In Rome, from the time of Diocletian down to Theodosius, there was the
greatest poverty of literature. Of poets, we have in the whole of this
period only Ausonius, who is bad beyond belief: it was but the
veneration of the French philologists of the sixteenth century which
raised him to some consideration; he is quite as bad as the most
wretched poets of the middle ages. In prose also there is a grievous
dearth. About the middle of the fourth century, arose the writers of
epitomes, such as Eutropius and Victor; nor is it unlikely that the
epitome of Livy likewise dates from that time: these men have not a
spark of genius. On the other hand, the Latin grammar has its beginning
in that form in which we know it. Its real father is Donatus, the master
of St. Jerome: Charisius does not belong to his school, but is
independent; he is an encyclopedist who gives one a general view of the
older works. Diomedes also is a writer of the fourth century. To the
latter end of it likewise belongs Servius, who bears the stamp of his
age, which was the condensing of everything into summaries. The only
part of his commentary which we have in a genuine form, is that on the
two first books of the Æneid: the rest we have in an abridgment only,
which very likely was made in the seventh or eighth century. Another
writer of the same kind is Festus, who has arranged the work of Verrius
Flaccus in alphabetical order: he is very useful to us, although he does
not everywhere understand Verrius. Nonius Marcellus is very likely
somewhat later; yet he belongs to the same school of grammarians, to
which the impulse had now been given. Lastly, at the end of the fourth
century, Macrobius also flourished.
The better Roman prose begins after Theodosius. Ammianus Marcellinus, an
ingenious writer although not always correct, still belongs to the reign
of Theodosius. He is particularly honest and high-minded: he had himself
served as a soldier, and he is what a historian ought always to be, a
man of experience. From Alexander Severus down to Diocletian, no one had
written history in Latin: in the reign of the latter, at the beginning
of the fourth century, were what are called the _Scriptores Historiæ
Augustæ_, who are beneath criticism. From thence again, down to
Theodosius, there is not one. Ammianus is a Greek of Antioch, and one
sees at once that he is a foreigner.—The rhetoricians still continue:
Marius Victorinus, bad as he is, has made an epoch in his time. Of the
school of the rhetoricians, the præfect Symmachus remains to be
mentioned, whose letters are altogether got up after the pattern of
those of Pliny, and are without any historical substance. His Panegyric
also is of a school which reminds one of Pliny. Now, on the whole, the
Panegyrists get into vogue, such as Eumenius, Pacatus, and others;—a
wretched kind indeed of literature; people were no more ashamed of
flattering.—Of poetry, not a trace is found until the time of
Theodosius, except the epigram on the base of the obelisk of
Constantius, and that on Constantine which was placarded as a lampoon.
With Theodosius, a new life is infused into Latin literature. Now arose
Claudian, a Greek of Alexandria, who at first also wrote Greek. There
are few instances besides of foreigners having written in a strange
tongue so well as he did; except, perhaps Goldoni:[68] M. Antoninus also
writes very good Greek. Claudian’s language is everything that one could
wish: one can see that he made Latin his own with heartfelt liking. He
is a true poetical genius, although tainted indeed with the mannerism of
the later Greek poets; he is a wonderful master of mythology, and is
gifted moreover with great facility and brilliancy of language:
sometimes he is lascivious. One reads him with about the same
gratification as one does Ovid: John Matthias Gesner was very fond of
him. Claudian’s influence was very great, and a particular school of
poets followed in his steps: one of his disciples was Merobaudes, whose
fragments I had the good luck to discover at St. Gall. The language of
Merobaudes, although he is a native of the West, has much in it that is
faulty; yet he is a man who does not merely hunt for words, but whose
words are the expression of his feelings. He is quite enthusiastic for
Aëtius. The same Merobaudes is no doubt the author of a most beautiful
poem, which is contained in Fabricius’ _Poëtæ Christiani_,[69] a poem of
as great depth as any can have. He seems likewise to have been the
author of another poem on the miracles of Christ, which is placed among
those of Claudian, who was a heathen Greek, whilst the other was a
Christian. At the close of the century, comes Sidonius Apollinaris, whom
Gesner rightly calls a great genius. His Latinity is Gallic with a
sprinkling of Romanic, and we see from him that the common language was
very different from the classic style: but for all that we find him to
be a man of most varied acquirements. There were, however, at that
period also some writers of history, as the times were stirring, and
afforded a good subject; but the greater part of them have been lost: of
Renatus Profuturus,[70] a fragment which is still extant, gives one a
very favourable impression.
But an entirely new literature was the Christian one, which has not yet
been noticed and brought out as much as it deserves. Lactantius, of whom
we have already spoken, is of great importance. Ambrose and others are
less so as writers. Two great men, moreover, are St. Jerome and St.
