BOOKS.
THE ROMAN EMPIRE.*
SEVERAL methods may be adopted in narrating the events of the past, but the most widely read and popular historians have unquestionably been those who have approached history from the subjective point of view. General Young manifestly belongs to this class. He has published two volumes bringing the history of the Roman Empire— a title which, in common with Professor Bury, he holds includes both its Western and Eastern branches—down to the death of Leo the Iconoclast in A.D. 740. His purpose is eminently didactic. The lesson which he wishes to enforce is clear. He is a soldier who has evidently studied his profession and takes a very legitimate pride in it. Although he wrote before the outbreak of the present war, it is plain that whilst he was recording the deeds of Tiberius, Belisarius, Alario, and others, he was thinking of Kaiser Wilhelm, and pondering over the danger incurred by a nation which was unprepared to resist the formidable military strength of Germany. He discards the view that the great defeat of Valens by the Gotha in 378 was an irreparable disaster which heralded the downfall of the Roman Empire. He compares the retreat of the Roman Army after the crushing defeat inflicted by the Persians on Julian in 363 to that of Sir John Moore in Spain, and holds that it was a splendid feat of arms. So long as the discipline of the Army was maintained, and so long as all classes of society were prepared to bear the burthen of Empire, all was well in spite of occasional mishaps. But when discipline was relaxed and national duty became irksome, Goths, Vandals, and eventually Lombards swarmed in and seized the prize which degenerate Rome had not the hardihood to defend. " When a nation in arms . . . threatens to attack another nation, the latter must also become a nation in arms or go under. There is no alternative." If an Imperial people are unwilling to bear the burthen necessary for an effective defence, " they are only fit for slavery, and must submit to be conquered by races willing to bear such burdens." This is the lesson which General Young apparently wishes his countrymen to learn, and if, as was said, I think by Dionyaius of Halicarnessus, history should be regarded as " philosophy teaching by examples," it is not merely reasonable, but also very desirable, that General Young's view of the causes which led to the disruption of the Roman Empire should be brought prominently to the notice of the British public.
Such being the point of view from which General Young approaches Roman history, it can be no matter for surprise that he estimates the characters of most of those whose careers are passed under review in the light of their military aptitude and efficiency. He thinks Aurelian, the stern conqueror of &noble, " one of the ablest Emperors Rome ever possessed." He commends that " rigid disciplinarian," Probus, whose discipline was, indeed, so rigid as to produce a mutiny which
• East and West through Fifteen Centuries4g-4-D. 1453. By Brigadier- General G. 1'. Young, C.B. LoMon : Longman. and Co. 136a det.3 coat him his life. Valentinian L excites his unstinted admiration as " a general so careful and sagacious in war that it seemed impossible to defeat him." He vigorously protests against the faint praise which the unbelieving Gibbon accorded to that " uncompromising Christian," Gratian, who was by no means devoid of military capacity. He dwells on the " profound military genius " of Theodosius, and even palliates the crime of the Thessalonica massacre, for which that masterful prelate, St. Ambrose, exacted a humiliating penance. He exalts, and with great reason, the " noble figure " of Stilicho, who for a while saved the Empire whilst his ignoble master, Honorius, was engaged in rearing chickens. He holds that that " suocessful warrior," Theodorio the Great, who possessed a characteristically Gothic contempt for literary attainments, was justified in putting to death both the philosopher Boethius and the pagan Senator Symmachus. He considers Belisarius " one of the noblest characters to be met with in history," whereas his master, Justinian, who was " immersed in theological questions," and, moreover, let loose the grasping Logothetae to prey on his unfor- tunate subjects, furnishes a striking example of " what a terrible thing is a war carried on by a ruling authority ignorant of military affairs." He has a word of praise for the somewhat obscure Emperor, Tiberius IL, inasmuch as the latter " bestowed praiseworthy attention upon the Army." The successor of Tiberius, Maurice, the approval of whose murder by the ruffian Phocaa constitutes an indelible blot on the reputation of Gregory the Great, is described as " a good general, and a high-minded and noble-hearted man." Heradius, in view of the fact that he broke the power of Persia, " deserves honour second to none of the successors of Constantine the Great." His failure to cope with the " whirlwind sweep " of the Mohammedans is ascribed to senile decay. Constantine IV., who checked the Moslem advance, displayed " all the best qualities of a ruler." But the greatest hero whom the Roman world ever produced was, in General Young's opinion, Constantine the Great. Although Constantine is alleged to have been baptised on his death-bed by Bishop Eusebius, General Young adopts the view, now generally held, that, in the words of Libanius, which are quoted in Negri's history of Julian the Apostate, " Constantine understood that the belief in one God would be very useful to him." However this may be, in issuing the celebrated Edict of Milan, which enjoined toleration, Constantine was certainly fourteen centuries in advance of his time. His character was by no means spotless. General Young rather glosses over the palace tragedies which darkened the last days of Constantine's life, but urges that he " was the greatest general the Roman world ever produced ; ho raised the Roman Empire to the highest point it ever attained ; he was an administrator so far-sighted that he could found institutions capable of lasting sixteen hundred years. And these things make him the greatest of all the Roman Emperors."
