After the death of Septimius Severus (211), M. Bassianus, as he is
called after his maternal grandfather,—or M. Antoninus as he is called
in consequence of the fiction of his adoption; or Caracalla, as he is
called by the moderns; had together with his brother, Geta, taken upon
himself the government; the younger, however, being subordinate to the
elder. Neither of them was noble-hearted or praiseworthy; yet Geta
excites the greater interest of the two, because of his having become
the victim: still, it is not at all clear that he was better than the
other. It is hardly possible to form an opinion of him. The hostility
between the two brothers broke out soon after the death of their father:
their feelings towards each other became very bad, which was chiefly
owing to the malice of the elder one, and they were already about to
divide the empire. But as this would have been to the disadvantage of
the younger, who was to have had a far smaller empire in the East; their
mother made a last attempt to bring about a reconciliation between them,
but in vain. Caracalla seemed to listen to her proposals; but this was
only a stratagem to entice his brother into a place where he could
murder him. In the apartments of the mother, the reconciliation was to
have been brought about: Geta was stabbed in her arms. By this murder,
the minds of men, which even then had begun to be quite Asiatic in
feeling,—inconceivably so indeed,—were not much affected. Even the
mother, although Geta had been her darling son, did not, after what had
happened, change in her behaviour to her elder one; but she seemed to
look upon Geta’s death as an unavoidable dispensation of fate.
In the year 212, Caracalla gave himself up to the most wanton cruelties
and extortions: these last were still more systematic than those of
Commodus, who practised them in Rome only, whereas Caracalla carried
them on at the same time in the provinces. It is a very just remark of
Gibbon’s, that the tyranny of the Roman emperors weighed most heavily on
Rome, and was less felt in the rest of Italy, and least of all in the
provinces, which were sometimes worse off under the good emperors than
under the bad ones. Caracalla, however, unfortunately for the provinces,
travelled through them, and there his savage rage was yet greater than
at Rome itself; he brought with him fell bloodshed into those hapless
countries,—into Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt,—and drove the
inhabitants to despair: the only thing that he cared for, was to satisfy
his soldiers. The prætorians had been re-established by Severus, but on
quite a different footing. Whereas formerly they had been a sort of
janissaries, only that they did not leave Rome, it being even doubtful
whether they ever accompanied the emperors in their wars; Severus now
formed an entirely new guard, of three or four times the strength of the
old one, as many indeed as thirty or forty thousand men; these he picked
out from the legions, and he gave them double pay and higher rank. Under
Severus and Caracalla they were no longer left behind in Rome, but they
accompanied the emperors on their journeys and expeditions: thus
Caracalla took them with him to the East. The most dreadful of
Caracalla’s deeds was the massacre at Alexandria, where he enticed the
inhabitants to come out of their city; made them feel quite secure; and
then ordered his soldiers to slaughter them all. The people of
Alexandria had provoked him, as they had done almost all the emperors,
even the best of them: Alexandria and Antioch were the seats of wit,
which spoke out in the theatres, or was placarded in pasquinades. They
had now lashed the Roman tyrant for the murder of Geta, and this he
never forgave.
Caracalla granted the right of citizenship to all the subjects of the
Roman empire; that is to say, the _peregrinitas_ was abolished
throughout the whole of it: thus the _vicesima hereditatum_, which had
until then been raised from Roman citizens, was made general, and he
moreover raised it into a _decima_. Yet the _Latini_ still remained
after this; only there was no more _peregrinitas_ for communities: in
the case of freedmen, however, a different law might apply. Caracalla
raised the taxes to an intolerable height, merely that he might have the
means of winning the hearts of the soldiers: Severus had already said
that the emperor who was sure of the army had nothing to fear.
Like Commodus, Caracalla had a taste for gladiatorial arts; but he was
small in size, and not so handsome as Commodus. He had a silly kind of
fondness for Alexander the Great; and if we may judge from the busts, it
must be acknowledged that there was some likeness between them: the
province of Macedon was, therefore, the only one to which he did any
good. He formed a phalanx of Macedonians, and also assumed the name of
Magnus: in the law books, he is often spoken of as Magnus Antoninus. Led
by this feeling, he also went like Alexander to the East, to overthrow
the Parthian empire; and he had his Macedonian phalanx with him.