Augustine; who indeed are giants: what I know of them entitles them to
high praise. The literary and critical writings of St. Jerome have not
much in them: but in the rest he has liveliness, versatility, an immense
range of learning, and, even in his old age, a rich vein of wit, which
is a leading trait in him: were he not a writer of the Church, he might
have shone by his wit in the same manner as Pascal did. Augustine is a
truly philosophic mind, as strongly actuated by a yearning after truth
as any of the great philosophers: his language also is very noble. He is
by no means witty, like St. Jerome; but he is eloquent, and in many
places admirable. The latter half of the fourth, and the whole of the
fifth century, are a classical era for Christian literature. Sulpicius
Severus’ Church history is a masterpiece; and of this time are also the
poems of Cælius Sedulius and Claudius Mamertus. The full life of the
Gallic period was in this century: Gaul, in spite of all its
misfortunes, had a glorious era for the intellect. The writings of
Salvian, who was a priest or bishop of Marseilles, are very remarkable.
He wrote on the government of God, and _contra avaritiam_; and though
his language is Gallican, and his rhetorical turn may subject him to
censure, he is exceedingly interesting on account of his political
feelings which are quite different from those of Orosius. He lays bare
the whole misery of the age; yet he makes no sanctimonious exhortations,
but inveighs against those who in better times had neglected the
favourable moment, and against the rich: this political indignation
against the mighty ones of the earth, is quite a particular feature of
his. There is a downright republican bias in him, which is remarkable in
a psychological as well as in an historical point of view: it is evident
what many even in the Church were now driving at, as the Church
contained at that time many republican elements of which Salvian is
quite aware. What he really aims at, is community of goods under the
administration of the presbyters. Prudentius is in order of time the
first of the Christian poets; yet his poems are but middling. The
greatest Christian poet is Pope Hilary, who is undoubtedly the author of
a poem which was formerly ascribed to St. Hilary, whose, however, it
cannot be, as it appears from the dedication, that it belongs to the
fifth century. Its subject is the creation, and it is full of poetical
spirit: it is quite in the manner of Lucretius, whom he evidently took
for his pattern; and though there are faults in the language and
prosody, it is the work of a fine poet. He was the friend of the great
Pope Leo, by whom he was sent as a delegate to the mad Council of
Ephesus, there to speak words of peace and reconciliation. Pope Leo’s
writings should also be read by posterity: he is a very ingenious
writer, and, taking him altogether, a great man.
The Greek literature of the fourth century is quite rhetorical: in the
fifth, it rises again, and poets and historians come out. These last are
headed by Eunapius, who is followed by a διαδοχή of historians—Priscus,
Malchus, Candidus, and others. The Neo-Platonic philosophy likewise went
on flourishing, and poetry also revived in the fifth century. The
establishment of the eastern empire evidently had a beneficial effect on
literature.
Architecture had already quite fallen off in the fourth century.
Constantine’s buildings are most barefaced robberies: his arch is taken
from that of Trajan, and all that is of his time, is below criticism.
Painting is quite supplanted by mosaic, which, however, at that time was
beautiful: in the chapel of Pope Hilary there is some very fine mosaic
work. This was peculiar to the west, although there is no doubt but that
the art originated in Alexandria.
On the whole, ignorance and indifference to literature increased more
and more among the higher classes, whilst the memory of the olden times
had been entirely lost.
DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE. HONORIUS, ARCADIUS. STILICHO. ALARIC. RADAGAISE.
ADOLPHUS. CONSTANTINE. GERONTIUS. PLACIDIA. VALENTINIAN III. BONIFACE.
AETIUS. GENSERIC. ATTILA. PETRONIUS MAXIMUS. AVITUS. RICIMER. MAJORIAN.
SEVERUS. ANTHEMIUS. OLYBRIUS. GLYCERIUS. JULIUS NEPOS. ORESTES. ROMULUS
AUGUSTULUS.
Theodosius left two sons, Arcadius, who was eighteen, and Honorius who
was eleven years of age. Honorius, he committed to the guardianship of
Stilicho; and he intrusted Rufinus with the government of the East,
which had fallen to the lot of Arcadius.[71] Stilicho, it is certain,
was not of Roman extraction, and this is all that we know of his
descent: he must have greatly distinguished himself in the wars of
Theodosius, as he had risen to the rank of _magister utriusque militiæ_.
Theodosius had married him to Serena, the daughter of his brother and
his own adopted child, who is therefore called _Regina_ by the writers
of that age. Stilicho was completely master in the West; whereas in the
East, Arcadius, supported by Eutropius, tried to rid himself of the rule
of Rufinus. The latter, who had set his heart upon marrying his daughter
to Arcadius, had been baffled by a clever court intrigue; but, as his
eyes were soon opened, he continued to hold unshaken sway. When,
however, Stilicho availed himself of the pretext of leading back the
troops of the East which were still in Italy, Rufinus was panic-struck,
and got an order from the emperor that Stilicho should not move: the
latter therefore respectfully drew back, and sent the troops alone to
the East. They then advanced: Rufinus was taken by surprise, and
surrounded and murdered in the Field of Mars near Constantinople. His
power forthwith chiefly fell into the hands of the eunuch Eutropius.
Alaric now came with the Visigoths from the East to the West. Soon after
the death of Theodosius, he rose against the Roman empire, and carried
the war again into Greece, crushing the little life which still lingered
in that country, which was then, as in the days of Decius and Gallienus,
completely trampled under foot. But here we take leave of the East.
