Back to Chapter Listing
Continue Reading
The
deification of the emperors
21 is the only instance in which they departed from their accustomed prudence and modesty. The Asiatic Greeks were the first inventors, the successors of
Alexander the first objects, of this servile and impious mode of adulation.
* It was easily transferred from the kings to the governors of Asia; and the Roman magistrates very frequently were
adored as provincial deities, with the pomp of altars and temples, of festivals and sacrifices.
22 It was natural that the emperors should not refuse what the
Proconsuls had accepted; and the divine honors which both the one and the other received from the provinces, attested rather the
despotism than the servitude of
Rome. But the conquerors soon imitated the vanquished
nations in the arts of flattery; and the imperious spirit of the first
Caesar too easily consented to assume, during his lifetime, a place among the tutelar deities of
Rome. The milder temper of
his successor declined so dangerous an ambition, which was never afterwards revived, except by the madness of
Caligula and
Domitian.
Augustus permitted indeed some of the provincial
cities to erect temples to his honor, on condition that they should associate the worship of
Rome with that of the sovereign; he tolerated private superstition, of which he might be the object;
23 but he contented himself with being revered by the
Senate and the people in his human character, and wisely left to his successor the care of his public deification. A regular custom was
introduced, that on the decease of every emperor who had neither lived nor died like a tyrant, the
Senate by a solemn decree should place him in the number of the gods: and the ceremonies of
his apotheosis were blended with those of his funeral.
! This legal, and, as it should seem, injudicious profanation, so abhorrent to our stricter principles, was received with a very faint
murmur,
24 by the easy nature of Polytheism; but it was received as an institution, not of religion, but of
policy. We should disgrace the virtues of the Antonines by comparing them with
the vices of
Hercules or
Jupiter. Even the characters of
Caesar or
Augustus were far superior to those of the popular deities. But it was the misfortune of the former to live in an enlightened
age, and their actions were too faithfully recorded to admit of such a mixture of fable and mystery, as the devotion of the vulgar requires. As soon as their divinity was established by law, it
sunk into oblivion, without contributing either to their own fame, or to the
dignity of succeeding princes.
note 21: See a treatise of Vandale de Consecratione Principium. It would be easier for me to copy, than it has been to verify, the quotations of that learned Dutchman.
note *: This is inaccurate. The successors of Alexander were not the first deified sovereigns; the Egyptian had deified and worshipped many of their kings; the Olympus of the Greeks
was peopled with divinities who had reigned on earth; finally, Romulus himself had received the honors of an apotheosis (Tit. Liv. i. 16) a long time before Alexander and his successors. It
is also an inaccuracy to confound the honors offered in the provinces to the Roman governors, by temples and altars, with the true apotheosis of the emperors; it was not a religious worship,
for it had neither priests nor sacrifices. Augustus was severely blamed for having permitted himself to be worshipped as a god in the provinces, (Tac. Ann. i. 10: ) he would not have incurred
that blame if he had only done what the governors were accustomed to do. - G. from W. M. Guizot has been guilty of a still greater inaccuracy in confounding the deification of the living
with the apotheosis of the dead emperors. The nature of the king-worship of Egypt is still very obscure; the hero-worship of the Greeks very different from the adoration of the "praesens
numen" in the reigning sovereign. - M.
note 22: See a dissertation of the Abbe Mongault in the first volume of the Academy of Inscriptions.
note 23: Jurandasque tuum per nomen ponimus aras, says Horace to the emperor himself, and Horace was well acquainted with the court of Augustus. Note: The good princes were not
those who alone obtained the honors of an apotheosis: it was conferred on many tyrants. See an excellent treatise of Schaepflin, de Consecratione Imperatorum Romanorum, in his
Commentationes historicae et criticae. Bale, 1741, p. 184. - W.
note !: The curious satire in the works of Seneca, is the strongest remonstrance of profaned religion. - M.
note 24: See Cicero in Philippic. i. 6. Julian in Caesaribus. Inque Deum templis jurabit Roma per umbras, is the indignant expression of Lucan; but it is a patriotic rather than a devout
indignation.