Everywhere he showed a very strong leaning towards anything that was
Greek, a taste which may have been very much owing to the fact of his
having a Syrian mother. The war against the Parthians he brought on,
without having real cause for it. According to Herodian, he was guilty
of an act of monstrous treachery: he invited Artabanus to a conference,
and then tried to surprise him, and murdered a number of Parthians.
These accounts, however, are all of them very doubtful in their details.
Severus had already taken possession of Osroëne, where the reigning
dynasty had been established for three hundred years: in the legend, an
Abgarus betakes himself to our Saviour, beseeching him for his aid in a
sickness. The king Abgarus at this time, was a vassal of the Parthians:
Caracalla expelled him, and converted Osroëne into a Roman province.
Whilst he was engaged here in preparations for a war against the
Parthians themselves, he was murdered, in the year 217, at the
instigation of the _præfectus prætorio_ M. Macrinus, who had found his
own life to be threatened. The soldiers, however, heard of the death of
their emperor with indignation, and Macrinus had to try every means to
deceive them as to his share in it; whereupon he was proclaimed emperor.
Dio’s and Herodian’s accounts of Macrinus, which are in his favour, may
be much better relied upon than the nonsense of the _Scriptores Historiæ
Augustæ_. Yet if Macrinus wished to be a praiseworthy prince, his
character as such depended upon his getting the mastery over his
soldiers: for their lawlessness had frightfully increased under
Caracalla, as he let them do what they listed without punishing them.
Macrinus, therefore, began to reform them, introducing discipline, and
trying by degrees to lessen the concessions of Caracalla; and thus he
either disbanded whole legions as veterans, and enlisted new ones on
fairer conditions, or, which seems to me more likely, he merely filled
up the old ones by new recruits. By this, however, he made himself
hateful to them. They would not put up with it; and hence arose a
rebellion. Hereupon young Avitus came forth. They might, however, have
found another leader, Maximin perhaps, if Avitus had not presented
himself.
Julia Domna had, after the death of her son, been condemned to seclusion
by Macrinus, and she had herself put an end to her own life. Her sister
Mæsa also had been banished. The latter had two daughters, both of them
married in Syria: the names of the husbands were Roman, but the children
were thorough Syrians, or Syrian-Greeks. The husband of Soæmis, the
elder sister, was Sextus Varius Marcellus: this name, and the high
offices which he held, lead to the conclusion that he was a Roman. The
husband of the younger sister, Mamæa, was called Gessius Macrianus.
Soæmis had a son and several daughters; Mamæa, a son and a daughter. The
son of Soæmis was Avitus, afterwards M. Aurelius Antoninus, generally
known by us as Elagabalus (corruptly Heliogabalus, as the name has
nothing whatever to do with ἥλιος): he also bore the name of Bassianus,
as people at that time often dropped their names, and as often took new
ones. This Elagabalus was now seventeen years of age at most, quite a
Syrian, and priest to the god Elagabalus at Emesa, where some aerolites
which had fallen in the neighbourhood were worshipped. This young man,
Mæsa and his own mother Soæmis declared to have been the offspring of an
adulterous intercourse with Caracalla. Mæsa collected her immense riches
at Emesa, and taking advantage of the discontent of the soldiers began
to bribe them. Very many of them espoused her cause. Macrinus at first
held this defection to be of no consequence; but quite contrary to all
expectation, the fondness of the soldiers for Caracalla was transferred
to Elagabalus, from whom besides they looked for a new donation. Had
Macrinus now acted at once, he might yet have had the best of it; for in
the decisive battle, the prætorians displayed greater bravery than was
thought to be in them. But he gave himself up too soon for lost; and he
fled from the fight with his son Antoninus Diadumenianus to Asia Minor,
where he was overtaken and beheaded by the order of the young tyrant
(218).