Stilicho brought assistance and defeated Alaric, who, however, escaped
him, crossing with his booty the bay of Crissa near Rhium: this proves
him to have been a great man. Soon afterwards, Alaric made his peace
with the eastern empire, and was appointed _magister militum_ in
Illyria, under which title he became in fact an imperial præfect. How he
got that dignity, and how he lost it; and at what time Illyricum ceased
to be in the hands of the Goths, and came again to be embodied in the
eastern empire, is quite an enigma. On the whole, the migration of the
nations, when one searches closely into it, gives ground for queries and
riddles which are never to be solved. The history of those times is so
imperfectly known, that it is not possible to decide even things which
are some of the most important points. The eastern Goths, perhaps also
the Gepidæ, are in the days of Valens likewise in the diocese of
Illyricum; in the period after Attila, in the reign of the emperor
Marcian, they are in two kingdoms on the banks of the Danube:[72] where
have they been in the meanwhile? Under Attila, they are said to have
been in Pannonia; but the question is then, in what part of Pannonia?
they cannot have been on the north of the Danube. The whole epoch is
very confused, and new materials are not to be found; yet I believe that
by carefully and closely sifting the existing materials, many a question
might be solved which Gibbon and others did not even put to
themselves.—Alaric, not unlikely at the instigation of the eastern
empire, now appears in the West. Honorius then held his court at Milan,
which since Maximian had often become the abode of the emperor, and a
regular capital; yet Milan, although very strongly fortified, and in the
midst of a large plain, could not feel safe to Honorius, and therefore,
when Alaric was advancing from Aquileia, he fled across the Alps. But at
Asti in Piedmont he was already hemmed in by the Goths, when Stilicho
came to his rescue, bringing with him all the forces that he could
muster: these, however, consisted almost wholly of barbarians. Not only
literature and creative genius, but also the spirit of bravery had died
away: the Italians were now a mere helpless rabble; there was no making
troops out of them. Even in our days, the States of the Church and
Naples could not make head against a determined army of six thousand
men: a few thousand Algerines might sack Rome, if they were but aware of
this weakness. On Easter Day, Stilicho with his army fell upon the Goths
near Pollentia in Montferrat, and gained a victory: fanaticism brought
it as a crime against him that he had given battle on the holy day. The
Goths, though not dispersed, had to think of retreating. Alaric,
however, made a bold forward movement against Rome; but was pursued by
Stilicho, and, after a second unlucky fight, concluded a convention by
which he withdrew from Italy. Honorius had a triumph, and built a
triumphal arch, which was still standing in the fourteenth century,
when, alas! it was demolished. There exists another monument of that
time, the inscription on a gate (_Porta S. Lorenzo_), in which one sees
the traces of Stilicho’s name, who restored the walls, _egestis
immensibus ruderibus_. Aurelian in fact had fortified Rome; but as the
walls had got since then into a very bad state, they were now once more
repaired. It was no doubt on this occasion, that the _Monte Testaccio_
was thrown up, as before that time the city wall was quite buried under
a mass of rubbish: it is a marsh which has been filled up with
potsherds.
Soon after Alaric had retreated to Illyricum, a new calamity burst upon
Italy. Radagaise, who is said to have likewise been a Goth, but had no
kindred with the Ostrogoths, came down with Sueves, Vandals, and other
tribes, who were not yet Christians, and therefore much more cruel than
the Goths. They swept down from the Alps through unhappy Lombardy, and
laid siege to Florence, where Stilicho again went forth against them,
and forced them back with unaccountable skill into the Apennines. How
these hordes could so tamely have allowed themselves to be driven back,
is more than we are able to understand. Most of them died of want; Many
surrendered, and were sold in great masses.
Thus Italy was saved for the time. The eastern empire, although at peace
with Persia, did not take the least share in the dangers and distresses
of the West. It had been necessary to send for troops even from the
borders of the Rhine, and from Britain; and thus the latter cast itself
off from the Roman empire. The troops on the Rhine were greatly
weakened, and could not withstand the attacks of the Alemanni,
Burgundians, Sueves, Vandals, and Alans, who in 407 forced the passage
across the Rhine, and overran Gaul. This most unhappy country was
suffering frightfully beneath a weight of taxation which was made still
heavier by the system of solidary pledge, the commonalties being bound
to make good the whole amount of what was laid upon them. The decurions,
who were mostly chosen from the richest men, were directly answerable
for the money, and if they could not pay it, torture was even used to
force them: in their turn, they might exact it from the rate payers.
People, therefore, had rather be sold for slaves than accept such a
dignity; and this gave rise to a series of laws for compelling the
acceptance of the decurionship, most of the enactments of which are to
define what pleas for exemption are not to be taken. This burthen, of
which no remission was granted, had as early as in the third century
stirred up the peasants’ wars, of which we meet with the first traces in
the reign of Gallienus: from thenceforth they never leave off again. The
rising of the _Bagaudæ_ (thus these peasants are called) has much
puzzled the French antiquaries: there were entire districts which took
up arms in self-defence against the extortions of the government. We
know little or nothing of what the Gauls had now to suffer from the
barbarians. A warlike spirit, however, was sooner roused among them than
in Italy: Auvergne truly became a land of warriors, and defended itself
against the inroads of the enemy. When Gaul had been thoroughly ravaged,
the invading hordes turned themselves towards Spain. The Sueves, Alans,
and Vandals, altogether withdrew from Gaul; but the Burgundians remained
behind in Burgundy, Franche Comté, Savoy, and afterwards also in
Dauphiné: at that time, they had the country of the Æqui and the
Sequani, and the west of Switzerland. The Sueves and Vandals in Spain
were quite independent of the Roman empire, and always kept hostile to
it; the Burgundians, on the other hand, who were a small nation in a
large territory, submitted in some sort to the supremacy of the Roman
emperor, as to a liege lord, in consideration of his allowing them to
live there.
