Excerpt

Excerpt from History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire — Volume 1, by Edward Gibbon

  4 (return) [ In this encomium, Aurelius Victor seems to convey a<br />
  just, though indirect, censure of the cruelty of Constantius. It<br />
  appears from the Fasti, that Aristobulus remained præfect of the<br />
  city, and that he ended with Diocletian the consulship which he<br />
  had commenced with Carinus.]

  5 (return) [ Aurelius Victor styles Diocletian, “Parentum potius<br />
  quam Dominum.” See Hist. August. p. 30.]

  The first considerable action of his reign seemed to evince his<br />
  sincerity as well as his moderation. After the example of Marcus,<br />
  he gave himself a colleague in the person of Maximian, on whom he<br />
  bestowed at first the title of Cæsar, and afterwards that of<br />
  Augustus. 6 But the motives of his conduct, as well as the object<br />
  of his choice, were of a very different nature from those of his<br />
  admired predecessor. By investing a luxurious youth with the<br />
  honors of the purple, Marcus had discharged a debt of private<br />
  gratitude, at the expense, indeed, of the happiness of the state.<br />
  By associating a friend and a fellow-soldier to the labors of<br />
  government, Diocletian, in a time of public danger, provided for<br />
  the defence both of the East and of the West. Maximian was born a<br />
  peasant, and, like Aurelian, in the territory of Sirmium.<br />
  Ignorant of letters, 7 careless of laws, the rusticity of his<br />
  appearance and manners still betrayed in the most elevated<br />
  fortune the meanness of his extraction. War was the only art<br />
  which he professed. In a long course of service he had<br />
  distinguished himself on every frontier of the empire; and though<br />
  his military talents were formed to obey rather than to command,<br />
  though, perhaps, he never attained the skill of a consummate<br />
  general, he was capable, by his valor, constancy, and experience,<br />
  of executing the most arduous undertakings. Nor were the vices of<br />
  Maximian less useful to his benefactor. Insensible to pity, and<br />
  fearless of consequences, he was the ready instrument of every<br />
  act of cruelty which the policy of that artful prince might at<br />
  once suggest and disclaim. As soon as a bloody sacrifice had been<br />
  offered to prudence or to revenge, Diocletian, by his seasonable<br />
  intercession, saved the remaining few whom he had never designed<br />
  to punish, gently censured the severity of his stern colleague,<br />
  and enjoyed the comparison of a golden and an iron age, which was<br />
  universally applied to their opposite maxims of government.<br />
  Notwithstanding the difference of their characters, the two<br />
  emperors maintained, on the throne, that friendship which they<br />
  had contracted in a private station. The haughty, turbulent<br />
  spirit of Maximian, so fatal, afterwards, to himself and to the<br />
  public peace, was accustomed to respect the genius of Diocletian,<br />
  and confessed the ascendant of reason over brutal violence. 8<br />
  From a motive either of pride or superstition, the two emperors<br />
  assumed the titles, the one of Jovius, the other of Herculius.<br />
  Whilst the motion of the world (such was the language of their<br />
  venal orators) was maintained by the all-seeing wisdom of<br />
  Jupiter, the invincible arm of Hercules purged the earth from<br />
  monsters and tyrants. 9

---

Explanation

Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Vol. 1) by Edward Gibbon

This passage examines the early reign of Diocletian (284–305 AD), particularly his decision to appoint Maximian as his co-emperor, forming the Tetrarchy—a system of shared rule that temporarily stabilized the Roman Empire. Gibbon contrasts Diocletian’s pragmatic leadership with the idealism of Marcus Aurelius, while also critiquing the brutal but effective governance of Maximian. The excerpt is rich in historical analysis, irony, and psychological insight, characteristic of Gibbon’s Enlightenment-era historiography.

---

1. Context of the Excerpt

• Historical Background:

  • Diocletian rose to power after the chaotic Crisis of the Third Century (235–284 AD), a period marked by rapid imperial turnover, civil wars, and external invasions.
  • Unlike previous emperors who ruled alone, Diocletian introduced the Tetrarchy (rule by four), dividing the empire into East and West, with a senior (Augustus) and junior (Caesar) emperor in each half.
  • Maximian, his co-emperor, was a rough, illiterate soldier from the Balkans, chosen for his military skill and loyalty.

• Gibbon’s Purpose:

  • Gibbon, writing in the 18th century, seeks to explain Rome’s decline by analyzing the institutional and moral failures of its later emperors.
  • Here, he contrasts Diocletian’s calculated pragmatism with Marcus Aurelius’ philosophical idealism, suggesting that the former was more effective in a time of crisis.

---

2. Key Themes in the Excerpt

A. Leadership and Power-Sharing

• Diocletian’s Pragmatism vs. Marcus Aurelius’ Idealism:

  • Gibbon notes that Marcus Aurelius (the "philosopher-king") elevated his son Commodus to power out of private affection, which led to disaster (Commodus’ tyranny).
  • Diocletian, however, chose Maximian not out of personal favor but strategic necessity—to defend both the East and West from barbarian invasions and internal strife.
  • This reflects Gibbon’s broader argument that Rome’s survival required harsh, practical leadership rather than moral idealism.

• The Tetrarchy as a Political Innovation:

  • By appointing Maximian as Caesar (junior emperor) first, then Augustus (senior emperor), Diocletian created a structured succession system, preventing civil wars.
  • Gibbon implies that this was a necessary evolution in governance, though it also set the stage for later power struggles.