In the consideration of the
Imperial government, we have frequently mentioned the artful founder, under his well-known title of
Augustus, which was not, however, conferred upon him till the
edifice was almost completed. The obscure name of Octavianus he derived from a mean family, in the little town of Aricia.
! It was stained with the blood of the proscription; and he was
desirous, had it been possible, to erase all memory of his former life. The illustrious surname of
Caesar he had assumed, as the adopted son of the dictator: but he had too much good sense,
either to hope to be confounded, or to wish to be compared with that extraordinary man. It was proposed in the
Senate to dignify their minister with a new appellation; and after a serious
discussion, that of
Augustus was chosen, among several others, as being the most expressive of the character of peace and sanctity, which he uniformly affected.
25 Augustus was therefore a
personal,
Caesar a family distinction. The former should naturally have expired with the prince on whom it was bestowed; and however the latter was diffused by adoption and female
alliance, Nero was the last prince who could allege any hereditary claim to the honors of the Julian line. But, at the time of his death, the practice of a century had inseparably connected those
appellations with the
Imperial dignity, and they have been preserved by a long succession of emperors, Romans, Greeks, Franks, and Germans, from the fall of the
Republic to the present
time. A distinction was, however, soon introduced. The sacred title of
Augustus was always reserved for the monarch, whilst the name of
Caesar was more freely communicated to his
relations; and, from the reign of Hadrian, at least, was appropriated to the second person in the state, who was considered as the presumptive heir of the
Empire.
*
note !: Octavius was not of an obscure family, but of a considerable one of the equestrian order. His father, C. Octavius, who possessed great property, had been praetor, governor of
Macedonia, adorned with the title of Imperator, and was on the point of becoming consul when he died. His mother Attia, was daughter of M. Attius Balbus, who had also been praetor. M.
Anthony reproached Octavius with having been born in Aricia, which, nevertheless, was a considerable municipal city: he was vigorously refuted by Cicero. Philip. iii. c. 6. - W. Gibbon
probably meant that the family had but recently emerged into notice. - M.
note 25: Dion. Cassius, l. liii. p. 710, with the curious Annotations of Reimar.
note *: The princes who by their birth or their adoption belonged to the family of the Caesars, took the name of Caesar. After the death of Nero, this name designated the Imperial
dignity itself, and afterwards the appointed successor. The time at which it was employed in the latter sense, cannot be fixed with certainty. Bach (Hist. Jurisprud. Rom. 304) affirms from
Tacitus, H. i. 15, and Suetonius, Galba, 17, that Galba conferred on Piso Lucinianus the title of Caesar, and from that time the term had this meaning: but these two historians simply say
that he appointed Piso his successor, and do not mention the word Caesar. Aurelius Victor (in Traj. 348, ed. Artzen) says that Hadrian first received this title on his adoption; but as the
adoption of Hadrian is still doubtful, and besides this, as Trajan, on his death-bed, was not likely to have created a new title for his successor, it is more probable that Aelius Verus was the
first who was called Caesar when adopted by Hadrian. Spart. in Aelio Vero, 102.- W.
The tender respect of
Augustus for a free constitution which he had destroyed, can only be explained by an attentive consideration of the character of that subtle
tyrant. A cool head, an
unfeeling heart, and a cowardly disposition, prompted him at the age of nineteen to assume the mask of
hypocrisy, which he never afterwards laid aside. With the same hand, and probably
with the same temper, he signed the proscription of
Cicero, and the pardon of Cinna. His virtues, and even his vices, were artificial; and according to the various dictates of his interest, he
was at first the enemy, and at last the father, of the Roman world.
