The reign of Diocletian and his three associates, — Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius—General re-establishment of order and tranquility. —The Persian war, victory and triumph.—The new form of administration. —The abdication and retirement of Diocletian and Maximian
Elevation and character of Diocletian. A.D. 285.
As the reign of Diocletian was more illustrious than that of
any of his predecessors, so was his birth more abject and
obscure. The strong claims of merit and of violence had
frequently superseded the ideal prerogatives of nobility;
but a distinct line of separation was hitherto preserved
between the free and the servile part of mankind. The
parents of Diocletian had been slaves in the house of
Anulinus, a Roman senator; nor was he himself distinguished
by any other name than that which he derived from a small
town in Dalmatia, from whence his mother deduced her origin.
(1) It is, however, probable that his father obtained the
freedom of the family, and that he soon acquired an office
of scribe, which was commonly exercised by persons of his
condition. (2) Favourable oracles, or rather the consciousness
of superior merit, prompted his aspiring son to pursue the
profession of arms and the hopes of fortune; and it would be
extremely curious to observe the graduation of arts and
accidents which enabled him in the end to fulfil those
oracles, and to display that merit to the world. Diocletian
was successively promoted to the government of Maesia, the
honours of the consulship, and the important command of the
guards of the palace. He distinguished his abilities in the
Persian war; and after the death of Numerian, the slave, by
the confession and judgment of his rivals, was declared the
most worthy of the Imperial throne. The malice of religious
zeal, whilst it arraigns the savage fierceness of his
colleague Maximian, has affected to cast suspicion on the
personal courage of the emperor Diocletian. (3) It would not
be easy to persuade us of the cowardice of a soldier of
fortune who acquired and preserved the esteem of the
legions, as well as the favour of so many warlike princes.
Yet even calumny is sagacious enough to discover and to
attack the most vulnerable part. The valour of Diocletian
was never found inadequate to his duty, or to the occasion;
but he appears not to have possessed the daring and generous
spirit of a hero, who courts danger and fame, disdains
artifice, and boldly challenges the allegiance of his
equals. His abilities were useful rather than splendid - a
vigorous mind improved by the experience and study of
mankind; dexterity and application in business; a judicious
mixture of liberality and economy, of mildness and rigour;
profound dissimulation under the disguise of military
frankness; steadiness to pursue his ends; flexibility to
vary his means; and, above all, the great art of submitting
his own passions, as well as those of others, to the
interest of his ambition, and of colouring his ambition with
the most specious pretences of justice and public utility.
Like Augustus, Diocletian may be considered as the founder
of a new empire. Like the adopted son of Caesar, he was
distinguished as a statesman rather than as a warrior; nor
did either of those princes employ force, whenever their
purpose could be effected by policy.
His clemency and victory.
The victory of Diocletian was remarkable for its singular
mildness. A people accustomed to applaud the clemency of the
conqueror, if the usual punishments of death, exile, and
confiscation were inflicted with any degree of temper and
equity, beheld, with the most pleasing astonishment, a civil
war, the flames of which were extinguished in the field of
battle. Diocletian received into his confidence Aristobulus,
the principal minister of the house of Carus, respected the
lives, the fortunes, and the dignity of his adversaries, and
even continued in their respective stations the greater
number of the servants of Carinus. (4) It is not improbable
that motives of prudence might assist the humanity of the
artful Dalmatian: of these servants, many had purchased his
favour by secret treachery; in others, he esteemed their
grateful fidelity to an unfortunate master. The discerning
judgment of Aurelian, of Probus, and of Carus, had filled
the several departments of the state and army with officers
of approved merit, whose removal would have injured the
public service, without promoting the interest of the
successor. Such a conduct, however, displayed to the Roman
world the fairest prospect of the new reign, and he emperor
affected to confirm this favourable prepossession by
declaring that, among all the virtues of his predecessors,
he was the most ambitious of imitating the humane philosophy
of Marcus Antoninus. (5)
Association and character of Maximian. A.D. 286. April 1.
The first considerable action of his reign seemed to evince
his sincerity as well as his moderation. After the example
of Marcus, he gave himself a colleague in the person of
Maximian, on whom he bestowed at first the title of Caesar,
and afterwards that of Augustus. (6) But the motives of his
conduct, as well as the object of his choice, were of a very
different nature from those of his admired predecessor. By
investing a luxurious youth with the honours of the purple,
Marcus had discharged a debt of private gratitude, at the
expense, indeed, of the happiness of the state. By
associating a friend and a fellow-soldier to the favours of
government, Diocletian, in a time of public danger, provided
for the defence both of the East and of the West. Maximian
was born a peasant, and, like Aurelian, in the territory of
Sirmium. Ignorant of Letters, (7) careless of laws, the
rusticity of his appearance and manners still betrayed in
the most elevated fortune the meanness of his extraction.
War was the only art which he professed. In a long course of
service he had distinguished himself on every frontier of
the empire; and though his military talents were formed to
obey rather than to command, though, perhaps, he never
attained the skill of a consummate general, he was capable,
by his valour, constancy, and experience, of executing the
most arduous undertakings. Nor were the vices of Maximian
less useful to his benefactor. Insensible to pity, and
fearless of consequences, he was the ready instrument of
every act of cruelty which the policy of that artful prince
might at once suggest and disclaim. As soon as a bloody
sacrifice had been offered to prudence or to revenge,
Diocletian, by his seasonable intercession, saved the
remaining few whom he had never designed to punish, gently
censured the severity of his stern colleague, and enjoyed
the comparison of a golden and an iron age, which was
universally applied to their opposite maxims of government.
Notwithstanding the difference of their characters, the two
emperors maintained, on the throne, that friendship which
they had contracted in a private station. The haughty,
turbulent spirit of Maximian, so fatal afterwards to himself
and to the public peace, was accustomed to respect the
genius of Diocletian, and confessed the ascendant of reason
over brutal violence. (8) From a motive either of pride or
superstition, the two emperors assumed the titles, the one
of Jovius, the other of Herculius. Whilst the motion of the world (such was the language of
their venal orators) was maintained by the all-seeing wisdom
of Jupiter, the invincible arm of Hercules purged the earth
from monsters and tyrants. (9)
Association of two caesars.Galerius and Constantius.. A.D. 292. March 1.
But even the omnipotence of Jovius and Herculius was
insufficient to sustain the weight of the public
administration. The prudence of Diocletian discovered that
the empire, assailed on every side by the barbarians,
required on every side the presence of a great army and of
an emperor. With this view, he resolved once more to divide
his unwieldy power, and, with the inferior title of Caesar,
to confer on two generals of approved merit an equal share
of the sovereign authority. (10) Galerius, surnamed
Armentarius, from his original profession of a herdsman, and
Constantius, who from his pale complexion had acquired the
denomination of Chlorus, (11) were the two persons invested
with the second honours of the Imperial purple. In
describing the country, extraction, and manners of
Herculius, we have already delineated those of Galerius, who
was often, and not improperly, styled the younger Maximian,
though, in many instances both of virtue and ability, he
appears to have possessed a manifest superiority over the
elder. The birth of Constantius was less obscure than that
of his colleagues. Eutropius, his father, was one of the
most considerable nobles of Dardania, and his mother was the
niece of the emperor Claudius. (12) Although the youth of
Constantius had been spent in arms, he was endowed with a
mild and amiable disposition, and the popular voice had long
since acknowledged him worthy of the rank which he at last
attained. To strengthen the bonds of political, by those of
domestic, union, each of the emperors assumed the character
of a father to one of the Caesars, Diocletian to Galerius,
and Maximian to Constantius; and each, obliging them to
repudiate their former wives, bestowed his daughter in
marriage on his adopted son. (13) These four princes
distributed among themselves the wide extent of the Roman
empire. Departments and harmony of the four princes. The defence of Gaul, Spain, (14) and Britain was
intrusted to Constantius: Galerius was stationed on the
banks of the Danube, as the safeguard of the Illyrian
provinces. Italy and Africa were considered as the
department of Maximian; and for his peculiar portion
Diocletian reserved Thrace, Egypt, and the rich countries of
Asia. Every one was sovereign within his own jurisdiction;
but their united authority extended over the whole monarchy,
and each of them was prepared to assist his colleagues with
his counsels or presence. The Caesars, in their exalted
rank, revered the majesty of the emperors, and the three
younger princes invariably acknowledged, by their gratitude
and obedience, the common parent of their fortunes. The
suspicious jealousy of power found not any place among them;
and the singular happiness of their union has been compared
to a chorus of music, whose harmony was regulated and
maintained by the skilful hand of the first artist. (15)
Series of events.
This important measure was not carried into execution till
about six years after the association of Maximian, and that
interval of time had not been destitute of memorable
incidents. But we have preferred for the sake of
perspicuity, first to describe the more perfect form of
Diocletian's government, and afterwards to relate the
actions of his reign, following rather the natural order of
the events than the dates of a very doubtful chronology.
A.D. 287. State of the peasants of Gaul.
The first exploit of Maximian, though it is mentioned in a
few words by our imperfect writers, deserves, from its
singularity, to be recorded in a history of human manners.