B. The Nature of Tyranny and Cruelty

• Maximian as the "Enforcer":

  • Gibbon describes Maximian as ignorant, brutal, and uneducated ("Ignorant of letters, careless of laws"), yet effective in war and repression.
  • His lack of mercy ("Insensible to pity") made him useful to Diocletian, who could distance himself from atrocities while still benefiting from them.
  • This dynamic mirrors Machiavelian realpolitik: Diocletian outsources cruelty to Maximian while maintaining a veneer of moderation.

• The "Golden and Iron Age" Contrast:

  • Gibbon uses classical imagery (the Golden Age of peace vs. the Iron Age of war) to describe how the two emperors were perceived:
    • Diocletian = Jovius (Jupiter), associated with wisdom and order.
    • Maximian = Herculius (Hercules), associated with brute strength and violence.
  • This duality allowed Diocletian to appear benevolent while Maximian did the "dirty work."

C. Class and Social Mobility in Rome

• Maximian’s Peasant Origins:
  • Gibbon emphasizes that Maximian was born a peasant ("the meanness of his extraction"), yet rose to power through military merit.
  • This reflects the changing nature of Roman leadership—no longer dominated by aristocrats but by soldier-emperors from the provinces.
  • However, his rustic manners ("the rusticity of his appearance") suggest that social mobility did not erase class distinctions.

D. Religion and Propaganda

• Divine Titles as Political Tools:
  • Diocletian and Maximian adopted the titles Jovius and Herculius, linking themselves to Jupiter (king of gods) and Hercules (divine hero).
  • Gibbon mocks this as propaganda ("the language of their venal orators"), showing how emperors used mythology to legitimize power.
  • This foreshadows Diocletian’s later persecution of Christians, as he sought to revive traditional Roman religion as a unifying force.

---

3. Literary Devices & Stylistic Features

Device	Example	Effect
Juxtaposition	Diocletian (wise, moderate) vs. Maximian (brutal, uneducated)	Highlights the complementary but opposing nature of their rule.
Irony	"the remaining few whom he had never designed to punish"	Diocletian pretends to mercy while still approving executions.
Classical Allusion	"Golden and Iron Age"	Evokes Hesiod’s mythological ages, framing their rule in epic terms.
Sarcasm	"the language of their venal orators"	Gibbon mockingly dismisses imperial propaganda.
Parallel Structure	"War was the only art which he professed"	Emphasizes Maximian’s single-minded brutality.
Foreshadowing	"so fatal, afterwards, to himself and to the public peace"	Hints at Maximian’s later rebellion and downfall.

---

4. Significance of the Passage

A. Gibbon’s Historical Argument

• Decline Through Centralization & Tyranny:

  • Gibbon suggests that Diocletian’s system, while effective in the short term, sowed the seeds of Rome’s decline by:
    1. Institutionalizing division (East vs. West).
    2. Relying on military strongmen like Maximian, who lacked political finesse.
    3. Using propaganda and cruelty to maintain control, undermining civic virtue.

• Contrast with Republican Ideals:

  • The Tetrarchy was a practical solution but represented a departure from Rome’s republican traditions, where power was (theoretically) shared among elites.

B. Enlightenment Critique of Power

• Gibbon, writing in the Age of Reason, questions the morality of effective leadership:
  • Is it better to have a tyrant who stabilizes the state (Diocletian) or a weak but virtuous ruler (Marcus Aurelius)?
  • His skeptical tone reflects Enlightenment concerns about absolute power and human nature.

C. Influence on Later Historiography

• Gibbon’s psychological portraits of emperors (e.g., Maximian as a "ready instrument of cruelty") set a precedent for character-driven history.
• His ironic, detached style influenced later historians like Macauley and Tocqueville, who also explored the paradoxes of power.

---

5. Close Reading of Key Lines

"By associating a friend and a fellow-soldier to the labors of government, Diocletian, in a time of public danger, provided for the defence both of the East and of the West."

• Analysis:
  • "Friend and fellow-soldier" → Emphasizes personal loyalty over aristocratic birth.
  • "Public danger" → Justifies authoritarian measures as necessary for survival.
  • "Defence of East and West" → Highlights the geopolitical strategy behind the Tetrarchy.

"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."

• Analysis:
  • "Ready instrument" → Maximian is Diocletian’s tool, not an independent leader.
  • "Suggest and disclaim" → Diocletian avoids blame while still ordering violence.
  • This reflects Machiavelli’s The Prince, where rulers use intermediaries for dirty work.

"The haughty, turbulent spirit of Maximian, so fatal, afterwards, to himself and to the public peace, was accustomed to respect the genius of Diocletian."

• Analysis:
  • "Fatal, afterwards" → Foreshadowing Maximian’s later rebellion (306–310 AD).
  • "Respect the genius" → Despite his brutality, Maximian acknowledges Diocletian’s superiority, showing the hierarchy within the Tetrarchy.

---

6. Conclusion: Why This Passage Matters

This excerpt is a microcosm of Gibbon’s broader thesis on Rome’s decline:

1. Pragmatism over Idealism: Effective but ruthless leadership (Diocletian) was necessary after the chaos of the 3rd century, but it eroded civic virtue.
2. The Cost of Stability: The Tetrarchy temporarily saved Rome but institutionalized division (East vs. West) and military autocracy.
3. The Role of Propaganda: Emperors like Diocletian used myth and religion to legitimize power, foreshadowing the Christianization of the empire under Constantine.
4. Gibbon’s Enlightenment Perspective: He judges history by reason, questioning whether stability justifies tyranny.

Ultimately, this passage is not just about Diocletian and Maximian but about the dilemmas of governance—balancing order and freedom, strength and morality—that resonate even in modern politics.