The name of Elagabalus is branded in history: even Caligula and Nero,
when compared with him, appear in a favourable light. Caligula was not a
beast like him; Nero undoubtedly had talents; but there is nothing
whatever to redeem the vices of Elagabalus. The infamy of his reign is
appalling. His extortions, which were spent on the gratification of the
maddest fancies, were beyond everything; and yet the Roman world might
have deemed itself happy, if he had only extorted. There were fewer
actual cruelties; but he was ready for any wickedness: his only real
passion, and one which ruled him, was zeal for the glorification of his
idol Elagabalus, whom, as the god of the Sun, he wanted to place instead
of Jupiter Capitolinus on the throne of the gods in Rome, and whom he
exclusively worshipped. Even the soldiers were so disgusted with him, as
to execrate him; and they would have murdered him as early as in 221,
had he not, by the advice of his grandmother Mæsa, adopted as Cæsar his
cousin Alexianus, who was afterwards called Alexander Severus.
This Alexander, if Lampridius is correct, was now no longer a child,
being seventeen years old: according to Herodian, he was but thirteen or
fourteen. He was the very reverse of his cousin: for his was a noble
soul, like that of Marcus, the only difference being that of a fine
Asiatic disposition when compared with an European one. He was a
thorough Asiatic: being born in Phœnicia, he had first to learn Latin at
Rome; so that he was always looked upon there as a _Græculus_, as one
who was not a Latin. It is impossible to have a better will and a more
beautiful mind than this young man had: the innocence which beamed forth
from his countenance, gained him even the hearts of the soldiers, who,
rough as they were, seemed to have a sincere regard for him. When
Elagabalus now tried to get rid of him, and at the same time sought his
life, a rebellion arose, owing to a report having been spread of
Alexander’s death; and even when the mistake had been cleared up, the
riot was put down only with difficulty. But as Elagabalus, conscious of
his own worthlessness, could not disguise from himself that Alexander
was far more liked than he was, he took steps in right earnest, to
destroy his cousin; whereupon the rebellion broke out afresh with
irresistible fury, and Elagabalus was killed (222). His dead body was
flung into the river, and his memory cursed.
The reign of Alexander Severus lasted thirteen years, until 235. It is
one which we are in danger of representing in too fair a light, as it
seems that several authors have written a sort of Cyropædia on him. His
personal amiability and kindness, his zeal to do his duty, cannot be
called into doubt: his model was Marcus. But as Marcus was weak towards
Faustina, so Alexander was still weaker towards his mother. We read, on
the one hand, that he lightened the taxes; but on the other, _exempla
avaritiæ_ are told of Mamæa. Now, although this _avaritia_ may perhaps
have consisted in her hoarding treasure and jewels after the manner of
the East, the reproaches against her, and the complaints of his weakness
for her, were loud and general.
In the reign of Hadrian, we already meet with a council of state; and
though in the days of Septimius Severus it seems to have again fallen
into oblivion, we now see it completely organized as a regular branch of
the government, a standing board which had the management of every
matter of importance: its chief minister was the great Domitius
Ulpianus. This man was perhaps a kinsman of the emperor’s, as he was of
Tyrian origin, and he may thus have risen: he was not, however, born in
Tyre, as I have shown in another place.[55] A Syrian could not have
written as he did, nor have made himself such a master of the science of
Roman law. He might however have been indeed related to the imperial
family, and yet have now been living at Rome for a long time.
Alexander’s rule, and his endeavours for the general good, were thwarted
by insurmountable obstacles, owing to the power of the soldiers. These
he had to bring under control: but they were mutineers like the
janissaries; and this was now the case with the whole army, and no
longer with the prætorians alone. If we may believe some scattered
anecdotes, Alexander with all his gentleness displayed great firmness on
many occasions; yet he tried in vain to protect Ulpian. Papinian had
been murdered by Caracalla; Ulpian was slain by the soldiers before the
eyes of the emperor, who could hardly succeed in bringing Epagathus, the
ringleader of the mutiny, to punishment.