He suppressed the peasants of Gaul, who, under the
appellation of Bagaudae, (16) had risen in a general
insurrection; very similar to those which in the fourteenth
century successively afflicted both France and England. (17)
It should seem that very many of those institutions,
referred by an easy solution to the feudal system, are
derived from the Celtic barbarians. When Caesar subdued the
Gauls, that great nation was already divided into three
orders of men the clergy, the nobility, and the common
people. The first governed by superstition, the second by
arms, but the third and last was not of any weight or
account in their public councils. It was very natural for
the plebeians, oppressed by debt or apprehensive of
injuries, to implore the protection of some powerful chief,
who acquired over their persons and property the same
absolute rights as, among the Greeks and Romans, a master
exercised over his slaves. (18) The greatest part of the
nation was gradually reduced in a state of servitude;
compelled to perpetual labour on the estates of the Gallic
nobles, and confined to the soil, either by the real weight
of fetters, or by the no less cruel and forcible restraints
of the laws. During the long series of troubles which
agitated Gaul, from the reign of Gallienus to that of
Diocletian, the condition of those servile peasants was
peculiarly miserable; and they experienced at once the
complicated tyranny of their masters, of the barbarians, of
the soldiers, and of the officers of the revenue. (19)
Their rebellion.
Their patience was at last provoked into despair. On every
side they rose in multitudes, armed with rustic weapons, and
with irresistible fury. The ploughman became a foot soldier,
the shepherd mounted on horseback, the deserted villages and
open towns were abandoned to the flames, and the ravages of
the peasants equalled those of the fiercest barbarians. (20)
They asserted the natural rights of men, but they asserted
those rights with the most savage cruelty. The Gallic
nobles, justly dreading their revenge, either took refuge in
the fortified cities, or fled from the wild scene of
anarchy. The peasants reigned without control, and two of
their most daring leaders had the folly and rashness to
assume the Imperial ornaments. (21) Their power soon expired
at the approach of the legions. The strength of union and
discipline obtained an easy victory over a licentious and
divided multitude. (22) and chastisement. A severe retaliation was inflicted on the peasants who were found in arms: the affrighted remnant
returned to their respective habitations, and their
unsuccessful effort for freedom served only to confirm their
slavery. So strong and uniform is the current of popular
passions, that we might almost venture, from very scanty
materials, to relate the particulars of this war but we are
not disposed to believe that the principal leaders, Aelianus
and Amandus, were Christians, (23) or to insinuate that the
rebellion, as it happened in the time of Luther, was
occasioned by the abuse of those benevolent principles of
Christianity which inculcate the natural freedom of mankind.
Revolt of Carausius in Britain.
Maximian had no sooner recovered Gaul from the hands of the
peasants, than he lost Britain by the usurpation of
Carausius. Ever since the rash but successful enterprise of
the Franks under the reign of Probus, their daring
countrymen had constructed squadrons of light brigantines,
in which they incessantly ravaged the provinces adjacent to
the ocean. (24) To repel their desultory incursions, it was
found necessary to create a naval power and the judicious
measure was prosecuted with prudence and vigour.
Gessoriacum, or Boulogne, in the straits of the British
Channel, was chosen by the emperor for the station of the
Roman fleet; and the command of it was intrusted to
Carausius, a Menapian of the meanest origin, (25) but who had
long signalised his skill as a pilot and his valour as a
soldier. The integrity of the new admiral corresponded not
with his abilities. When the German pirates sailed from
their own harbours he connived at their passage, but he
diligently intercepted their return, and appropriated to his
own use an ample share of the spoil which they had acquired.
The wealth of Carausius was, on this occasion, very justly
considered as an evidence of his guilt; and Maximian had
already given orders for his death. But the crafty Menapian
foresaw and prevented the severity of the emperor. By his
liberality he had attached to his fortunes the fleet which
he commanded, and secured the barbarians in his interest.
From the port of Boulogne he sailed over to Britain,
persuaded the legions and the auxiliaries which guarded that
island to embrace his party, and boldly assuming, with the
Imperial purple, the title of Augustus, defied the justice
and the arms of his injured sovereign. (26)
Importance of Britain.
When Britain was thus dismembered from the empire its
importance was sensibly felt and its loss sincerely
lamented. The Romans celebrated, and perhaps magnified, the
extent of that noble island, provided on every side with
convenient harbours; the temperature of the climate, and the
fertility of the soil, alike adapted for the production of
corn. or of vines; the valuable minerals with which it
abounded; its rich pastures covered with innumerable flocks,
and its woods free from wild beasts or venomous serpents.
Above all, they regretted the large amount of the revenue of
Britain, whilst they confessed that such a province well
deserved to become the seat of an independent monarchy. (27)
Power of Carausius.
During the space of seven years it was possessed by Carausius; and fortune continued propitious to a rebellion
supported with courage and ability. The British emperor
defended the frontiers of his dominions against the
Caledonians of the North, invited from the continent a great
number of skilful artists, and displayed, on a variety of
coins that are still extant, his taste and opulence. Born on
the confines of the Franks, he courted the friendship of
that formidable people by the flattering imitation of their
dress and manners. The bravest of their youths he enlisted
among his land or sea forces; and, in return for their
useful alliance, he communicated to the barbarians the
dangerous knowledge of military and naval arts. Carausius
still preserved the possession of Boulogne and the adjacent
country. His fleets rode triumphant in the channel,
commanded the mouths of the Seine and of the Rhine, ravaged
the coasts of the ocean, and diffused beyond the Columns of
Hercules the terror of his name. Under his command, Britain,
destined in a future age to obtain the empire of the sea,
already assumed its natural and respectable station of a
maritime power. (28)
A.D. 289. Acknowledged by the other emperor.
By seizing the fleet of Boulogne, Carausius had deprived his
master of the means of pursuit and revenge. And when, after
a vast expense of time and labour, a new armament was
launched into the water, (29) the Imperial troops,
unaccustomed to that element, were easily baffled and
defeated by the veteran sailors of the usurper. This
disappointed effort was soon productive of a treaty of
peace. Diocletian and his colleague, who justly dreaded the
enterprising spirit of Carausius, resigned to him the
sovereignty of Britain, and reluctantly admitted their
perfidious servant to a participation of the Imperial
honours. (30) But the adoption of the two Caesars restored new
vigour to the Roman arms; and while the Rhine was guarded by
the presence of Maximian, his brave associate Constantius
assumed the conduct of the British war. His first enterprise
was against the important place of Boulogne. A stupendous
mole, raised across the entrance of the harbour, intercepted
all hopes of relief. The town surrendered after an obstinate
defence; and a considerable part of the naval strength of
Carausius fell into the hands of the besiegers. During the
three years which Constantius employed in preparing a fleet
adequate to the conquest of Britain, he secured the coast of
Gaul, invaded the country of the Franks, and deprived the
usurper of the assistance of those powerful allies.
A.D. 294. His death.
Before the preparations were finished, Constantius received
the intelligence of the tyrant's death, and it was
considered as a sure presage of the approaching victory. The
servants of Carausius imitated the example of treason which
he had given. He was murdered by his first minister
Allectus, and the assassin succeeded to his power and to his
danger. But he possessed not equal abilities either to
exercise the one or to repel the other. He beheld with
anxious terror the opposite shores of the continent, already
filled with arms, with troops, and with vessels; for
Constantius had very prudently divided his forces, that he
might likewise divide the attention and resistance of the
enemy. A.D. 296. Recovery of Britain by Constantius. The attack was at length made by the principal
squadron, which, under the command of the praefect
Asclepiodotus, an officer of distinguished merit, had been
assembled in the mouth of the Seine. So imperfect in those
times was the art of navigation, that orators have
celebrated the daring courage of the Romans, who ventured to
set sail with a side wind, and on a stormy day. The weather
proved favourable to their enterprise. Under the cover of a
thick fog they escaped the fleet of Allectus, which had been
stationed off the Isle of Wight to receive them, landed in
safety on some part of the western coast, and convinced the
Britons that a superiority of naval strength will not always
protect their country from a foreign invasion. Asclepiodotus
had no sooner disembarked the imperial troops than he set
fire to his ships; and, as the expedition proved fortunate,
his heroic conduct was universally admired. The usurper had
posted himself near London, to expect the formidable attack
of Constantius, who commanded in person the fleet of
Boulogne; but the descent of a new enemy required his
immediate presence in the West. He performed this long march
in so precipitate a manner that he encountered the whole
force of the praefect with a small body of harassed and
disheartened troops. The engagement was soon terminated by
the total defeat and death of Allectus; a single battle, as
it has often happened, decided the fate of this great
island; and when Constantius landed on the shores of Kent,
he found them covered with obedient subjects. Their
acclamations were loud and unanimous; and the virtues of the
conqueror may induce us to believe that they sincerely
rejoiced in a revolution which, after a separation of ten
years, restored Britain to the body of the Roman empire. (31)
Defence of the frontiers.