26 When he framed the artful system of the
Imperial authority, his moderation was inspired by his fears. He wished to
deceive the people by an image of civil
liberty, and the armies by an image of civil government.
note 26: As Octavianus advanced to the banquet of the Caesars, his color changed like that of the chameleon; pale at first, then red, afterwards black, he at last assumed the mild livery of
Venus and the Graces, (Caesars, p. 309.) This image, employed by Julian in his ingenious fiction, is just and elegant; but when he considers this change of character as real and ascribes it to
the power of philosophy, he does too much honor to philosophy and to Octavianus.
I. The death of
Caesar was ever before his eyes. He had lavished wealth and honors on his adherents; but the most favored friends of his uncle were in the number of the conspirators. The
fidelity of the legions might defend his
authority against open rebellion; but their vigilance could not secure his person from the dagger of a determined
Republican; and the Romans, who
revered the memory of
Brutus,
27 would applaud the imitation of his virtue.
Caesar had provoked his fate, as much as by the ostentation of his power, as by his power itself. The consul or
the tribune might have reigned in peace. The title of king had armed the Romans against his life.
Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his
expectation, that the
Senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom. A feeble
Senate and enervated people
cheerfully acquiesced in the pleasing illusion, as long as it was supported by the virtue, or even by the prudence, of the successors of
Augustus. It was a motive of self-preservation, not a
principle of
liberty, that animated the conspirators against
Caligula, Nero, and
Domitian. They attacked the person of the tyrant, without aiming their blow at the
authority of the emperor.
note 27: Two centuries after the establishment of monarchy, the emperor Marcus Antoninus recommends the character of Brutus as a perfect model of Roman virtue. Note: In a very ingenious essay, Gibbon has ventured to call in question the preeminent virtue of Brutus. Misc Works, iv. 95. - M.
There appears, indeed, one memorable occasion, in
which the
Senate, after seventy years of patience, made an ineffectual attempt to re-assume its long-forgotten rights. When the throne was vacant by the murder of
Caligula, the consuls
convoked that assembly in the Capitol, condemned the memory of the
Caesars, gave the watchword
liberty to the few cohorts who faintly adhered to their standard, and during eight-and-forty
hours acted as the independent chiefs of a free
Commonwealth. But while they deliberated, the praetorian guards had resolved. The stupid
Claudius, brother of Germanicus, was already in
their camp, invested with the
Imperial purple, and prepared to support his election by arms. The dream of
liberty was at an end; and the
Senate awoke to all the horrors of inevitable servitude.
Deserted by the people, and threatened by a military force, that feeble assembly was compelled to ratify the choice of the praetorians, and to embrace the benefit of an amnesty, which
Claudius
had the prudence to offer, and the generosity to observe.
28
See The Capitol: When the throne was vacant by the murder of Caligula, the consuls convoked that assembly in the Capitol.
note 28: It is much to be regretted that we have lost the part of Tacitus which treated of that transaction. We are forced to content ourselves with the popular rumors of Josephus, and the
imperfect hints of Dion and Suetonius.
The
insolence of the armies inspired
Augustus with fears of a still more alarming nature. The despair of the citizens could only attempt, what the power of the soldiers was, at any time,
able to execute. How precarious was his own
authority over men whom he had taught to violate every social duty! He had heard their seditious clamors; he dreaded their calmer moments of
reflection. One
revolution had been purchased by immense rewards; but a second revolution might double those rewards. The troops professed the fondest attachment to the house of
Caesar;
but the attachments of the multitude are capricious and inconstant.
Augustus summoned to his aid whatever remained in those fierce minds of Roman prejudices; enforced the rigor of
discipline by the sanction of law; and, interposing the majesty of the
Senate between the emperor and the army, boldly claimed their allegiance, as the first magistrate of the
Republic.
During a long period of two hundred and twenty years from the establishment of this artful system to the death of Commodus, the dangers inherent to a military government were, in a great
measure, suspended. The soldiers were seldom roused to that fatal sense of their own strength, and of the weakness of the civil
authority, which was, before and afterwards, productive of such
dreadful calamities.