Stilicho was loudly reviled because he could not save Gaul; and moreover
he had awakened the mistrust of Honorius and his court ever since his
son Eucherius was grown up. Honorius had married one after another two
daughters of Stilicho, Maria and Thermantia; and as the former of these
had died without issue, and no one thought that Thermantia would have
children, it had been the more generally believed that Stilicho would
make his son emperor. Yet there is not a shadow of proof that Stilicho
sought the life of Honorius: he would much rather have waited for his
death, when it would have been quite the regular course for Eucherius to
succeed. Stilicho indeed was the mainstay of the empire: he alone kept
Alaric in awe. Honorius notwithstanding conspired against him,—just as
Louis XIII. did against one of his subjects,—and, after having first got
up an insurrection of the army, he sent assassins to fall upon him in
his palace. His friends having been slain before him, Stilicho fled into
a church; but was dragged out of it and murdered, as was also his son:
Serena his widow, was condemned to death by the base senate.
To Alaric the murder of Stilicho became a pretext for again invading
Italy. Honorius now took up his abode in the inaccessible city of
Ravenna, which at that time was built on islands, like Venice now, being
separated by lagunes from the main land, with which it was only
connected by an isthmus. Without troubling himself to besiege Ravenna,
Alaric marched on the Flaminian road against Rome, which he blockaded.
Here, before long, the most horrible famine was seen: people murdered to
feed on the corpses, so that even children are said to have been eaten
by their own parents: besides which there broke out a plague, the
necessary consequence of this state of things. At last a capitulation
was concluded, though one cannot understand why Alaric acceded to it:
perhaps he did so because the summer had already come on, and was
severely felt by the army, which may likewise have suffered from
epidemics. Rome having ransomed itself, negociations for peace were to
be set on foot between the court of Ravenna and Alaric, it being
proposed that the emperor should appoint Alaric commander-in-chief of
the whole of the western empire. As these negociations did not lead to
any result, Alaric turned himself for the second time towards Rome. The
senate fell off from Honorius; Alaric proclaimed Attalus, the _præfectus
prætorio_, emperor, and marched with him to Ravenna; and Honorius was so
faint-hearted as to acknowledge Attalus as his colleague. When, however,
in the meanwhile, reinforcements had landed in the port of Ravenna, and
Attalus had fallen into disgrace with the Gothic chief, Honorius again
broke off the negociations, and Alaric returned for the third time to
Rome. On the 24th August, 410, was that awful burning of Rome which is
still so famous in the world’s history, the Salarian gate, which is yet
standing, having been opened to the Goths by treachery. Although Rome
had to suffer many of the horrors of a town taken by storm, little blood
was shed: many were led away as prisoners. The lust and rapine of the
Goths hardly knew any bounds: the inhabitants were racked to make them
show where they had hidden their treasures. The churches only were not
plundered. After a pillage of three days, the evacuation began, which
was completed by the sixth day. Alaric marched to Rhegium, intending to
go also to Sicily; but he turned back. Two years after the taking of
Rome, he died in Cosenza. (To this refers the beautiful poem of Count
Platen, “The Tomb at Busento.”) The command of the army fell to his
brother-in-law Adolphus, who, quite unlike Alaric, had a fondness for
the Romans: he left Italy and marched to Languedoc. On both sides of the
Pyrenees, over part of Languedoc and Catalonia, he reigned as an
independent prince, the ally of the Romans. There he married Placidia,
Honorius’ sister, who had been led away as a captive, and who now so
closely knit the alliance, that it changed into real friendship.
Adolphus, who had already led his troops into Spain, where he conquered
the Vandals, Sueves, and Alans, and drove them into Asturias, Galicia,
and Lusitania; gave back to the Roman empire the provinces which he did
not occupy himself. He also did very good service against Jovinus, a
usurper, and his brother Sebastianus.
In Britain, whilst Alaric was in Italy, an officer of the name of
Constantine had been proclaimed Augustus by the soldiers, and had been
favourably received in Gaul. Against him arose Gerontius, another
usurper, who placed Maximus, a friend of his, on the throne; but in Gaul
there came forth an army of Honorius under Constantius, ostensibly to
the assistance of Constantine, which was quite a sound policy.
Constantius compelled Gerontius and Maximus, who were besieging Arles,
to put an end to their own lives; then he afterwards went on with the
war against Constantine, and thus regained Gaul and Spain for the
Romans. For this, after the death of Adolphus, he was rewarded with the
hand of Galla Placidia. The friendship between the Western Goths and the
Romans now ceased again: Singeric and Wallia broke off with them, and
the Visigoths, who were very jealous of their independence, returned to
their former attitude towards them. Thenceforth, except that her coasts
were pillaged by Genseric, Italy had peace until the invasion of Attila:
yet we may easily imagine how little she was able to recover herself.