Another feature in General Young's work merits attention. There is always something rather attractive in unconventionality. General Young's views of history are distinctly unoonventional. In a former work he essayed to whitewash the character of Catherine de Medicis. It is not surprising that he should have adopted the same process in dealing with the Emperor Tiberius. In this, however, he is merely following the lead of other historians. Most scholars are now agreed that the scathing diatribes of Tacitus must be accepted with some reserve, and that but little credence can be attached to the account given by Suetonius of the alleged orgies at Capreao. General Young maintains that Tiberius " was a stern foe to all oppression of the people," and that the calumnies launched by Tacitus against him were inspired by the " venomous malice of four women "—namely, the divorced Scribonia, her daughter Julia, and the two Agrippinas. It is certain that, although probably Tiberius had no democratic sympathies, he was devoid of aristocratic prejudice. His celebrated statement--Curtiva Rufus videtur mihi ex as natus—affords a striking testimony on this point, more especially as it is yielded by so hostile a witness as Tacitus himself. General Young, however, is not content with whitewashing Tiberius. In the cases of both Messalina and Faustina, the wife of Marcus Aurelius, he records a verdict of " Not proven." As regards Theodora, in common with Henke and Professor Bury, he rejects the commonly received idea that Procopius was the author of The Anecdotes, and holds that that foul work may possibly have been written partly by the infamous John of Cappadocia. He thinks that Theodora was " one of the most remarkable women in history," and that her talents were greatly superior to those of her husband. Certainly, if the account of the conduct of that much maligned woman on the occasion of the Nika revolution, which is recorded by Procopius, and which Professor Bury holds to be correct, is true, she deserves the praise which General Young lavishes on her. The reader almost experiences a sense of relief when he finds that General Young makes no serious attempt to follow the example of Mr. Stuart Hay and whitewash " the amazing Emperor Elagabalus," although he credits him with " some remarkable ideas " in connexion with religious reform. There can be little doubt that, even if the account given by Lampridius was somewhat exaggerated, Elagabalus was an altogether detestable character. General Young thinks that the opportunist Christian, Constantine, deserves far more than the Stoic) philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, to be considered " the best man that the Pagan world ever produced." He cannot forgive the latter for his ruthless massacre of the Christians, and, in fact, an historian who was cynically inclined might reasonably dwell with emphasis on the contrast in respect to persecution shown by Marcus Aurelius and his vile but, in so far as, religions matters were concerned, relatively tolerant son, Commodus. who acted under the inspiration of the concubine Marcia. But General Young perhaps somewhat oversteps the mark when he says that " no previous Emperor knew so much about Christianity as Marcus Aurelius." It would appear more than doubtful whether this statement is correct. The only allusion made to the Christians in the Meditations is in xi. 3, where it is said that the belief in the existence of a soul should " come from a man's own judgment, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians " Gap Kari VaXia, raparciErs es el Xpicrrcavol).
Scholars will probably be able to pink holes in many of General Young's statements, and even one who cannot make any claim to profound scholarship may indicate one or two points where he would appear to have gone astray.
He speaks of the fourth-century writer, Julius Capitolinus, as an " anonymous " author. Is there, however, any reason for supposing that Julius Capitolinus was a pseudonym ? I know of none, although I am aware that doubts have been at times expressed as to whether this author wrote all the books which are attributed to him.
General Young states in a footnote that a report to the Emperor Tiberius of the Crucifixion, written presumably by Pontius Pilate, " is still extant." This statement is, however, certainly erroneous. I am informed on high authority that some of the early Christian writers allude to the existence of such a report, but that their testimony on this point is reje3ted by all ecclesiastical scholars.
General Young, again, says in a footnote that " the Mohammedan Paradise finds no place for women who have had a human existence." This question has been very frequently discussed. But the Koran is, in reality, sufficiently explicit on the subject. Sura xxxiii. 35 (the Arabic text) lays down very clearly that " God has prepared forgiveness and a rich recompense " not only for good men but also for good women.
General Young appears to lean to the conclusion that the great library at Alexandria was burnt by the orders of the Khalif Omar— that great Moslem hero of whom Mohammed said : " If Satan were to meet Omar he would get out of Omar's way." This question has formed the subject of frequent controversy. The accusation made against Omar rests wholly upon the authority of Abu '1 Faraj, who wrote in the thirteenth century. Dr. Alfred Butler, in his Arab Conquest of Egypt, goes very fully into the evidence, and arrives at the conclusion that "Abu '1 Faraj's story is a mere fable, totally destitute of historical foundation."
These defects, if defects they be, do not, however, seriously detract from the value of General Young's very interesting and instructive history. His general contention that the Empire continued to flourish for some long while after Rome and the Roman Court were honey- combed by corruption and vice of every kind is certainly well founded. None the less, the Turkish proverb that " the fish stinks at the head " holds good. It was inevitable that the dry rot with which the central authority was infected should eventually extend to the outlying portions of the vast dominions of Rome. Carlyle has said, with great truth : " It is singular how long the rotten will hold together provided you do not handle it roughly." The rough treatment of the Northern barbarians exposed the rottenness of the whole military and political edifice, and finally brought about a catastrophe which was deemed by a Christian writer of the fifth century (Salvianus) to herald " the
Previous page