Britain had none but domestic enemies to dread; and as long
as the governors preserved their fidelity, and the troops
their discipline, the incursions of the naked savages of
Scotland or Ireland could never materially affect the safety
of the province. The peace of the continent, and the defence
of the principal rivers which bounded the empire, were
objects of far greater difficulty and importance. The policy
of Diocletian, which inspired the councils of his
associates, provided for the public tranquillity, by
encouraging a spirit of dissension among the barbarians, and
by strengthening the fortifications of the Roman limit. Fortifications. In
the East he fixed a line of camps from Egypt to the Persian
dominions, and, for every camp, he instituted an adequate
number of stationary troops, commanded by their respective
officers, and supplied with every kind of arms, from the new
arsenals which he had formed at Antioch, Emesa, and
Damascus. (32) Nor was the precaution of the emperor less watchful against the well-known valour of the barbarians of
Europe. From the mouth of the Rhine to that of the Danube,
the ancient camps, towns, and citadels were diligently
re-established, and, in the most exposed places, new ones
were skilfully constructed; the strictest vigilance was
introduced among the garrisons of the frontier, and every
expedient was practised that could render the long chain of
fortifications firm and impenetrable. (33) A barrier so
respectable was seldom violated, and the barbarians often
turned against each other their disappointed rage. Dissension of the barbarians. The Goths, the Vandals, the Gepidae, the Burgundians, the
Alemanni, wasted each other's strength by destructive
hostilities: and whosoever vanquished, they vanquished the
enemies of Rome. The subjects of Diocletian enjoyed the
bloody spectacle, and congratulated each other that the
mischiefs of civil war were now experienced only by the
barbarians. (34)
Conduct of the emperors.
Notwithstanding the policy of Diocletian, it was impossible
to maintain an equal and undisturbed tranquillity during a
reign of twenty years, and along a frontier of many hundred
miles. Sometimes the barbarians suspended their domestic
animosities, and the relaxed vigilance of the garrisons
sometimes gave a passage to their strength or dexterity.
Whenever the provinces were invaded, Diocletian conducted
himself with that calm dignity which he always affected or
possessed; reserved his presence for such occasions as were
worthy of his interposition, never exposed his person or
reputation to any unnecessary danger, ensured his success by
every means that prudence could suggest, and displayed, with
ostentation, the consequences of his victory. In wars of a
more difficult nature, and more doubtful event, he employed
the rough valour of Maximian; and that faithful soldier was
content to ascribe his own victories to the wise counsels
and auspicious influence of his benefactor. Valour of the Caesars. But after the
adoption of the two Caesars, the emperors, themselves
retiring to a less laborious scene of action, devolved on
their adopted sons the defence of the Danube and of the
Rhine. The vigilant Galerius was never reduced to the
necessity of vanquishing an army of barbarians on the Roman
territory. (35) The brave and active Constantius delivered
Gaul from a very furious inroad of the Alemanni; and his
victories of Langres and Vindonissa appear to have been
actions of considerable danger and merit. As he traversed
the open country with a feeble guard, he was encompassed on
a sudden by the superior multitude of the enemy. He
retreated with difficulty towards Langres; but, in the
general consternation, the citizens refused to open their
gates, and the wounded prince was drawn up the wall by the
means of a rope. But, on the news of his distress, the Roman
troops hastened from all sides to his relief, and before the
evening he had satisfied his honour and revenge by the
slaughter of six thousand Alemanni. (36) From the monuments of
those times the obscure traces of several other victories
over the barbarians of Sarmatia and Germany might possibly
be collected; but the tedious search would not be rewarded
either with amusement or with instruction
Treatment of the barbarians
The conduct which the emperor Probus had adopted in the disposal of the
vanquished was imitated by Diocletian and his associates.
The captive barbarians, exchanging death for slavery, were
distributed among the provincials, and assigned to those
districts (in Gaul, the territories of Amiens, Beauvais,
Carnbray, Treves, Langres, and Troyes, are particularly
specified) (37) which had been depopulated by the calamities
of war. They were usefully employed as shepherds and
husbandmen, but were denied the exercise of arms, except
when it was found expedient to enrol them in the military
service. Nor did the emperors refuse the property of lands,
with a less servile tenure, to such of the barbarians as
solicited the protection of Rome. They granted a settlement
to several colonies of the Carpi, the Bastarnae, and the
Sarmatians; and, by a dangerous indulgence, permitted them
in some measure to retain their national manners and
independence. (38) Among the provincials it was a subject of
flattering exultation that the barbarian, so lately an
object of terror, now cultivated their lands, drove their
cattle to the neighbouring fair, and contributed by his
labour to the public plenty. They congratulated their
masters on the powerful accession of subjects and soldiers;
but they forgot to observe that multitudes of secret
enemies, insolent from favour, or desperate from oppression,
were introduced into the heart of the empire. (39)
Wars of Africa and Egypt.
While the Caesars exercised their valour on the banks of the
Rhine and Danube, the presence of the emperors was required
on the southern confines of the Roman world. From the Nile
to Mount Atlas Africa was in arms. A confederacy of five
Moorish nations issued from their deserts to invade the
peaceful provinces. (40) Julian had assumed the purple at
Carthage. (41) Achilleus at Alexandria, and even the Blemmyes,
renewed, or rather continued, their incursions into the
Upper Egypt. Scarcely any circumstances have been preserved
of the exploits of Maximian in the western parts of Africa;
but it appears, by the event, that the progress of his arms
was rapid and decisive, that he vanquished the fiercest
barbarians of Mauritania, and that he removed them from the
mountains, whose inaccessible strength had inspired their
inhabitants with a lawless confidence, and habituated them
to a life of rapine and violence. (42)
A.D. 296. Conduct of Diocletian in Egypt.
Diocletian, on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters
of the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, (43) and,
rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the
besieged multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with
caution and vigour. After a siege of eight months,
Alexandria, wasted by the sword and by fire, implored the
clemency of the conqueror, but it experienced the full
extent of his severity. Many thousands of the citizens
perished in a promiscuous slaughter, and there were few
obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a sentence either of
death or at least of exile. (44) The fate of Busiris and of
Coptos was still more melancholy than that of Alexandria;
those proud cities, the former distinguished by its
antiquity, the latter enriched by the passage of the Indian
trade, were utterly destroyed by the arms and by the severe
order of Diocletian. (45) The character of the Egyptian
nation, insensible to kindness, but extremely susceptible of
fear, could alone justify this excessive rigour. The
seditions of Alexandria had often affected the tranquillity
and subsistence of Rome itself. Since the usurpation of
Firmus, the province of Upper Egypt, incessantly relapsing
into rebellion, had embraced the alliance of the savages of
Ethiopia. The number of the Blemmyes, scattered between the
island of Meroe and the Red Sea, was very inconsiderable,
their disposition was unwarlike, their weapons rude and
inoffensive. (46) Yet in the public disorders these
barbarians, whom antiquity, shocked with the deformity of
their figure, had almost excluded from the human species,
presumed to rank themselves among the enemies of Rome. (47)
Such had been the unworthy allies of the Egyptians; and
while the attention of the state was engaged in more serious
wars, their vexatious inroads might again harass the repose
of the province. With a view of opposing to the Blemmyes a
suitable adversary, Diocletian persuaded the Nobatae, or
people of Nubia, to remove from their ancient habitations in
the deserts of Libya, and resigned to them an extensive but
unprofitable territory above Syene and the cataracts of the
Nile, with the stipulation that they should ever respect and
guard the frontier of the empire. The treaty long subsisted;
and till the establishment of Christianity introduced
stricter notions of religious worship, it was annually
ratified by a solemn sacrifice in the isle of Elephantine,
in which the Romans, as well as the barbarians, adored the
same visible or invisible powers of the universe. (48)
At the same time that Diocletian chastised the past crimes of the Egyptians, he provided for their future safety and happiness by many wise regulations, which were confirmed and enforced under the succeeding reigns. (49) One very remarkable edict which he published, instead of being condemned as the effect of jealous tyranny, deserves to be applauded as an act of prudence and humanity. He supresses books of alchymy. He caused a diligent inquiry to be made "for all the ancient books which treated of the admirable art of making gold and silver, and without pity committed them to the flames; apprehensive, as we are assured, lest the opulence of the Egyptians should inspire them with confidence to rebel against the empire." (50) But if Diocletian had been convinced of the reality of that valuable art, far from extinguishing the memory, he would have converted the operation of it to the benefit of the public revenue. It is much more likely that his good sense discovered to him the folly of such magnificent pretensions, and that he was desirous of preserving the reason and fortunes of his subjects from the mischievous pursuit. Novelty and progress of that art. It may be remarked that these ancient books, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The Greeks were inattentive either to the use or to the abuse of chemistry. In that immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries the arts, and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the transmutation of metals; and the persecution of Diocletian is the first authentic event in the history of alchemy. The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with equal eagerness and with equal success. The darkness of the middle ages ensured a favourable reception to every tale of wonder, and the revival of learning gave new vigour to hope, and suggested more specious arts of deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length banished the study of alchemy; and the present age, however desirous of riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and industry. (51)
The Persian war.
The reduction of Egypt was immediately followed by the
Persian war. It was reserved for the reign of Diocletian to
vanquish that powerful nation, and to extort a confession
from the successors of Artaxerxes of the superior majesty of
the Roman empire.
Tiridates the Armenian.