Caligula and
Domitian were assassinated in their palace by their own domestics:
* the convulsions which agitated
Rome on the death of the former, were confined to the
walls of the city. But Nero involved the whole
Empire in his ruin. In the space of eighteen months, four princes perished by the sword; and the Roman world was shaken by the fury of the
contending armies. Excepting only this short, though violent eruption of military license, the two centuries from
Augustus 29 to Commodus passed away unstained with civil blood, and
undisturbed by revolutions. The emperor was elected by the
authority of the
Senate, and the consent of the soldiers.
30 The legions respected their oath of fidelity; and it requires a minute
inspection of the Roman annals to discover three inconsiderable rebellions, which were all suppressed in a few months, and without even the hazard of a battle.
31
note *: Caligula perished by a conspiracy formed by the officers of the praetorian troops, and Domitian would not, perhaps, have been assassinated without the participation of the two
chiefs of that guard in his death. - W.
note 29: Augustus restored the ancient severity of discipline. After the civil wars, he dropped the endearing name of Fellow-Soldiers, and called them only Soldiers, (Sueton. in August. c. 25.) See the use Tiberius made of the Senate in the mutiny of the Pannonian legions, (Tacit. Annal. i.)
note 30: These words seem to have
been the constitutional language. See Tacit. Annal. xiii. 4. Note: This panegyric on the soldiery is rather too liberal. Claudius was obliged to purchase their consent to his coronation: the presents which he made, and those which the praetorians received on other occasions, considerably embarrassed the finances. Moreover, this formidable guard favored, in general, the cruelties of the tyrants. The distant revolts were more frequent than Gibbon thinks: already, under Tiberius, the legions of Germany would have seditiously constrained Germanicus to assume the Imperial purple. On the revolt of Claudius Civilis, under Vespasian, the legions of Gaul murdered their general, and offered their assistance to the Gauls who were in insurrection. Julius Sabinus made himself be proclaimed emperor, &c. The wars,
the merit, and the severe discipline of Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines, established, for some time, a greater degree of subordination. - W
note 31: The first was Camillus
Scribonianus, who took up arms in Dalmatia against Claudius, and was deserted by his own troops in five days, the second, L. Antonius, in Germany, who rebelled against Domitian; and
the third, Avidius Cassius, in the reign of M. Antoninus. The two last reigned but a few months, and were cut off by their own adherents. We may observe, that both Camillus and Cassius
colored their ambition with the design of restoring the Republic; a task, said Cassius peculiarly reserved for his name and family.
In elective monarchies, the vacancy of the throne is a moment big with danger and mischief. The Roman emperors, desirous to spare the legions that interval of suspense, and the temptation
of an irregular choice, invested their designed successor with so large a share of present power, as should enable him, after their decease, to assume the remainder, without suffering the
Empire
to perceive the change of masters. Thus
Augustus, after all his fairer prospects had been snatched from him by untimely deaths, rested his last hopes on
Tiberius, obtained for his adopted son
the censorial and tribunitian powers, and dictated a law, by which the future prince was invested with an
authority equal to his own, over the provinces and the armies.
32 Thus Vespasian
subdued the generous mind of his eldest son. Titus was adored by the eastern legions, which, under his command, had recently achieved the conquest of Judaea. His power was dreaded, and,
as his virtues were clouded by the intemperance of youth, his designs were suspected. Instead of listening to such unworthy suspicions, the prudent monarch associated Titus to the full
powers of the
Imperial dignity; and the grateful son ever approved himself the humble and faithful minister of so indulgent a father.
note 32: Velleius Paterculus, l. ii. c. 121. Sueton. in Tiber. c. 26.
note 33: Sueton. in Tit. c. 6. Plin. in Praefat. Hist. Natur.
Back to Chapter Listing
Continue Reading
To cite original text:
Gibbon, Edward, 1737-1794.
The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. 1st ed. (London : Printed for W. Strahan ; and T. Cadell, 1776-1788.), pp. 70-75.