Honorius died in 423.
Placidia had borne to Constantius two children, Placidus Valentinianus
and Justa Grata Honoria, both of them a curse to the empire. Constantius
indeed had extorted from Honorius his being acknowledged as Augustus;
but he died immediately after, even before Honorius, at whose death
Placidus was a boy of not more than four years old, and therefore not
capable of taking to himself the throne. Arcadius also was already dead,
and his rule was nominally in the hands of his very youthful son,
Theodosius II., who his whole life long never became his own master, but
really was in those of Pulcheria, the new emperor’s sister: thus the
East was very badly governed. Galla Placidia fled with her children to
Constantinople; but before succours arrived from thence, the government
was seized by a usurper, Johannes, the first emperor with a Christian
name.[73] He reigned two years. Theodosius, on the other hand, bestowed
the crown on his cousin, the boy Valentinian III., and sent two armies
to Italy under Ardaburius and Aspar, both of whom were Isaurians. This
undertaking did not succeed at first, the fleet having been scattered by
a storm; but Aspar advanced unresisted through Illyricum, which seems to
have returned again beneath the sovereignty of the emperor, and Johannes
was deserted by his troops, and Placidus[74] Valentinian proclaimed
emperor. His mother Placidia now governed the West, in a way which
indeed was not much to her credit, though things became worse after her
death in the middle of the century, when her son ruled alone. Rome was
then richer in distinguished men than it had been in the times of the
better emperors; above all are the names of Boniface and Aëtius, neither
of whom could have outvied the other without causing the fall of the
empire. Who Boniface was, is little known: he seems to have been an
Italian. Aëtius was from Scythia, that is to say, Lower Mœsia, somewhere
in the neighbourhood of Silistria, and of Latin blood, notwithstanding
his Greek name: his father was a man of rank who lost his life owing to
treachery, or some tyrannical act of Alaric. The age of Aëtius cannot
exactly be ascertained: he must have been between fifty and sixty, or
more than sixty when he died; for as a young man he was with Alaric and
the Huns as a hostage, and often afterwards as an ambassador: he
commanded their respect, being their equal in bravery, and yet having
the advantage of superior civilization as well. He was an extraordinary
man, and those who were in power ought to have allowed him to have his
own way; just as the Athenian people did Alcibiades: but he was by no
means without blemish, and he behaved unjustly and spitefully towards
Boniface, by which he brought the empire into great trouble. His
influence over Placidia and Valentinian being unbounded, he got
Boniface, who was governor (_comes_) of Africa, recalled, and summoned
to Ravenna where the court then was. As Boniface had to expect to lose
his life if he went, he formed the accursed resolution of calling the
Vandals, who at that time were in the west of Spain, over into Africa:
they came under Gonderic, and the consequence was the devastation of
Africa from the Straits of Gibraltar to Carthage. No German people has
carried on war with such faithlessness and doggedness: hitherto Africa
had suffered but little. They found support among the Donatists, who had
been driven to despair by a frightful persecution, though they were only
impracticable seceders who had gone out in Diocletian’s reign on account
of the election of a bishop: these were a rude sect, but noble-hearted
fanatics, and they were horribly dealt with. There is no doubt that
their persecution lasted even later than this, and that the Arabs in
their turn found partisans among them: they looked upon the barbarians
as their deliverers. Their example may well be a lesson to those who
shut their eyes to the misery to which intolerance, or, rather, to call
it by its right name, injustice gives birth: the dreadful persecution of
the Donatists had now lasted more than a hundred years. Genseric, who
had succeeded his brother Gonderic, took the whole country, with the
exception of a few places (429). The Moorish tribes he left alone; they
were perfectly free: the Vandal rule only extended over the province of
Tunis, and the maritime towns. The eyes of Boniface were now opened to
the fearful calamity of which he had been the cause, and he tried in
vain to check the stream. He met with confidence from Placidia, who in
this instance behaved nobly: she sent him troops, which, however, were
beaten in two decisive battles. After some years a truce, and then a
peace was made, in which Rome gave up the greatest part of Africa; all
indeed but Carthage, and some other places. This peace the faithless
Genseric did not keep; but, on the contrary, took advantage of it to
make himself master of Carthage.—Carthage, next to Rome, was the largest
town in the Western Empire, being to that capital, as Hadrianople was to
Constantinople. Its extent was considerable, and it was built on the
spot where the gardens of Old Carthage had been, outside the walls of
the old town. Salvian of Marseilles shows what a place it was; yet he
says, that one ought rather to rejoice at its having been taken by the
barbarians, than grieve over it, as immorality had reached the highest
pitch, and it was inconceivable how the city could have called itself
Christian. In former times, Christianity had certainly done a great deal
of good to many individuals; but since the masses had adopted it, the
church was no longer a select community, and therefore it had ceased to
have any influence upon morals. It is remarkable how thoughtlessly at
that time whole towns became christian, just as if a new ruler were
proclaimed, the people remaining at heart as bad as they ever were. It
is the greatest misfortune for the world and for Christianity itself,
that Constantine should have been in such haste to make the faith
universal: the hierarchy thus grew worse and worse, and although there
were still Popes like Leo the Great, there were likewise many bad
bishops.