We have observed, under the reign of Valerian, that Armenia
was subdued by the perfidy and the arms of the Persians, and
that, after the assassination of Chosroes, his son
Tiridates, the infant heir of the monarchy, was saved by the
fidelity of his friends, and educated under the protection
of the emperors. Tiridates derived from his exile such
advantages as he could never have obtained on the throne of
Armenia; the early knowledge of adversity, of mankind, and
of the Roman discipline. He signalised his youth by deeds of
valour, and displayed a matchless dexterity, as well as
strength, in every martial exercise, and even in the less
honourable contests of the Olympian games. (52) Those
qualities were more nobly exerted in the defence of his
benefactor Licinius. (53) That officer, in the sedition which
occasioned the death of Probus, was exposed to the most
imminent danger, and the enraged soldiers were forcing their
way into his tent when they were checked by the single arm
of the Armenian prince. The gratitude of Tiridates
contributed soon afterwards to his restoration. Licinius was
in every station the friend and companion of Galerius, and
the merit of Galerius, long before he was raised to the
dignity of Caesar, had been known and esteemed by
Diocletian. In the third year of that emperor's reign,
Tiridates was invested with the kingdom of Armenia. The
justice of the measure was not less evident than its
expediency. It was time to rescue from the usurpation of the
Persian monarch an important territory, which, since the
reign of Nero, had been always granted under the protection
of the empire to a younger branch of the house of Arsaces.
(54)
A.D. 286. His restoration to the throne of Armenia.
When Tiridates appeared on the frontiers of Armenia, he was
received with an unfeigned transport of joy and loyalty.
During twenty-six years the country had experienced the real
and imaginary hardships of a foreign yoke. The Persian
monarchs adorned their new conquest with magnificent
buildings; but those monuments had been erected at the
expense of the people, and were abhorred as badges of
slavery.
State of the country.
The apprehension of a revolt had inspired the most
rigorous precautions: oppression had been aggravated by
insult, and the consciousness of the public hatred had been
productive of every measure that could render it still more
implacable. We have already remarked the intolerant spirit
of the Magian religion. The statues of the deified kings of
Armenia, and the sacred images of the sun and moon, were
broke in pieces by the zeal of the conqueror and the
perpetual fire of Ormuzd was kindled and preserved upon as
altar erected on the summit of Mount Bagavan. (55)
Revolt of the people and nobles.
It was natural that a people exasperated by so many injuries should
arm with zeal in the cause of their independence, their
religion, and their hereditary sovereign. The torrent bore
down every obstacle, and the Persian garrisons retreated
before its fury. The nobles of Armenia flew to the standard
of Tiridates, all alleging their past merit, offering their
future service, and soliciting from the new king those
honours and rewards from which they had been excluded with
disdain under the foreign government. (56) The command of the
army was bestowed on Artavasdes, whose father had saved the
infancy of Tiridates, and whose family had been massacred
for that generous action. The brother of Artavasdes obtained
the government of a province. One of the first military
dignities was conferred on the satrap Otas, a man of
singular temperance and fortitude, who presented to the king
his sister, (57) and a considerable treasure, both of which,
in a sequestered fortress, Otas had preserved from
violation.
Story of Mamgo.
Among the Armenian nobles appeared an ally whose
fortunes are too remarkable to pass unnoticed. His name was
Mamgo, his origin was Scythian, and the horde which
acknowledged his authority had encamped a very few years
before on the skirts of the Chinese empire, (58) which at that
time extended as far as the neighbourhood of Sogdiana. (59)
Having incurred the displeasure of his master, Mamgo, with
his followers, retired to the banks of the Oxus, and
implored the protection of Sapor. The emperor of China
claimed the fugitive, and alleged the rights of sovereignty.
The Persian monarch pleaded the laws of hospitality, and
with some difficulty avoided a war by the promise that he
would banish Mamgo to the uttermost parts of the West, a
punishment, as he described it, not less dreadful than death
itself. Armenia was chosen for the place of exile, and a
large district was assigned to the Scythian horde, on which
they might feed their flocks and herds, and remove their
encampment from one place to another, according to the
different seasons of the year. They were employed to repel
the invasion of Tiridates; but their leader, after weighing
the obligations and injuries which he had received from the
Persian monarch, resolved to abandon his party. The Armenian
prince, who was well acquainted with the merit as well as
power of Mamgo, treated him with distinguished respect; and,
by admitting him into his confidence, acquired a brave and
faithful servant, who contributed very effectually to his
restoration. (60)
The Persians recover Armenia.
For a while fortune appeared to favour the enterprising
valour of Tiridates. He not only expelled the enemies of his
family and country from the whole extent of Armenia, but in
the prosecution of his revenge he carried his arms, or at
least his incursions, into the heart of Assyria. The
historian who has preserved the name of Tiridates from
oblivion, celebrates, with a degree of national enthusiasm,
his personal prowess and, in the true spirit of eastern
romance, describes the giants and the elephants that fell
beneath his invincible arm. It is from other information
that we discover the distracted state of the Persian
monarchy, to which the king of Armenia was indebted for some
part of his advantages. The throne was disputed by the
ambition of contending brothers; and Hormuz, after exerting
without success the strength of his own party, had recourse
to the dangerous assistance of the barbarians who inhabited
the banks of the Caspian Sea. (61) The civil war was, however,
soon terminated, either by a victory or by a reconciliation;
and Narses, who was universally acknowledged as king of
Persia, directed his whole force against the foreign enemy.
The contest then became too unequal: nor was the valour of
the hero able to withstand the power of the monarch.
Tiridates, a second time expelled from the throne of
Armenia, once more took refuge in the court of the emperors.
Narses soon re-established his authority over the revolted
province; and, loudly complaining of the protection afforded
by the Romans to rebels and fugitives, aspired to the
conquest of the East. (62)
War between the Persians and the Romans. A.D. 296
Neither prudence nor honour could permit the emperors to
forsake the cause of the Armenian king, and it was resolved
to exert the force of the empire in the Persian war.
Diocletian, with the calm dignity which he constantly
assumed, fixed his own station in the city of Antioch, from
whence he prepared and directed the military operations. (63)
The conduct of the legions was intrusted to the intrepid
valour of Galerius, who, for that important purpose, was
removed from the banks of the Danube to those of the
Euphrates.Defeat of Galerius. The armies soon encountered each other in the plains of Mesopotamia, and two battles were fought with various and doubtful success; but the third engagement was
of a more decisive nature, and the Roman army received a total overthrow, which is attributed to the rashness of Galerius, who, with an inconsiderable body of troops, attacked the innumerable host of the Persians. (64) But the consideration of the country that was the scene of action may suggest another reason for his defeat. The same ground on which Galerius was vanquished had been rendered memorable
by the death of Crassus and the slaughter of ten legions. It
was a plain of more than sixty miles, which extended from
the hills of Carrhae to the Euphrates; a smooth and barren
surface of sandy desert, without a hillock, without a tree,
and without a spring of fresh water. (65) The steady infantry
of the Romans, fainting with heat and thirst, could neither
hope for victory if they preserved their ranks, nor break
their ranks without exposing themselves to the most imminent
danger. In this situation they were gradually encompassed by
the superior numbers, harassed by the rapid evolutions and
destroyed by the arrows of the barbarian cavalry. The king
of Armenia had signalised his valour in the battle, and
acquired personal glory by the public misfortune. He was
pursued as far as the Euphrates; his horse was wounded, and
it appeared impossible for him to escape the victorious
enemy. In this extremity Tiridates embraced the only refuge
which he saw before him: he dismounted and plunged into the
stream. His armour was heavy, the river very deep, and at
those parts at least half a mile in breadth; (66) yet such was
his strength and dexterity, that he reached in safety the
opposite bank. (67) With regard to the Roman general, we are
ignorant of the circumstances of his escape; His reception by Diocletian. but when he
returned to Antioch, Diocletian received him, not with the
tenderness of a friend and colleague, but with the
indignation of an offended sovereign. The haughtiest of men,
clothed in his purple, but humbled by the sense of his fault
and misfortune, was obliged to follow the emperor's chariot
above a mile on foot, and to exhibit, before the whole
court, the spectacle of his disgrace. (68)
Second campaign of Galerius. A.D. 297.
As soon as Diocletian had indulged his private resentment,
and asserted the majesty of supreme power, he yielded to the
submissive entreaties of the Caesar, and permitted him to
retrieve his own honour, as well as that of the Roman arms.
In the room of the unwarlike troops of Asia, which had most
probably served in the first expedition, a second army was
drawn from the veterans and new levies of the Illyrian
frontier, and a considerable body of Gothic auxiliaries were
taken into the Imperial pay. (69) At the head of a chosen army
of twenty-five thousand men Galerius again passed the
Euphrates; but, instead of exposing his legions in the open
plains of Mesopotamia, he advanced through the mountains of
Armenia, where he found the inhabitants devoted to his
cause, and the country as favourable to the operations of
infantry as it was inconvenient for the motions of cavalry.
(70)His victory. Adversity had confirmed the Roman discipline, while the
barbarians, elated by success, were become so negligent and
remiss that, in the moment when they least expected it, they
were surprised by the active conduct of Galerius, who,
attended only by two horsemen, had with his own eyes
secretly examined the state and position of their camp. A
surprise, especially in the night-time, was for the most
part fatal to a Persian army.
