apolog. p. 596.) The greater part of St.
Austin’s congregations were strangers to the Punic.]
40 (return) [ Spain alone produced Columella, the Senecas, Lucan,
Martial, and Quintilian.]
41 (return) [ There is not, I believe, from Dionysius to Libanus,
a single Greek critic who mentions Virgil or Horace. They seem
ignorant that the Romans had any good writers.]
42 (return) [ The curious reader may see in Dupin, (Bibliotheque
Ecclesiastique, tom. xix. p. 1, c. 8,) how much the use of the
Syriac and Egyptian languages was still preserved.]
43 (return) [ See Juvenal, Sat. iii. and xv. Ammian. Marcellin.
xxii. 16.]
44 (return) [ Dion Cassius, l. lxxvii. p. 1275. The first
instance happened under the reign of Septimius Severus.]
It is a just though trite observation, that victorious Rome was
herself subdued by the arts of Greece. Those immortal writers who
still command the admiration of modern Europe, soon became the
favorite object of study and imitation in Italy and the western
provinces. But the elegant amusements of the Romans were not
suffered to interfere with their sound maxims of policy. Whilst
they acknowledged the charms of the Greek, they asserted the
dignity of the Latin tongue, and the exclusive use of the latter
was inflexibly maintained in the administration of civil as well
as military government. 45 The two languages exercised at the
same time their separate jurisdiction throughout the empire: the
former, as the natural idiom of science; the latter, as the legal
dialect of public transactions. Those who united letters with
business were equally conversant with both; and it was almost
impossible, in any province, to find a Roman subject, of a
liberal education, who was at once a stranger to the Greek and to
the Latin language.
45 (return) [ See Valerius Maximus, l. ii. c. 2, n. 2. The
emperor Claudius disfranchised an eminent Grecian for not
understanding Latin. He was probably in some public office.
Suetonius in Claud. c. 16. * Note: Causes seem to have been
pleaded, even in the senate, in both languages. Val. Max. _loc.
cit_. Dion. l. lvii. c. 15.—M]
It was by such institutions that the nations of the empire
insensibly melted away into the Roman name and people. But there
still remained, in the centre of every province and of every
family, an unhappy condition of men who endured the weight,
without sharing the benefits, of society. In the free states of
antiquity, the domestic slaves were exposed to the wanton rigor
of despotism. The perfect settlement of the Roman empire was
preceded by ages of violence and rapine. The slaves consisted,
for the most part, of barbarian captives, 451 taken in thousands
by the chance of war, purchased at a vile price, 46 accustomed to
a life of independence, and impatient to break and to revenge
their fetters. Against such internal enemies, whose desperate
insurrections had more than once reduced the republic to the
brink of destruction, 47 the most severe 471 regulations, 48 and
the most cruel treatment, seemed almost justified by the great
law of self-preservation. But when the principal nations of
Europe, Asia, and Africa were united under the laws of one
sovereign, the source of foreign supplies flowed with much less
abundance, and the Romans were reduced to the milder but more
tedious method of propagation. 481 In their numerous families,
and particularly in their country estates, they encouraged the
marriage of their slaves. 482 The sentiments of nature, the
habits of education, and the possession of a dependent species of
property, contributed to alleviate the hardships of servitude. 49
The existence of a slave became an object of greater value, and
though his happiness still depended on the temper and
circumstances of the master, the humanity of the latter, instead
of being restrained by fear, was encouraged by the sense of his
own interest. The progress of manners was accelerated by the
virtue or policy of the emperors; and by the edicts of Hadrian
and the Antonines, the protection of the laws was extended to the
most abject part of mankind. The jurisdiction of life and death
over the slaves, a power long exercised and often abused, was
taken out of private hands, and reserved to the magistrates
alone. The subterraneous prisons were abolished; and, upon a just
complaint of intolerable treatment, the injured slave obtained
either his deliverance, or a less cruel master. 50
451 (return) [ It was this which rendered the wars so sanguinary,
and the battles so obstinate. The immortal Robertson, in an
excellent discourse on the state of the world at the period of
the establishment of Christianity, has traced a picture of the
melancholy effects of slavery, in which we find all the depth of
his views and the strength of his mind. I shall oppose
successively some passages to the reflections of Gibbon. The
reader will see, not without interest, the truths which Gibbon
appears to have mistaken or voluntarily neglected, developed by
one of the best of modern historians. It is important to call
them to mind here, in order to establish the facts and their
consequences with accuracy. I shall more than once have occasion
to employ, for this purpose, the discourse of Robertson.
“Captives taken in war were, in all probability, the first
persons subjected to perpetual servitude; and, when the
necessities or luxury of mankind increased the demand for slaves,
every new war recruited their number, by reducing the vanquished
to that wretched condition. Hence proceeded the fierce and
desperate spirit with which wars were carried on among ancient
nations. While chains and slavery were the certain lot of the
conquered, battles were fought, and towns defended with a rage
and obstinacy which nothing but horror at such a fate could have
inspired; but, putting
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/731