The Vandal fleets from Africa pillaged Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and
also the coast of Italy. This piracy was a fresh calamity for Italy,
which had already begun to recover a little from its sufferings,
although many parts had indeed remained waste, and the mass of the
population had given themselves up as serfs to the great lords. And as
ill luck would have it, most of the Roman nobles had their estates in
Africa; so that these families, whose wealth sounds quite fabulous, were
utterly ruined, as Genseric confiscated everything.
A new storm came from another quarter, even the Huns who had formerly
driven away the Goths. Of their abodes in the times of Theodosius and
his sons, we have no certain trace; perhaps they dwelled in the country
between the banks of the Don and the borders of Wallachia: during the
first years of Theodosius, they are to be found on the banks of the
Danube, and even beyond the Theiss, as far as Pannonia. Concerning all
these points, our sources are too scanty: as for the hypothesis of De
Guignes, who traces them from China, I have already branded it as false;
it is a view which in this day is justly rejected. The Huns being now
met with as far as Pannonia, the Pannonian frontier must have been lost
by the Romans. Bledas and Attila (Bledel and Etzel), the two sons[75] of
Rugilas, appear with a formidable power as the kings of the Huns: the
description of the might of Attila, however, is one of the weak points
in Gibbon, as he believes the rule of Attila to have reached as far as
China. It is indeed very likely that his sway extended beyond the Don
even to the Volga: the German peoples paid homage to him, as one may see
from our own poems; and as they were treated by him with forbearance,
the lays are not bitter upon him. The main strength of his empire,
according to a very correct remark of Friedrich Schlegel, was in German
tribes: he himself, as Jornandes describes him, was a Mogul, and
surrounded by Moguls. Yet this Mogul tribe is comparatively weak; so
that, immediately after his death, the German tribes are free again.
Until the middle of the fifth century, Attila had turned himself against
the eastern empire only, which he made to suffer dreadfully by
devastation, disgraceful treaties of peace, and tribute: Servia, and the
greater part of Bulgaria, he altogether changed into a desert. The Huns
carried on their frightful and bloodthirsty havoc in quite a different
manner from the Goths, for instance: they were in the true sense of the
word, destroyers. The western empire, being hard pressed by the Vandals,
was not able to aid that of the East in this distress: there was even a
sort of friendly relation between the former and the Huns, namely, by
means of presents. Aëtius, having been banished, had betaken himself to
the Huns, from whence, however, he returned: under their protection, he
laid the foundations of his power in the empire, until he was so firmly
established that he could do without them. He had revived the authority
of Rome beyond all expectation: in Gaul, he had reduced the distant
countries on the coast, which had made themselves independent; he also
restored the frontier of the Rhine, though indeed the Franks still
dwelled from Belgium to the Saone, and the Burgundians lived under their
own kings, being tributary to the Romans. Provence, however, part of
Dauphiné, Lower Languedoc, Lower Loire, Auvergne, and the north-west of
Gaul, as well as Spain on the side of the Mediterranean, with the
exception of Catalonia, were subject to the latter: the Visigoths had
the South. No European country is so torn in pieces as the western
empire then was: the countries there were for the most part covered with
heaps of ruins, even as a land brought down to the deepest misery; of
which we may form an idea by reading the poems of Logau at the end of
the Thirty Years’ War.
Attila had been led by a quarrel with a Frankish royal house to march
into Gaul. Here Aëtius united with the feeble forces of the empire
against him, the warriors of the Visigoths, the ruling party of the
Franks in Gaul under Merovæus, and the Burgundians: nearly all his
troops were barbarians, but the spirit was his. Attila laid siege to
Orleans, which was on the point of surrendering, and it would have been
destroyed like the places on the banks of the Rhine, when Aëtius and
Theodoric the king of the Visigoths came to its relief. Attila fell back
into Champagne (_Campi Catalaunici_). The decisive battle in the year
451, is wrongly called the battle near Chalons, which I do not at all
look upon as certain: _Campi Catalaunici_ mean Champagne; so that it
does not necessarily follow that the battle was precisely near Chalons.
In this mighty combat, Attila led the barbarians of the East, the
majority of them being German tribes, against the barbarians of the
West. Yet Aëtius had to contend not only against superior numbers, but
also against treachery, as the Alans, who were placed in the centre of
his host, gave way, and the Huns were enabled to break through his
ranks. The Visigoths were about to be overpowered, Theodoric being dead;
but Thorismund, his heir, made a decisive charge and Aëtius also
conquered at last. The Huns were not driven back, but retreated behind
their rampart of waggons, where Aëtius did not venture to attack them;
so that both parties retired. The numbers which have been given of those
who were killed and taken prisoners, are beyond all belief.
When the winter was over, Attila made his appearance in Italy. Here
Aëtius could only oppose to him the feeble, uncertain forces of a land
which had become utterly unwarlike. Aquileia, Padua, and other towns
were destroyed; all who did not flee, were murdered: people took refuge
in the marshes, which was the occasion of the founding of Venice. The
details which we have concerning the first tribunes of Venice, &c., are
fabulous. Attila had been invited by the princess Honoria into Italy.