Marcus had driven back the German nations; in the reign of Commodus,
peace had been made with them; and in that of Severus, we also find
nothing about German wars; the Romans seem to have been in possession of
the _limes_ (the palisadoed ditch). But now the Germans began to
advance; and I am inclined to believe that the pale was broken through
in the time of Alexander Severus, as at the close of the war against
them, its seat was on the Rhine, and they must therefore have forced the
outworks. Unfortunately, we know next to nothing of the geography of
those parts: in many places in Swabia, we meet with remains of Roman
fortresses, the names of which are quite unknown to us. But even before
this, a great revolution had called away the emperor to the East. This
was the downfall of the Parthian dynasty, one of the unluckiest things
that could have happened to the Roman empire. The catastrophe is easily
accounted for. When a nation of shepherds gets the rule over a
cultivated region, as was often the case in Asia, it gradually loses its
bravery and sinks down to the level of those whom it has enslaved; yet
its sway will still last for some time. Parthia was a feudal kingdom, of
which Media, Babylonia, and other countries were fiefs with dynasties of
their own. In former times, the Parthians were very unequal enemies to
the Romans; but since the days of Marcus and Septimius Severus, their
power was broken: probably the conquest of Ctesiphon in the year 198,
had shaken the empire so much that its subjects thought of freeing
themselves from its yoke. Our chief guide here is the most authentic
history of Agathias. The Parthians must have utterly lost their
nationality: their light cavalry, for instance, is but very seldom
spoken off in their later times. We generally deem the insurrection of
the Persians against the Parthians to have been like that of the
Persians under Cyrus; but there was the same difference between the
Parthians and the other races, as there is at present between nomads and
the inhabitants of towns. The Persians who now shake off the yoke of the
Parthians, must therefore have been chiefly the Tadjicks (inhabitants of
towns) of the Iran race, whose abodes began at the Oxus. In Cyrus’
times, the Medes and Persians were two essentially distinct nations; but
the Medes must since then have become quite Persians, as they had now
one and the same language: Irak Ajemi has in all likelihood still
preserved the language of the Medes. A research as to this matter, would
be exceedingly interesting. In the struggle, the particulars of which
are altogether unknown to us, the Persians succeeded in shaking off the
thraldom of the Parthians; and these last vanish away, and we know not
what has become of them. On this, the Persian empire came forth anew,
and the old institutions were many of them restored: the Parthians had
ruled like barbarians over a civilized nation, oppressing it, checking
the exercise of its religion, and troubling the Persian worship of the
elements by their promiscuous idolatry. The Persians who restored the
empire, were headed by Ardaschir, son of Babek, who reckoned himself one
of the race of Sassan, which gave rise to the silly story. The departure
of the Parthians has been commemorated by a bas relief and an
inscription. Ardaschir also restored the old fire-worship, but, to the
great deterioration of its pristine purity, with a number of foreign
rites; and therefore the Byzantines are quite right in saying that the
later worship of the Persians was very different from the former one.
The centre of the empire also was no longer the province of Persis: it
was, on the contrary, removed from the Tigris to Ctesiphon, although
Ardaschir and others after him have set up monuments at Persepolis. Susa
had perished; Ecbatana was insignificant. Ardaschir, called by the Greek
Artaxerxes, now that the empire was restored, and the nation was
conscious of having achieved a great deed, at once asserted his claims
against the Romans, whose decline could not have escaped his notice: he
demanded the cession of all the countries to the Hellespont, because
Asia belonged to the Persians, just as Europe might to the Romans: the
answer of the Romans, of course, was war. In the issue of it, we have a
remarkable example of the little reliance which we can place on the
details of this history. Herodian’s account,—which is borne out by its
intrinsic probability,—is that the Romans undertook the war with three
armies; the first, on the right banks of the Euphrates; the second in
Media; the third in Mesopotamia, to keep up the connexion between the
two. He also says that the first, after a brave fight, had been obliged
to retreat owing to the difficulty of the country; that the second had
been entirely destroyed; and that the third moreover, which the emperor
himself commanded, had not achieved its purpose. This statement is
contradicted by an official letter of the emperor to the senate, wherein
he boasts of the greatest successes over the enemy, for which the senate
awarded him the honour of a triumph. Gibbon and Eckhel are quite of
different opinions here. Eckhel takes a very high stand among the
critical historians of our time, both for his learning and the
excellence of his judgment. His works are far from being appreciated as
they ought to be. His chronological criticisms have done much for the
history of the Roman emperors, and there are few of the modern labourers
in the field of ancient history to whom I owe so much as to Eckhel.
Still, I am compelled to agree with Gibbon’s opinion. Eckhel deems it
impossible that the report to the senate should have been a figment; but
the vague and ambiguous expressions of this document tell very strongly
against him: they are only meant to cover the defeat of the emperor.