"Their horses were tied, and generally shackled, to prevent their running away; and if an alarm happened, a Persian had his housing to fix, his horse to bridle, and his corselet to put on, before he could mount." (71)
On this occasion the impetuous attack of Galerius spread disorder and dismay over the camp of the barbarians. A slight resistance was followed by a dreadful carnage, and in the general confusion the wounded monarch (for Narses commanded his armies in person) fled towards the deserts of Media. His sumptuous tents, and those of his satraps, afforded an immense booty to the conqueror; and an incident is mentioned which proves the rustic but martial ignorance of the legions in the elegant superfluities of life. A bag of shining leather, filled with pearls, fell into the hands of a private soldier; he carefully preserved the bag, but he threw away its contents, judging that whatever was of no use could not possibly be of any value. (72)and behaviour to his royal captives. The principal loss of Narses was of a much more affecting nature. Several of his wives, his sisters, and children, who had attended the army, were made captives in the defeat. But though the character of Galerius had in general very little affinity with that of Alexander, he imitated, after his victory, the amiable behaviour of the Macedonian towards the family of Darius. The wives and children of Narses were protected from violence and rapine, conveyed to a place of safety, and treated; with every mark of respect and tenderness that was due from a generous enemy to their age, their sex, and their royal dignity. (73)
Negotiation for peace.
While the East anxiously expected the decision of this great
contest, the emperor Diocletian, having assembled in Syria a
strong army of observation, displayed from a distance the
resources of the Roman power, and reserved himself for any
future emergency of the war. On the intelligence of the
victory he condescended to advance towards the frontier,
with a view of moderating, by his presence and counsels, the
pride of Galerius. The interview of the Roman princes at
Nisibis was accompanied with every expression of respect on
one side, and of esteem on the other. It was in that city
that they soon afterwards gave audience to the ambassador of
the Great King. (74) The power, or at least the spirit, of
Narses had been broken by his last defeat; and he considered
an immediate peace as the only means that could stop the
progress of the Roman arms. He despatched Apharban, a
servant who possessed his favour and confidence, with a
commission to negotiate a treaty, or rather to receive
whatever conditions the conqueror should impose.Speech of the Persian ambassador. Apharban
opened the conference by expressing his master's gratitude
for the generous treatment of his family, and by soliciting
the liberty of those illustrious captives. He celebrated the
valour of Galerius, without degrading the reputation of
Narses, and thought it no dishonour to confess the
superiority of the victorious Caesar over a monarch who had
surpassed in glory all the princes of his race.
Notwithstanding the justice of the Persian cause, he was
empowered to submit the present differences to the decision
of the emperors themselves; convinced as he was that, in the
midst of prosperity, they would not be unmindful of the
vicissitudes of fortune. Apharban concluded his discourse in
the style of Eastern allegory, by observing that the Roman
and Persian monarchies were the two eyes of the world, which
would remain imperfect and mutilated if either of them
should be put out.
Answer of Gallerius.
"It well becomes the Persians," replied Galerius, with a transport of fury which seemed to convulse his whole frame, "it well becomes the Persians to expatiate on the vicissitudes of fortune, and calmly to read us lectures on the virtues of moderation. Let them remember their own moderation towards the unhappy Valerian. They vanquished him by fraud, they treated him with indignity. They detained him till the last moment of his life in shameful captivity, and after his death they exposed his body to perpetual ignominy."
Softening, however, his tone, Galerius insinuated to the ambassador that it had never been the practice of the Romans to trample on a prostrate enemy; and that, on this occasion, they should consult their own dignity rather than the Persian merit. He dismissed Apharban with a hope that Narses would soon be informed on what conditions he night obtain, from the clemency of the emperors, a lasting peace and the restoration of his wives and children. In this conference we may discover the fierce passions of Galerius, as well as his deference to the superior wisdom and authority of Diocletian. The ambition of the former grasped at the conquest of the East, and had proposed to reduce Persia into the state of a province. Moderation of Diocletian. The prudence of the latter, who adhered to the moderate policy of Augustus and the Antonines, embraced the favourable opportunity of terminating a successful war by an honourable and advantageous peace. (75)
Conclusion.
In pursuance of their promise, the emperors soon afterwards
appointed Sicorius Probus, one of their secretaries, to
acquaint the Persian court with their final resolution. As
the minister of peace, he was received with every mark of
politeness and friendship; but, under the pretence of
allowing him the necessary repose after so long a journey,
the audience of Probus was deferred from day to day, and he
attended the slow motions of the king, till at length he was
admitted to his presence, near the river Asprudus, in Media.
The secret motive of Narses in this delay had been to
collect such a military force as might enable him, though
sincerely desirous of peace, to negotiate with the greater
weight and dignity. Three persons only assisted at this
important conference, the minister Apharban, the praefect of
the guards, and an officer who had commanded on the Armenian
frontier. (76) The first condition proposed by the ambassador
is not at present of a very intelligible nature; that the
city of Nisibis might be established for the place of mutual
exchange, or, as we should formerly have termed it, for the
staple of trade, between the two empires. There is no
difficulty in conceiving the intention of the Roman princes
to improve their revenue by some restraints upon commerce;
but as Nisibis was situated within their own dominions, and
as they were masters both of the imports and exports, it
should seem that such restraints were the objects of an
internal law, rather than of a foreign treaty. To render
them more effectual, some stipulations were probably
required on the side of the king of Persia, which appeared
so very repugnant either to his interest or to his dignity
that Narses could not be persuaded to subscribe them. As
this was the only article to which he refused his consent,
it was no longer insisted on; and the emperors either
suffered the trade to flow in its natural channels, or
contented themselves with such restrictions as it depended
on their own authority to establish.
And articles of the treaty
As soon as this difficulty was removed, a solemn peace was
concluded and ratified between the two nations. The
conditions of a treaty so glorious to the empire, and so
necessary to Persia, may deserve a more peculiar attention,
as the history of Rome presents very few transactions of a
similar nature; most of her wars having either been
terminated by absolute conquest, or waged against barbarians
ignorant of the use of letters.The Aboras fixed as the limits between the empires. I. The Aboras, or, as it is called by Xenophon, the Araxes, was fixed as the boundary
between the two monarchies. (77) That river, which rose near
the Tigris, was increased, a few miles below Nisibis, by the
little stream of the Mygdonius, passed under the walls of
Singara, and fell into the Euphrates at Circesium, a
frontier town which, by the care of Diocletian, was very
strongly fortified. (78) Mesopotamia, the object of so many
wars, was ceded to the empire; and the Persians, by this
treaty, renounced all pretensions to that great province II.
They relinquished to the Romans five provinces beyond the
Tigris. (79)Cession of five provinces beyond the Tigris. Their situation formed a very useful barrier, and
their natural strength was soon improved by art and military
skill. Four of these, to the north of the river, were
districts of obscure fame and inconsiderable extent -
Intiline, Zabdicene, Arzanene, and Moxoene; but on the east
of the Tigris the empire acquired the large and mountainous
territory of Carduene, the ancient seat of the Carduchians,
who preserved for many ages their manly freedom in the heart
of the despotic monarchies of Asia. The ten thousand Greeks
traversed their country after a painful march, or rather
engagement, of seven days; and it is confessed by their
leader, in his incomparable relation of the retreat, that
they suffered more from the arrows of the Carduchians than
from the power of the Great King. (80) Their posterity, the
Curds, with very little alteration either of name or
manners, acknowledged the nominal sovereignty of the Turkish
sultan. Armenia. III. It is almost needless to observe that Tiridates, the faithful ally of Rome, was restored to the throne of his fathers, and that the rights of the Imperial supremacy were fully asserted and secured. The limits of Armenia were extended as far as the forests of Sintha in Media, and this increase of dominion was not so much an act of liberality as of justice. Of the provinces already mentioned beyond the Tigris, the four first had been dismembered by the Parthians from the crown of Armenia; (81)
and when the Romans acquired the possession of them, they stipulated, at the expense of the usurpers, an ample compensation, which invested their ally with the extensive and fertile country of Atropatene. Its principal city, in
the same situation perhaps as the modern Tauris, was frequently honoured with the residence of Tiridates; and as it sometimes bore the name of Ecbatana, he imitated, in the buildings and fortifications, the splendid capital of the Medes. (82)Iberia. IV. The country of Iberia was barren, its inhabitants rude and savage. But they were accustomed to the
use of arms, and they separated from the empire barbarians much fiercer and more formidable than themselves. The narrow defiles of Mount Caucasus were in their hands, and it was in their choice either to admit or to exclude the wandering tribes of Sarmatia, whenever a rapacious spirit urged them
to penetrate into the richer climates of the South. (83) The nomination of the kings of Iberia, which was resigned by the Persian monarch to the emperors, contributed to the strength and security of the Roman power in Asia. (84) The East enjoyed a profound tranquillity during forty years; and the treaty between the rival monarchies was strictly observed till the death of Tiridates; when a new generation, animated with
different views and different passions, succeeded to the government of the world; and the grandson of Narses undertook a long and memorable war against the princes of the house of Constantine.
Triumph of Diocletian amd Maximian. A.D. 303. November 20
The arduous work of rescuing the distressed empire from
tyrants and barbarians had now been completely achieved by a
succession of IIlyrian peasants. As soon as Diocletian
entered into the twentieth year of his reign, he celebrated
that memorable era, as well as the success of his arms by
the pomp of a Roman triumph. (85) Maximian, the equal partner
of his power, was his only companion in the glory of that
day. The two Caesars had fought and conquered, but the merit
of their exploits was ascribed, according to the rigour of
ancient maxims, to the auspicious influence of their fathers
and emperors. (86) The triumph of Diocletian and Maximian was
less magnificent, perhaps, than those of Aurelian and
Probus, but it was dignified by several circumstances of
superior fame and good fortune. Africa and Britain, the
Rhine, the Danube, and the Nile, furnished their respective
trophies; but the most distinguished ornament was of a more
singular nature, a Persian victory followed by an important
conquest. The representations of rivers, mountains, and
provinces were carried before the Imperial car. The images
of the captive wives, the sisters, and the children of the
Great King afforded a new and grateful spectacle to the
vanity of the people. (87) In the eyes of posterity this
triumph is remarkable by a distinction of a less honourable
kind. It was the last that Rome ever beheld. Soon after this
period the emperors ceased to vanquish, and Rome ceased to
be the capital of the empire.