The death of Attila, which soon followed, would perhaps have given rest
to Italy, had not Aëtius, the only support of Rome, met with his death
at the same time. Aëtius, had he wished to rebel, might long ago have
taken the throne for himself; but he was satisfied with being the
acknowledged and actual ruler of the empire: his title was that of
Patrician; but he is also mentioned in the chronicles as _Dux
Romanorum_. His younger son Gaudentius was betrothed to Eudoxia, the
daughter of Valentinian, both of them being very young; without doubt
Aëtius thereby wished to secure the succession for Gaudentius.
Valentinian, however, who was not yet old, expected that this would put
an end to his own dominion; and therefore he formed a plot against
Aëtius. The latter, suspecting nothing, went to the imperial palace at
Rome on the Palatine, and there Valentinian stabbed him with his own
hand: very likely, no one was allowed to present himself with arms
before the emperor, as was the case in Constantinople. His son also, and
many of his friends were murdered. One is tempted to think that this led
to the rise of Ricimer; at least, he very soon after is met with in
Aëtius’ place. Rome was now deprived of the great man, who alone could
guarantee the safety of the empire: all the successors of Valentinian
were merely emperors in name. Valentinian filled the measure of his
wretchedness by an outrage on the wife of Petronius Maximus. He
treacherously decoyed her into the palace, to gratify his infamous
lusts; and by this deed he drove the injured husband into a conspiracy.
Valentinian was murdered in the Field of Mars, and Petronius was
proclaimed emperor.
Petronius’ wife having died in the meanwhile, he compelled Valentinian’s
widow, Eudoxia, to marry him. She, however, had loved her former husband
in spite of his profligacy, and she brooded over schemes of revenge: she
invited Genseric to come to Rome and to achieve its conquest. This was
so easily done, that one wonders at his not having made it before, and
frequently afterwards: the co-operation of the empress is quite evident.
When Genseric appeared, the clergy and the senate went out to meet him,
imploring his mercy: whereupon he promised not to destroy the people.
Notwithstanding this, the outrages of the soldiers were nearly as wanton
as if the city had been taken by sword; only there was not quite so much
bloodshed. Fourteen whole days was the city pillaged: all the silver,
all the bronze was taken away; the golden plates, and the gilt tiles on
the Capitol, nay, all that had any value, and could be moved, was
carried away to the Vandal ships at Ostia. Petronius himself was slain
in the tumult. The conquerors had left Rome exhausted, like a body bled
to death: the senate had not even the spirit to proclaim a new emperor.
And now, the senator M. Mæcilius Avitus, a very rich and accomplished
nobleman in Auvergne, declared himself emperor in Gaul, and crossed the
Alps. No one indeed had really proclaimed him. The state of things had
become very strange: it was not the army in the province, that
proclaimed the emperor; but a peculiar right had then sprung up by
which, when there was no hereditary claim, the senate would elect, the
people give its assent by acclamation, and the soldiers acknowledge the
choice. Avitus came to Rome, and was recognised; but Ricimer, a Sueve of
royal race, was even then all-powerful there. All the barbarians who
acted a part in Rome, must not be looked upon as mere savages: they were
Christians, and understood and spoke the _Volgare_, which even then came
nearer to the modern Italian, than to the Latin; and they were quite as
civilized as our own ancestors were in the middle ages. Some few of them
had a tinge of classical knowledge, like Theodoric the Visigoth and the
younger Alaric; but it was otherwise with Ricimer and those of his
class, who undoubtedly had a hearty contempt for the Roman civilisation.
All those Germans, alas! were not a whit better than the degenerate
Italians: they were just as faithless, just as cruel. Ricimer soon
became false to Avitus; and the latter took possession of the see of
Placentia, from whence he also soon fled: he seems to have died a
natural death, owing to a sickness brought on by the persecutions which
he had had to suffer.
In the room of Avitus, Ricimer set up a man of a character such as was
no more to be looked for in those days of Rome’s decline—Majorian, who,
as it seems, was an Italian born, (457). However unwarlike the Italian
people then was, it yet produced distinguished generals, as we may see
in the cases of Aëtius and Majorian. The latter undoubtedly deserves the
high character which Procopius gives him; Sidonius, his epitaph, his
laws, the individual traits recorded of him, all redound to his praise.
Procopius says that he had surpassed all the Roman emperors in
excellence: he had a great mind, and was of a highly practical turn. For
four whole years he still stood his ground, and was actually master by
the side of the faithless barbarian Ricimer, who had the main forces of
the empire at his disposal. The Visigoths in Upper Languedoc and in
Catalonia, owned his personal greatness, and paid homage to him and to
the majesty of the Roman empire which he had restored. The Vandals being
the curse of that empire, he planned an expedition against them, for
which he had made extraordinary preparations: he was resolved not to
grant them any terms, but to crush them. And they must needs have been
overpowered, but for treachery at home. It is quite evident that Ricimer
betrayed him, and was the cause of Genseric’s getting the Roman fleet at
Carthagena set on fire. Notwithstanding this, Majorian concluded an
advantageous peace, which at least secured the coasts of Italy and
Sicily. On his return, at the instigation of Ricimer, a rebellion broke
out against him: he was obliged to renounce the throne, and a few days
after he ceased to live (461).