Herodian lived so shortly after that time, and in all that he really
knows, he is a writer of so much judgment, that it would be wrong in
this not to believe him rather than the _bulletin_ of the emperor. As
Severus returned to Rome for his triumph, he must have concluded a peace
with the Persians, in which Rome certainly made a sacrifice: for until
the time of Gordian there is actually peace, and Maximin moreover
engaged in no undertaking on the eastern frontier.
END OF ALEXANDER SEVERUS. MAXIMIN. GORDIAN, FATHER AND SON. MAXIMUS AND
BALBINUS. GORDIAN III. PHILIP. DECIUS.
Even if Severus had fought successfully, the movements of the barbarous
tribes along the northern frontier would soon have recalled him. We know
that he went from the East to the Rhine; and there, as we are told by
Herodian, he gave the army cause for complaint, many hardships being put
upon the soldiers, who felt that there was not a strong hand to lead
them. A mutiny broke out, which was headed by Maximin, the first
barbarian adventurer who rose to the imperial throne. Hitherto the
rulers of Rome had been only of noble race, with the exception perhaps
of Macrinus, of whom we do not at least know it for certain. Pertinax
was not indeed of noble birth; but he had risen from dignity to dignity,
and was among the men of the highest standing when he was proclaimed
emperor. Maximin, on the contrary, was nothing but a soldier of fortune
who had risen from the lowest ranks of society: he was born in Thrace of
barbarian parents, his mother being an Alanian woman and his father a
Goth; at least, so we are told by the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_. He
had enlisted as a common peasant under Septimius Severus, and was
distinguished for his gigantic frame and his Herculean strength, to
which were added all the qualities of a good subaltern officer.
Septimius Severus promoted him from one step to another; and under
Alexander also he got a legion to bring into order, which had been
utterly disorganized. He restored its discipline, and yet was popular:—a
man who in so demoralized an army gains such influence, though all the
while so strict and even cruel, must needs have real talent, and a true
soldier’s nature. He did not try to make up for the defects of his
education; he was the first ruler, who was not only without any literary
acquirements whatever, but who did not even understand Greek: for the
Thracians spoke the Wallachian language, an Italian _volgare_, and Greek
was only spoken in the seaports, and in the larger inland towns, as in
Adrianople. The attention of the court was so much directed to Maximin,
that Severus even thought of marrying his own sister to his son, an
amiable and well-bred young man; only the emperor took umbrage at the
coarse manners of the father. The life of Alexander Severus in the
_Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_ is a ridiculous, lying panegyric: he
certainly was an amiable, noble-hearted prince, and did not in the least
deserve his fate; yet it is not to be overlooked that, by neglect and
mismanagement, he gave occasion for discontent. The rebellion broke out,
and Severus was murdered, A. D. 235, as was also his mother Mamæa, who
accompanied him everywhere, to rule him everywhere.
Now again followed a terrible time. It is quite evident that Maximin was
animated by an intense revolutionary hatred against everything
distinguished as aristocratic, just like the ruthless terrorists in
France. All persons of polite education and manners, and especially the
senators, were the objects of his passionate fury: it is true that the
senators may have been, not a venerable body, but a most contemptible
set; yet this is no excuse for cruelty. Maximin disdained to come to
Rome; which was a happy thing, as he would have ordered a massacre, just
as Caracalla did at Alexandria. He waged war on the banks of the Rhine,
of the Upper and Lower Danube, and everywhere, as one may suppose, with
success: that he got permanent possession of the country beyond the
_limes_, is doubtful. He freed Dacia from the inroads of the barbarians,
and carried on war against the Sarmatians, with regard to whom it is not
certain whether they dwelt on the banks of the Lower or of the Middle
Danube. But while he now was afraid of no one, but put people to death
on the first suspicion there arose in Thysdrus, a provincial town in
Africa, an outbreak of despair: the ministers of tyranny were murdered,
and the two Gordians, father and son, able and brave officers, of whom
the father was advanced in years, were proclaimed, either Augustus and
Cæsar, or both of them as Augusti.