Long absence of the emperor from Rome .
The spot on which Rome was founded had been consecrated by
ancient ceremonies and imaginary miracles. The presence of
some god, or the memory of some hero, seemed to animate
every part of the city, and the empire of the world had been
promised to the Capitol. (88) The native Romans felt and
confessed the power of this agreeable illusion. It was
derived from their ancestors, had grown up with their
earliest habits of life, and was protected, in some measure,
by the opinion of political utility. The form and the seat
of government were intimately blended together, nor was it
esteemed possible to transport the one without destroying
the other. (89) But the sovereignty of the capital was
gradually annihilated in the extent of conquest; the
provinces rose to the same level, and the vanquished nations
acquired the name and privileges, without imbibing the
partial affections, of Romans. During a long period,
however, the remains of the ancient constitution and the
influence of custom preserved the dignity of Rome. The
emperors, though perhaps of African or Illyrian extraction,
respected their adopted country as the seat of their power
and the centre of their extensive dominions. The emergencies
of war very frequently required their presence on the
Frontiers; but Diocletian and Maximian were the first Roman
princes who fixed, in time of peace, their ordinary
residence in the provinces and their conduct, however it
might be suggested by private motives, was justified by very
specious considerations of policy.Their residence at Milan. The court of the emperor
of the West was, for the most part, established at Milan,
whose situation, at the foot of the Alps, appeared far more
convenient than that of Rome, for the important purpose of
watching the motions of the barbarians of Germany. Milan
soon assumed the splendour of an imperial city. The houses
are described as numerous and well built; the manners of the
people as polished and liberal. A circus, a theatre, a mint,
a palace, baths, which bore the name of their founder
Maximian; porticoes adorned with statues, and a double
circumference of walls, contributed to the beauty of the new
capital. Nor did it seem oppressed even by the proximity of
Rome. (90) To rival the majesty of Rome was the ambition
likewise of Diocletian, and Nicomedia. who employed his leisure and the
wealth of the East in the embellishment of Nicomedia, a city
placed on the verge of Europe and Asia, almost at an equal
distance between the Danube and the Euphrates. By the taste
of the monarch, and at the expense of the people, Nicomedia
acquired, in he space of a few years, a degree of
magnificence which might appear to have required the labour
of ages, and became inferior only to Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch in extent or populousness. (91) The life of Diocletian
and Maximian was a life of action, and a considerable
portion of it was spent in camps, or in their long and
frequent marches; but whenever the public business allowed
them any relaxation, they seemed to have retired with
pleasure to their favourite residences of Nicomedia and
Milan. Till Diocletian, in the twentieth year of his reign,
celebrated his Roman triumph, it is extremely doubtful
whether he ever visited the ancient capital of the empire.
Even on that memorable occasion his stay did not exceed two
months. Disgusted with the licentious familiarity of the
people, he quitted Rome with precipitation thirteen days
before it was expected that he should have appeared in the
senate invested with the ensigns of the consular dignity. (92)
Debasement of Rome and of the senate.
The dislike expressed by Diocletian towards Rome and Roman
freedom was not the effect of momentary caprice, but the
result of the most artful policy. The crafty prince had
framed a new system of Imperial government, which was
afterwards completed by the family of Constantine; and as
the image of the old constitution was religiously preserved
in the senate, he resolved to deprive that order of its
small remains of power and consideration. We may recollect,
about eight years before the elevation of Diocletian, the
transient greatness and the ambitious hopes of the Roman
senate. As long as that enthusiasm prevailed, many of the
nobles imprudently displayed their zeal in the cause of
freedom; and after the successors of Probus had withdrawn
their countenance from the republican party, the senators
were unable to disguise their impotent resentment. As the
sovereign of Italy, Maximian was intrusted with the care of
extinguishing this troublesome rather than dangerous spirit,
and the task was perfectly suited to his cruel temper. The
most illustrious members of the senate, whom Diocletian
always affected to esteem, were involved, by his colleague,
in the accusation of imaginary plots; and the possession of
an elegant villa, or a well-cultivated estate, was
interpreted as a convincing evidence of guilt. (93) The camp
of the Praetorians, which had so long oppressed, began to
protect, the majesty of Rome; and as those haughty troops
were conscious of the decline of their power, they were
naturally disposed to unite their strength with the
authority of the senate. By the prudent measures of
Diocletian, the numbers of the Praetorians were insensibly
reduced, their privileges abolished, (94) and their place
supplied by two faithful legions of Illyricum, New bodies of guards, Jovians and Herculians. who, under
the new titles of Jovians and Herculians, were appointed to
perform the service of the Imperial guards. (95) But the most
fatal though secret wound which the senate received from the
hands of Diocletian and Maximian was inflicted by the
inevitable operation of their absence. As long as the
emperors resided at Rome, that assembly might be oppressed,
but it could scarcely be neglected. The successors of
Augustus exercised the power of dictating whatever laws
their wisdom or caprice might suggest; but those laws were
ratified by the sanction of the senate. The model of ancient
freedom was preserved in its deliberations and decrees; and
wise princes, who respected the prejudices of the Roman
people, were in some measure obliged to assume the language
and behaviour suitable to the general and first magistrate
of the republic. In the armies and in the provinces they
displayed the dignity of monarchs; and when they fixed their
residence at a distance from the capital, they forever laid
aside the dissimulation which Augustus had recommended to
his successors. In the exercise of the legislative as well
as the executive power, the sovereign advised with his
ministers, instead of consulting the great council of the
nation. The name of the senate was mentioned with honour
till the last period of the empire; the vanity of its
members was still flattered with honorary distinctions; (96)
but the assembly which had so long been the source, and so
long the instrument of power, was respectfully suffered to
sink into oblivion. The senate of Rome, losing all
connection with the Imperial court and the actual
constitution, was left a venerable but useless monument of
antiquity on the Capitoline hill.
Civil magistrates laid aside.
When the Roman princes had lost sight of the senate and of
their ancient capital, they easily forgot the origin and
nature of their legal power. The civil offices of consul, of
proconsul, of censor, and of tribune, by the union of which
it had been formed, betrayed to the people its republican
extraction. Those modest titles were laid aside; (97) and if
they still distinguished their high station by the
appellation of Emperor, or IMPERATOR, that word was
understood in a new and more dignified sense, and no longer
denoted the general of the Roman armies, but the sovereign
of the Roman world. Imperial dignity and titles. The name of Emperor, which was at first
of a military nature, was associated with another of a more
servile kind. The epithet of DOMINUS, or LORD, in its
primitive signification, was expressive not of the authority
of a prince over his subjects, or of a commander over his
soldiers, but of the despotic power of a master over his
domestic slaves. (98) Viewing it in that odious light, it had been rejected with abhorrence by the first Caesars. Their resistance insensibly became more feeble, and the name less
odious; till at length the style of our Lord and Emperor was
not only bestowed by flattery, but was regularly admitted
into the laws and public monuments. Such lofty epithets were
sufficient to elate and satisfy the most excessive vanity;
and if the successors of Diocletian still declined the title
of King, it seems to have been the effect not so much of
their moderation as of their delicacy. Wherever the Latin
tongue was in use (and it was the language of government
throughout the empire), the Imperial title, as it was
peculiar to themselves, conveyed a more respectable idea
than the name of king, which they must have shared with an
hundred barbarian chieftains; or which, at the best, they
could derive only from Romulus, or from Tarquin. But the
sentiments of the East were very different from those of the
West. From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of
Asia had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title
of BASILEUS, or King; and since it was considered as the
first distinction among men, it was soon employed by the
servile provincials of the East in their humble addresses to
the Roman throne. (99) Even the attributes, or at least the titles, of the DIVINITY were usurped by Diocletian and Maximian, who transmitted them to a succession of Christian
emperors. (100) Such extravagant compliments, however, soon lose their impiety by losing their meaning; and when the ear is once accustomed to the sound, they are heard with
indifference as vague though excessive professions of respect.
Diocletian assumes the diadem, and introduces the Persian ceremonial.