Ricimer’s absolute sway under a nominal emperor, lasted until 467,
during which seven years a quite unknown emperor, Libius Severus, had
the empty name of sovereign. Ricimer had an army, enlisted from what
were called the _fœderati_ (all sorts of German tribes), and he looked
upon Italy as his realm; yet he was in a critical position, as he had to
protect Italy; for he could not have kept it against Genseric. His power
was limited. What still belonged to the Romans in Gaul and Spain, was
subject to the _Magister militum_ Ægidius, a very distinguished man, and
a Roman, who had made himself independent, and ruled over Spain and part
of Gaul. Marcellinus, another commander, an old and faithful servant of
Aëtius, had become prince of Illyricum. Ricimer, after the death of
Severus (465), ruled alone; but not beyond Italy. As, however, that
country still continued to be a prey to the pirate-ships of the Vandals,
Ricimer allowed the senate to apply to the emperor Leo at
Constantinople, and to ask him to appoint an emperor under his
supremacy, and to come to the aid of the empire.
Leo named Anthemius, the son-in-law of his predecessor Marcian, and whom
he was glad to get rid of; sent him with a considerable body of troops;
and made preparations for a grand expedition against the Vandals. By the
death of Ægidius, the prefecture of Gaul was reunited with Italy; and
Marcellinus also had placed Illyricum again under the supremacy of the
emperor. On the side of Italy, Sardinia was wrested out of the grasp of
the Vandals; Basiliscus, a general of the east and a brother-in-law of
Leo, led a considerable army against Carthage; and another was sent
against Tripolis. The plan was a brilliant one, and the beginning of the
undertaking successful; but Genseric, who always got the advantage by
discovering those who would sell themselves, now also warded off the
decisive moment by craftiness. There is some suspicion that even
Basiliscus sold himself; perhaps Ricimer also was guilty again. However
this may have been, the expedition proved a total failure. Ricimer and
Anthemius now fell out, although Anthemius had married his daughter to
Ricimer; and thus the help which had been expected from the eastern
emperor, only became the source of still greater calamity. Ricimer now
kept his court at Milan; Anthemius lived at Rome: they were implacable
enemies, nor did the attempt to reconcile them lead to any result.
A new pretender to the crown, Olybrius, the husband of the younger
daughter of Valentinian, who besides such claims had also those of the
_gens Anicia_, now offered himself to Ricimer. The latter caused him to
be proclaimed. Anthemius, however, would not give up Rome; on which
Ricimer laid siege to it for three months, when he at last burst in over
the bridge, and it was taken by storm, and had to suffer all the horrors
of a conquered city. As the marriage of Ricimer with the daughter of
Anthemius had been the last brilliant moment for Rome, thus the present
calamity was the most awful one, being indeed far more terrible than
when it was taken by the Goths and Vandals: Pope Gelasius speaks in very
strong terms of the horrors which were perpetrated on this occasion.
Anthemius himself lost his life: Ricimer and Olybrius survived him only
a few months. There seem to have been epidemics, of which there is also
mention.
Now Gundobald, the king of the Burgundians, who had taken Ricimer’s
place, in his capacity of Patrician appointed a Roman of the name of
Glycerius, emperor. Against him, however, the court of Constantinople
sent Julius Nepos, another Roman of rank, who with some assistance
from Constantinople got possession of Rome and Ravenna. Glycerius
abdicated; but Nepos was refused obedience by Orestes, a Roman from
Noricum, who had been great even in the days of Attila. At this time,
after Gundobald had left Italy, Orestes was Patrician, that is to say,
commander-in-chief. Although a Roman by birth, he had been brought up
among barbarians, and had adopted their language, manners, dress, and
way of living: from reasons which we cannot account for, he conferred
the imperial dignity upon his son Romulus, who had received his
strange name from the father of his mother, a count Romulus in
Noricum. Nepos, that he might be acknowledged by the Visigoths, had
already given up the Roman lands in Gaul, even more than those
barbarians were able to occupy: the people of Auvergne abandoned the
hopeless idea of resistance; but in the north of Gaul, between
Burgundy and the settlements of the Franks, a considerable part of the
country was still Roman, though separated from the bulk of the empire
ever since the death of Ægidius. That territory was now subject to
Syagrius, and it yet lasted ten years longer than the western empire,
until it was likewise broken up by Clovis. Romulus, who was not called
Augustus, but Augustulus, was the last emperor. Against him the
barbarian tribes, stirred up by Odoachar, a German prince, arose in
rebellion: they demanded, over and above their exorbitant pay, no less
than a third of all the lands, like the Visigoths and Burgundians, to
be allotted on a tenure of military service. As Orestes would not
grant this, they revolted, and, wanting to have a ruler who was one of
themselves, proclaimed Odoachar king. He defeated Orestes and his
brother in two battles, and they both of them lost their lives.
Odoachar marched to Ravenna, and Romulus surrendered to him: he was
treated with humanity, as he received a liberal maintenance, and the
_Lucullianum_ in Campania was assigned to him as his residence.
Whether he died there of a natural death, is more than we know.
Thus ended the Roman empire.