The insurrection was but a shortlived one. Mauretania had taken no share
in it; and thus Capellianus, the lieutenant of Maximin, quickly got
together an army of Moors, although, properly speaking, these may never
have been subjected to the Roman rule, which did not extend beyond the
towns on the coasts: there was nothing, however, more easy than to make
them take up arms by holding out the hope of booty; for instance, they
had once before, in the reign of M. Antoninus, invaded Spain. He marched
on Carthage, where, although the Gordians had made a bad use of their
time, the younger ventured to go out against him, but was defeated with
his incapable troops: they both of them lost their lives. The fate of
Carthage, as well as the time that the insurrection lasted, is shrouded
in darkness. Eckhel has critically proved, that all these events, down
to the deaths of Maximus and Balbinus, must be made to fall between from
about the end of March to the end of August: Gibbon’s chronology is
certainly incorrect, and it contains impossibilities. Yet the question
is still beset with great difficulties, which, however, may be cleared
up some day by coins and monuments.
The senate at Rome had recognised the Gordians, an act in which we see
nothing of the usual behaviour of the cowardly, unwarlike aristocrats.
It appointed twenty commissioners to preside over the armaments; and the
prætorians were gained over, who had remained behind at Rome, and who
very likely were neglected by Maximin: all the provinces moreover were
called upon to declare themselves against the tyrant. The whole of Italy
armed itself for a war of despair, and all the towns were fortified,
when there came the dismal tidings of the defeat and death of the
Gordians. On this, two of the commissioners, Maximus and Balbinus, were
elected emperors; whether it was, that it was deemed necessary to have a
division of labour; or to moderate the supreme power; or what seems to
me most likely, to unite two parties. Balbinus, if in that time we may
still draw conclusions from names, was a man of rank, and of the house
of the Cælii: his name was D. Cælius Balbinus, and that of his
colleague, M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus.[56] Balbinus remained behind at
Rome; Maximus went to Ravenna, where he raised an army against Maximin,
with which, however, he very wisely did not go out and face him. He
ordered all the bridges over the many rivers in Lombardy to be broken
down, and Aquileia was strongly fortified and garrisoned. It was
defended with the courage of despair, the inhabitants being resolved
upon holding out to the last; the country far and wide was abandoned,
and every soul was in the town: Maximin, on the other hand, tried all he
could to make this base of the enemy his own; the siege was protracted,
and he was murdered here with his innocent son by the soldiers, who were
already in want of provisions, and suffered greatly from the fevers
which had seized them in that damp country. It is remarkable that he had
a very amiable and kindhearted wife, and just as excellent a son, who,
perhaps, would have become one of the best emperors.
With regard to the time when Maximin fell, Tillemont’s and Gibbon’s
chronology is impossible. According to the general account, it would
seem as if Maximin had, like Sylla, gone on for the whole of a year with
the war on the Danube, while Italy was in rebellion: this, however, is
incorrect. Maximin had but his army for him. It is very likely that one
province after the other fell away from him, which alone accounts for
the miscarriage of his expedition: the whole of the Roman world must at
last have declared against him. The most undeniable proof of this is to
be found in a letter of the consul Claudius Julianus to Maximus and
Balbinus, in which he expressly says that all the soldiers had given
them adoration; and this letter was written even before the death of
Maximin.
At the demand of the people, owing to the popularity of the Gordians, a
grandson—very likely by a daughter of old Gordian—was now elected Cæsar
besides the two emperors Maximus and Balbinus. The Gordians bore the
family name of the Antonii, and were reckoned among the genuine
aristocrats: we must not, however, thence conclude that they were
related to the triumvir. Maximus returned in triumph to Rome. He and
Balbinus were both of them praiseworthy princes: but the soldiers were
exasperated at the victory of the senators, who annoyed them in the most
senseless manner, and they very soon murdered the emperors.
After their death the empire fell into the hands of young Gordian only,
who was now proclaimed Augustus. How young he was, cannot be made out.
We only know this, that he had a _præfectus prætorio_ who at all events
was no Roman, called by the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_,
Misitheus,—quite an apocryphal name, which Casaubon has already proved
to have been an impossible one. In Zonaras it is Timesicles, which
indeed we may well believe it to have been: there is also said to be a
Latin inscription remaining,—it is, however, uncertain whether it refers
to him,—in which the name is given as Timesitheus, which is the most
plausible of all. In the reign of Gordian, the northern frontiers were
disturbed; yet this does not seem to have been of any consequence. Of
far greater importance were the Persian affairs, by which he was called
to the East, where, if we may place any trust in the coins, he defeated
the Persians and earned triumphal insignia. The war, however, was not
yet brought to an end, and he remained still in Asia.
