HKB

← back

History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 1

Edward Gibbon · 1782 (Written); 1845 (Revised)

passage 361 of 518 · Chapter I: The Extent Of The Empire In The Age Of The > act of cruelty which the policy of that artful prince might at (1/7)

in brief
Gibbon describes Diocletian and Maximian sharing power while presenting their rule as a contrast between “golden” and “iron” ages, with Jupiter and Hercules imagery and continued personal friendship.

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

6 (return) [ The question of the time when Maximian received the honors of Cæsar and Augustus has divided modern critics, and given occasion to a great deal of learned wrangling. I have followed M. de Tillemont, (Histoire des Empereurs, tom. iv. p. 500-505,) who has weighed the several reasons and difficulties with his scrupulous accuracy. * Note: Eckbel concurs in this view, viii p. 15.—M.]

7 (return) [ In an oration delivered before him, (Panegyr. Vet. ii. 8,) Mamertinus expresses a doubt, whether his hero, in imitating the conduct of Hannibal and Scipio, had ever heard of their names. From thence we may fairly infer, that Maximian was more desirous of being considered as a soldier than as a man of letters; and it is in this manner that we can often translate the language of flattery into that of truth.]

8 (return) [ Lactantius de M. P. c. 8. Aurelius Victor. As among the Panegyrics, we find orations pronounced in praise of Maximian, and others which flatter his adversaries at his expense, we derive some knowledge from the contrast.]

9 (return) [ See the second and third Panegyrics, particularly iii. 3, 10, 14 but it would be tedious to copy the diffuse and affected expressions of their false eloquence. With regard to the titles, consult Aurel. Victor Lactantius de M. P. c. 52. Spanheim de Usu Numismatum, &c. xii 8.]

← previous passage read in the full work → next passage →

topics: forms of government · myth and the gods of the nations · political legitimacy and consent

History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 1 · Edward Gibbon · 1782–1845