From the time of Augustus to that of Diocletian, the Roman princes, conversing in a familiar manner among their fellow-citizens, were saluted only with the same respect that was usually paid to senators and magistrates. Their principal distinction was the Imperial or military robe of purple; whilst the senatorial garment was marked by a broad, and the equestrian by a narrow, band or stripe of the same honourable colour. The pride, or rather the policy, of Diocletian, engaged that artful prince to introduce the
stately magnificence of the court of Persia. (101) He ventured to assume the diadem, an ornament detested by the Romans as the odious ensign of royalty, and the use of which had been considered as the most desperate act of the madness of
Caligula. It was no more than a broad white fillet set with pearls, which encircled the emperor's head. The sumptuous robes of Diocletian and his successors were of silk and gold; and it is remarked with indignation that even their shoes were studded with the most precious gems. The access to their sacred person was every day rendered more difficult by the institution of new forms and ceremonies. The avenues of the palace were strictly guarded by the various schools, as they began to be called, of domestic officers. The interior apartments were intrusted to the jealous vigilance
of the eunuchs; the increase of whose numbers and influence was the most infallible symptom of the progress of despotism. When a subject was at length admitted to the Imperial presence, he was obliged, whatever might be his
rank, to fall prostrate on the ground, and to adore, according to the eastern fashion, the divinity of his lord and master. (102) Diocletian was a man of sense, who, in the course of private as well as public life, had formed a just estimate both of himself and of mankind: nor is it easy to conceive that in substituting the manners of Persia to those of Rome he was seriously actuated by so mean a principle as that of vanity. He flattered himself that an ostentation of
splendour and luxury would subdue the imagination of the multitude; that the monarch would be less exposed to the rude licence of the people and the soldiers, as his person was secluded from the public view; and that habits of
submission would insensibly be productive of sentiments of veneration. Like the modesty affected by Augustus, the state maintained by Diocletian was a theatrical representation; but it must be confessed that, of the two comedies, the former was of a much more liberal and manly character than
the latter. It was the aim of the one to disguise, and the object of the other to display, the unbounded power which the emperors possessed over the Roman world.
New form of administration, two Augusti, and two Caesars.
Ostentation was the first principle of the new system instituted by Diocletian. The second was division. He divided the empire, the provinces, and every branch of the civil as well as military administration. He multiplied the wheels of the machine of government, and rendered
its operations less rapid but more secure. Whatever advantages and whatever defects might attend these innovations, they must be ascribed in a very great degree to the first inventor, but as the new frame of policy was gradually
improved and completed by succeeding princes, it will be more satisfactory to delay the consideration of it till the season of its full maturity and perfection. (103) Reserving,
therefore, for the reign of Constantine a more exact picture of the new empire, we shall content ourselves with describing the principal and decisive outline, as it was traced by the hand of Diocletian. He had associated three
colleagues in the exercise of the supreme power; and as he was convinced that the abilities of a single man were inadequate to the public defence, he considered the joint administration of four princes not as a temporary expedient, but as a fundamental law of the constitution. It was his intention that the two elder princes should be distinguished by the use of the diadem and the title of Augusti; that, as affection or esteem might direct their choice, they should regularly call to their assistance two subordinate
colleagues; and that the Caesars, rising in their turn to the first rank, should supply an uninterrupted succession of emperors. The empire was divided into four parts. The East and Italy were the most honourable, the Danube and the Rhine the most laborious stations. The former claimed the presence of the Augusti, the latter were intrusted to the administration of the Caesars. The strength of the legions was in the hands of the four partners of sovereignty, and the despair of successively vanquishing four formidable rivals might intimidate the ambition of an aspiring general. In their civil government the emperors were supposed to exercise the undivided power of the monarch, and their edicts, inscribed with their joint names, were received in all the provinces as promulgated by their mutual councils and authority. Notwithstanding these precautions, the political union of the Roman world was gradually dissolved, and a principle of division was introduced, which, in the course of a few years, occasioned the perpetual separation of the eastern and western empires.
Increase of taxes.
The system of Diocletian was accompanied with another very
material disadvantage, which cannot even at present be
totally overlooked; a more expensive establishment, and
consequently an increase of taxes, and the oppression of the
people. Instead of a modest family of slaves and freedmen,
such as had contented the simple greatness of Augustus and
Trajan, three or four magnificent courts were established in
the various parts of the empire, and as many Roman kings
contended with each other and with the Persian monarch for
the vain superiority of pomp and luxury. The number of
ministers, of magistrates, of officers, and of servants, who
filled the different departments of the state, was
multiplied beyond the example of former times; and (if we
may borrow the warm expression of a contemporary),
"when the proportion of those who received exceeded the proportion of those who contributed, the provinces were oppressed by the weight of tributes." (104)
From this period to the extinction of the empire, it would be easy to deduce an uninterrupted series of clamours and complaints. According to his religion and situation, each writer chooses either Diocletian, or Constantine, or Valens, or Theodosius, for the object of his invectives; but they unanimously agree in representing the burden of the public impositions, and particularly the land-tax and capitation, as the intolerable and increasing grievance of their own times. From such a concurrence, an impartial historian, who is obliged to extract truth from satire, as well as from panegyric, will be inclined to divide the blame among the princes whom they accuse, and to ascribe their exactions much less to their personal vices than to the uniform system of their administration. The emperor Diocletian was indeed the author of that system; but during his reign the growing evil was confined within the bounds of modesty and discretion, and he deserves the reproach of establishing pernicious precedents, rather than of exercising actual oppression. (105) It may be added, that his revenues were managed with prudent economy; and that, after all the current expenses were discharged, there still remained in the Imperial treasury an ample provision either for judicious liberality or for any emergency of the state.
Abdication of Diocletian and Maximian.
It was in the twenty first year of his reign that Diocletian
executed his memorable resolution of abdicating the empire;
an action more naturally to have been expected from the
elder or the younger Antoninus than from a prince who had
never practised the lessons of philosophy either in the
attainment or in the use of supreme power. Diocletian
acquired the glory of giving to the world the first example
of a resignation (106) which has not been very frequently
imitated by succeeding monarchs. Resemblance to Charles the Fifth. The parallel of Charles the
Fifth, however, will naturally offer itself to our mind, not
only since the eloquence of a modern historian has rendered
that name so familiar to an English reader, but from the
very striking resemblance between the characters of the two
emperors, whose political abilities were superior to their
military genius, and whose specious virtues were much less
the effect of nature than of art. The abdication of Charles
appears to have been hastened by the vicissitude of fortune;
and the disappointment of his favourite schemes urged him to
relinquish a power which he found inadequate to his
ambition. But the reign of Diocletian had flowed with a;
tide of uninterrupted success; nor was it till after he had
vanquished all his enemies, and accomplished all his
designs, that he seems to have entertained any serious
thoughts of resigning the empire. Neither Charles nor
Diocletian were arrived at a very advanced period of life;
since the one was only fifty-five, and the other was no more
than fifty-nine years of age; but the active life of those
princes, their wars and journeys, the cares of royalty, and
their application to business, had already impaired their
constitution, and brought on the infirmities of a premature
old age. (107)
A.D. 304. Long illness of Diocletian.
Notwithstanding the severity of a very cold and rainy
winter, Diocletian left Italy soon after the ceremony of his
triumph, and began his progress towards the East round the
circuit of the Illyrian provinces. From the inclemency of
the weather and the fatigue of the journey, he soon
contracted a slow illness; and though he made easy marches,
and was generally carried in a close litter, his disorder,
before he arrived at Nicomedia, about the end of the summer,
was become very serious and alarming. During the whole
winter he was confined to his palace; his danger inspired a
general and unaffected concern; but the people could only
judge of the various alterations of his health from the joy
or consternation which they discovered in the countenances
and behaviour of his attendants. The rumour of his death was
for some time universally believed, and it was supposed to
be concealed with a view to prevent the troubles that might
have happened during the absence of the Caesar Galerius. At
length, however, on the first of March, Diocletian once more
appeared in public, but so pale and emaciated that he could
scarcely have been recognised by those to whom his person
was the most familiar. His prudence. It was time to put an end to the painful struggle, which he had sustained during more than a year, between the care of his health and that of his
dignity. The former required indulgence and relaxation, the
latter compelled him to direct, from the bed of sickness,
the administration of a great empire. He resolved to pass
the remainder of his days in honourable repose, to place his
glory beyond the reach of fortune, and to relinquish the
theatre of the world to his younger and more active
associates. (108)
A.D. 305. May 1
The ceremony of his abdication was performed in a spacious
plain, about three miles from Nicomedia. The emperor
ascended a lofty throne, and, in a speech full of reason and
dignity, declared his intention, both to the people and to
the soldiers who were assembled on this extraordinary
occasion. As soon as he had divested himself of the purple,
he withdrew from the gazing multitude, and, traversing the
city in a covered chariot, proceeded without delay to the
favourite retirement which he had chosen in his native
country of Dalmatia. On the same day, which was the first of
May, (109) Compliance of Maximian. Maximian, as it had been previously concerted, made his resignation of the Imperial dignity at Milan. Even in the splendour of the Roman triumph, Diocletian had meditated
his design of abdicating the government. As he wished to
secure the obedience of Maximian, he exacted from him either
a general assurance that he would submit his actions to the
authority of his benefactor, or a particular promise that he
would descend from the throne whenever he should receive the
advice and the example. This engagement, though it was
confirmed by the solemnity of an oath before the altar of
the Capitoline Jupiter, (110) would have proved a feeble restraint on the fierce temper of Maximian, whose passion was the love of power, and who neither desired present
tranquillity nor future reputation. But he yielded, however
reluctantly, to the ascendant which his wiser colleague had
acquired over him, and retired immediately after his
abdication to a villa in Lucania, where it was almost
impossible that such an impatient spirit could find any
lasting tranquillity.
Retirement of Diocletian at Salona.