There he was murdered by the _præfectus prætorio_, M. Julius Philippus,
a native of Roman Arabia, from Bostra in Arabia Petræa. He is called an
Arabian; but he was not a Bedouin, his native place being a _colonia
Romana_, so that perhaps he may have been a Syrian or a Greek, having in
all likelihood belonged to the cohort of the Idumæi, east of the
Jordan.[57] It may be that he got on at Rome in the time of the Syrian
rulers Julia Domna and Alexander Severus. He became the murderer of his
unoffending, well-meaning, amiable young prince, whose good luck had
departed at the death of his father-in-law Timesitheus. It was generally
believed that the latter also had owed his death to the arts of Philip.
Philip made an honourable peace with the Persians, for which there was
need, as the storm was already lowering heavily over Rome. He is
remarkable, because in his reign the thousandth anniversary of the city
was celebrated with great pomp; but still more remarkable because
ecclesiastical history generally assumes him to have been a Christian.
But Eckhel observes from his coins that he could not really have been a
Christian, as they bear too many heathen emblems and images of gods.
This is partly the case also with Constantine, who had the god of the
Sun on his coins, and may likewise have had rather a confused sort of
faith. That there is something in the story of Philip’s having declared
himself for the Christian religion, is proved with tolerable probability
from Origen’s having addressed letters to him. There is a tradition in
church history, that he had done public penance, and received absolution
for the murder of his prince. At any rate, it does not follow from his
deeds that he was not a Christian. His birthplace Bostra lay in the
neighbourhood of Pella, the real centre of the Jewish-Christians, and
there, of course, the Christian religion was already firmly established.
Of great moment for Rome were the brilliant secular games. This indeed
is very heathenish; but Philip may have been but a catechumen, and by
availing himself of a common casuistry, have sinned during that festival
in the hope of a late baptism. The rest of his government is blameless;
no charge, in fact, is brought against him. He reigned from 243 to 248,
in which latter year several rebellions broke out against him. The
Pannonian and Mœsian legions having proclaimed Marinus[58] emperor, and
soon afterwards murdered him, Philip sent Decius thither, who, certainly
without any shadow of truth, made himself out to be descended from the
Decii: to derive him from these, was merely a compliment which was paid
to him. His name was Q. Messius Trajanus Decius,[59] and he was born in
Illyricum. That country was very extensively colonized; so that he may
very likely have come from one of the Roman military colonies: the
population there had become thoroughly Roman. Decius warned Philip not
to put him in a position in which he might be compelled to break his
faith; but Philip insisted upon so doing. What Decius had expected, took
place: he was forced by the soldiers to accept the throne, and to go to
Italy. Even here, he is said to have once more repeated his offer.
Philip was killed in a fight between the two armies in the neighbourhood
of Verona.
Decius is looked upon as a hero by the _Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ_ and
by Zosimus, a zealous partisan of paganism; but he is just as much hated
by the writers of ecclesiastical history for his cruelty to the
Christians, against whom indeed he was the first, after a long pause, to
set on foot a fierce persecution. The motive for it, in all likelihood,
was a sort of antagonism to the tendencies of his predecessor. What
Dodwell has asserted is strictly true, that the accounts of the numbers
of the victims are exaggerated; but the persecution of Decius was in
right earnest, and it interrupted the peace which, with the exception of
some little casualties, the Christian Church had long enjoyed. The Roman
see remained vacant for a year and a half; and Decius is represented to
have said, that he would rather allow an emperor to be chosen by his
side than a bishop. This shows how much the Christians had already
increased. Their number was great among the middle classes at Rome,
Carthage, Alexandria, and above all, at Antioch: in the East, they were
scattered; in the West, there were hardly any in the country, but they
were in the towns, especially in the large cities. The greater part of
Gaul knew nothing of this religion, except at Arles, Marseilles, and
some other chief towns: the acts of the martyrs of Lyons are quite
authentic. Just as little as in Gaul, does Christianity seem to have
spread in Spain; in Africa, there was at an early period a numerous and
zealous church; in Greece proper, there were few Christians; in the
Ionian towns, on the other hand, there were many.