Diocletian, who, from a servile origin, had raised himself
to the throne, passed the nine last years of his life in a
private condition. Reason had dictated, and content seems to
have accompanied, his retreat, in which he enjoyed for a
long time the respect of those princes to whom he had
resigned the possession of the world. (111) It is seldom that
minds long exercised in business have formed any habits of
conversing with themselves, and in the loss of power they
principally regret the want of occupation. The amusements of
letters and of devotion, which afford so many resources in
solitude, were incapable of fixing the attention of
Diocletian; but he had preserved, or at least he soon
recovered, a taste for the most innocent as well as natural
pleasures, and his leisure hours were sufficiently employed
in building, planting, and gardening. His philosophy, His answer to Maximian is deservedly celebrated. He was solicited by that restless old man to reassume the reins of government and the Imperial purple. He rejected the temptation with a smile of pity,
calmly observing that, if he could show Maximian the
cabbages which he had planted with his own hands at Salona,
he should no longer be urged to relinquish the enjoyment of
happiness for the pursuit of power. (112) In his conversations
with his friends he frequently acknowledged that of all arts
the most difficult was the art of reigning; and he expressed
himself on that favourite topic with a degree of warmth
which could be the result only of experience.
"How often," was he accustomed to say, "is it the interest of four or five ministers to combine together to deceive their sovereign! Secluded from mankind by his exalted dignity, the truth is concealed from his knowledge; he can see only with their eyes, he hears nothing but their misrepresentations. He confers the most important offices upon vice and weakness, and disgraces the most virtuous and deserving among his subjects. By such infamous arts," added Diocletian, "the best and wisest princes are sold to the venal corruption of their courtiers." (113)
A just estimate of greatness, and the assurance of immortal fame, improve our relish for the pleasures of retirement; but the Roman emperor had filled too important a character in the world to enjoy without alloy the comforts and security of a private condition. It was impossible that he could remain ignorant of the troubles which afflicted the empire after his abdication. It was impossible that he could be indifferent to their consequences. Fear, sorrow, and discontent sometimes pursued him into the solitude of Salona. His tenderness, or at least his pride, was deeply wounded by the misfortunes of his wife and daughter; and the last moments of Diocletian were embittered by some affronts, which Licinius and Constantine might have spared the father of so many emperors, and the first author of their own fortune. and death. A.D. 313. A report, though of a very doubtful nature, has reached our times that he prudently withdrew himself from their power by a voluntary death. (114)
Description of Salona and the adjacent country.
Before we dismiss the consideration of the life and
character of Diocletian, we may for a moment direct our view
to the place of his retirement. Salona, a principal city of
his native province of Dalmatia, was near two hundred Roman
miles (according to the measurement of the public highways)
from Aquileia and the confines of Italy, and about two
hundred and seventy from Sirmium, the usual residence of the
emperors whenever they visited the Illyrian frontier. (115) A miserable village still preserves the name of Salona; but so late as the sixteenth century the remains of a theatre, and a confused prospect of broken arches and marble columns, continued to attest its ancient splendour. (116) About six or seven miles from the city Diocletian constructed a magnificent palace, and we may infer, from the greatness of the work, how long he had meditated his design of abdicating
the empire. The choice of a spot which united all that could contribute either to health or to luxury did not require the partiality of a native.
"The soil was dry and fertile, the air is pure and wholesome, and, though extremely hot during the summer months, this country seldom feels those sultry and noxious winds to which the coasts of Istria and some parts of Italy are exposed. The views from the palace are no less beautiful than the soil and climate were inviting. Towards the west lies the fertile shore that stretches along the Adriatic, in which a number of small islands are scattered in such a manner as to give this part of the sea the appearance of a great lake. On the north side lies the bay, which led to the ancient city of Salona; and the country beyond it, appearing in sight, forms a proper contrast to that more extensive prospect of water which the Adriatic presents both to the south and to the east. Towards the north the view is terminated by high and irregular mountains, situated at a proper distance, and in many places covered with villages, woods, and vineyards." (117)
Of Diocletian's palace.
Though Constantine, from a very obvious prejudice, affects
to mention the palace of Diocletian with contempt, (118) yet
one of their successors, who could only see it in a
neglected and mutilated state, celebrates its magnificence
in terms of the highest admiration. (119) It covered an extent
of ground consisting of between nine and ten English acres.
The form was quadrangular, flanked with sixteen towers. Two
of the sides were near six hundred, and the other two near
seven hundred, feet in length. The whole was constructed of
a beautiful freestone, extracted from the neighbouring
quarries of Trau, or Tragutium, and very little inferior to
marble itself. Four streets, intersecting each other at
right angles, divided the several parts of this great
edifice, and the approach to the principal apartment was
from a very stately entrance, which is still denominated the
Golden Gate. The approach was terminated by a peristylium
of granite columns, on one side of which we discover the
square temple of Esculapius, on the other the octagon temple
of Jupiter. The latter of those deities Diocletian revered
as the patron of his fortunes, the former as the protector
of his health. By comparing the present remains with the
precepts of Vitruvius, the several parts of the building,
the baths, bedchamber, the atrium, the basilica, and the
Cyzicene, Corinthian, and Egyptian halls have been described
with some degree of precision, or at least of probability.
Their forms were various, their proportions just, but they
were all attended with two imperfections, very repugnant to
our modern notions of taste and convenience. These stately
rooms had neither windows nor chimneys. They were lighted
from the top (for the building seems to have consisted of no
more than one story), and they received their heat by the
help of pipes that were conveyed along the walls. The range
of principal apartments was protected towards the south-west
by a portico five hundred and seventeen feet long, which
must have formed a very noble and delightful walk, when the
beauties of painting and sculpture were added to those of
the prospect.
Decline of the arts.
Had this magnificent edifice remained in a solitary country,
it would have been exposed to the ravages of time; but it
might, perhaps, have escaped the rapacious industry of man.
The village of Aspalathus, (120) and, long afterwards, the
provincial town of Spalatro, have grown out of its ruins.
The Golden Gate now opens into the marketplace. St. John the
Baptist has usurped the honours of Esculapius; and the
temple of Jupiter, under the protection of the Virgin, is
converted into the cathedral church. For this account of
Diocletian's palace we are principally indebted to an
ingenious artist of our own time and country, whom a very
liberal curiosity carried into the heart of Dalmatia. (121)
But there is room to suspect that the elegance of his
designs and engraving has somewhat flattered the objects
which it was their purpose to represent. We are informed by
a more recent and very judicious traveller that the awful
ruins of Spalatro are not less expressive of the decline of
the arts than of the greatness of the Roman empire in the
time of Diocletian. (122) If such was indeed the state of
architecture, we must naturally believe that painting and
sculpture had experienced a still more sensible decay. The
practice of architecture is directed by a few general and
even mechanical rules. But sculpture, and, above all,
painting, propose to themselves the imitation not only of
the forms of nature, but of the characters and passions of
the human soul. In those sublime arts the dexterity of the
hand is of little avail unless it is animated by fancy and
guided by the most correct taste and observation.
Of letters.
It is almost unnecessary to remark that the civil
distractions of the empire, the licence of the soldiers, the
inroads of the barbarians, and the progress of despotism,
had proved very unfavourable to genius, and even to
learning. The succession of Illyrian princes restored the
empire without restoring the sciences. Their military
education was not calculated to inspire them with the love
of letters; and even the mind of Diocletian, however active
and capacious in business, was totally uninformed by study
or speculation. The professions of law and physic are of
such common use and certain profit that they will always
secure a sufficient number of practitioners endowed with a
reasonable degree of abilities and knowledge; but it does
not appear that the students in those two faculties appeal
to any celebrated masters who have flourished within that
period. The voice of poetry was silent. History was reduced
to dry and confused abridgments, alike destitute of
amusement and instruction. A languid and affected eloquence
was still retained in the pay and service of the emperors,
who encouraged not any arts except those which contributed
to the gratification of their pride or the defence of their
power. (123)
The new Platonists.
The declining age of learning and of mankind is marked,
however, by the rise and rapid progress of the new
Platonists. The school of Alexandria silenced those of
Athens; and the ancient sects enrolled themselves under the
banners of the more fashionable teachers, who recommended
their system by the novelty of their method and the
austerity of their manners. Several of these masters -
Ammonius, Plotinus, Amelius, and Porphyry (124) - were men of profound thought and intense application; but, by mistaking
the true object of philosophy, their labours contributed
much less to improve than to corrupt the human
understanding. The knowledge that is suited to our situation
and powers, the whole compass of moral, natural, and
mathematical science, was neglected by the new Platonists;
whilst they exhausted their strength in the verbal disputes
of metaphysics, attempted to explore the secrets of the
invisible world, and studied to reconcile Aristotle with
Plato, on subjects of which both these philosophers were as
ignorant as the rest of mankind. Consuming their reason in
these deep but unsubstantial meditations, their minds were
exposed to illusions of fancy. They flattered themselves
that they possessed the secret of disengaging the soul from
its corporeal prison; claimed a familiar intercourse with
daemons and spirits; and, by a very singular revolution,
converted the study of philosophy into that of magic. The
ancient sages had derided the popular superstition; after
disguising its extravagance by the thin pretence of
allegory, the disciples of Plotinus and Porphyry became its
most zealous defenders. As they agreed with the Christians
in a few mysterious points of faith, they attacked the
remainder of their theological system with all the fury of
civil war. The new Platonists would scarcely deserve a place
in the history of science, but in that of the church the
mention of them will very frequently occur.