AMERICAN ENCYCLOPEDIA (continued 4)

Sulla, then engaged with the Samnites, the last dregs of the Social War, was chosen consul, and invested with the command against the Eastern monarch. He was then in the forty-ninth year of his age. Vexed at the preference of his rival, the grim old Marius used all his efforts to have the appointment canceled, and himself nominated to the Mithridatic command. His political opinions recommending him to many, and a tribune named Sulpicius having procured the passing of a preliminary measure distributing the new Italian citizens among all the old tribes, which had now attained the number of thirty-five, he at length carried his point, and Sulla was superseded. But the aristocratic general was not a man to be trifled with. Marching from the south of Italy, where he was when he heard the news, he appeared with his army before the city, forced his entrance through the rotten walls, dislodged his antagonists from the houses from which they were throwing stones and missiles at his men, and compelled Marius and his adherents to save their lives by a precipitate flight. Marius escaped to Africa; Sulla, after settling affairs at Rome, set out for Greece. Here he speedily retrieved the Roman losses; sacked Athens, which had provoked him by its opposition; and reduced Archelaus, the general of Mithridates, to such extremities, that having crossed into Asia, Mithridates was glad to conclude a peace with him (B. C. 84), by which he renounced all he had gained, and agreed to pay the expenses of the war. Meanwhile a terrible reaction had occurred at Rome in Sulla’s absence. Scarcely had he left the city (B. C. 87), when Lucius Cornelius Cinna, one of the consuls whose appointment he had sanctioned, proclaimed himself on the popular side, and commenced a series of measures directly opposed to Sulla’s views. His colleague Octavius drove him from Rome, and the senate deposed him from the consulship. The Italians, however, gathered round Cinna; Marius and his fellow-exiles hearing of the movement, hastened back to Italy; all the able military men of the Marian party, and among them a young and generous commander named Sertorius, exerted themselves to raise troops; and at length the aristocratic party found themselves besieged in Rome. Famine and pestilence began their ravages in the city; and the senate, reinstating Cinna in the consulship, capitulated on the understanding that blood should not be shed. But there was little softness in the nature of Marius. Admitted into the city, the stern old man, who was already tottering on the brink of the grave, revenged his wrongs by a frightful massacre, in which many men of distinction fell. Marius then caused himself to be elected to a seventh consulship (B. C. 86), his colleague being Cinna. He enjoyed the unprecedented honor but a few days, dying on the 13th of January (B. C. 86), and Valerius Flaccus was named his successor. Flaccus, setting out with authority to supersede Sulla in the Mithridatic war, was murdered by his legate Flavius Fimbria, who assumed the command of the army, and gained some successes; but being afterwards hard pressed by Sulla, and deserted by his army, committed suicide. This occurred about the time of the conclusion of the peace with Mithridates (B. C. 84); and Sulla, after settling the affairs of Asia Minor, and draining the country of money, so remorselessly as to affect its prosperity for a century, commenced his journey homewards, with bloody purposes against Cinna and his adherents, and an army ready to execute them.

Cinna did not live to face his dreadful enemy. Murdered by his soldiers in his fourth consulship, he left, as his successors in the leadership of the popular party, Caius Marius the Younger, Papirius Carbo, and the brave Sertorius—​the two former of whom were chosen consuls for the year B. C. 82, to oppose Sulla in Italy, while Sertorius was despatched to Spain to secure that province. But Carbo and the younger Marius, even when backed by the brave Samnites and other Italian nations, were not equal to a contest with such a general as Sulla, assisted as he was by commanders like Metellus, Lucullus, and young Cneius Pompeius Strabo, more commonly called Pompey, the son of that Pompeius who had been one of the Roman generals in the Marsic War. The consular armies were defeated; Marius killed himself; Carbo fled to Africa; and Sulla remained master of Italy. Fearful was his vengeance. The massacre which Marius had ordered five years before, was slight compared with the butcheries which took place by the command of Sulla. In Rome, and over all Italy, every man of distinction implicated in the popular movement was sought out and slain. Proscription lists, as they were called—​that is, lists of doomed individuals—​were published; and soldiers were ready to track them out for the prices put upon their heads. Military colonies were likewise planted in all parts of Italy—​lands being taken by force for that purpose: thus purging Italy of the Marian leaven, Sulla was resolved to create in it a new population, which should be pliant to aristocratic influence.

The work of the soldier over, Sulla commenced that of the legislator. Appointed perpetual dictator B. C. 82, he continued for three years to exercise the sovereignty, making alterations in the constitution, the general effect of which was to lessen the power of the people in political affairs, and reforming the criminal law. In B. C. 79, he surprised every one by abdicating the dictatorship, and retiring into private life; and in the following year he died of a loathsome and incurable disorder, brought on by his debaucheries. Among other evidences of Sulla’s literary accomplishments, he left memoirs of his own life composed in Greek.

POMPEY—​CICERO—​CATILINE—​CÆSAR.

After the death of Sulla, the most distinguished man of the aristocratic party was Pompey, who had been engaged in reducing Sicily and Africa to allegiance after his chief had triumphed in Italy. Some attempts were made to revive the Marian cause after the dictator’s death, but by the exertions of Pompey and others they were suppressed, and only in Spain had the Marian party still a stronghold. There the brave Sertorius, at the head of the Marian refugees and the native Spaniards, was fast establishing a power likely to rival that of Italy. None of the Sullanian generals, not even Pompey, who went to Spain in B. C. 76, could gain an advantage when opposed to his splendid generalship; and had he not perished by treachery (B. C. 74), Spain would have become an instrument in his hands for overturning all that had been done by Sulla in Italy. Possibly even Spain might have superseded her sister peninsula as the seat of Roman power. But after the death of Sertorius, his army crumbled away; and, conquering his successor Perpenna, Pompey found the pacification of Spain an easy task. Returning to Italy in the height of the reputation which the discharge of this office procured to him, he arrived (B. C. 71) in time to have some share in another war of a frightful character which had been desolating Italy in his absence. In the year B. C. 73, seventy gladiators, headed by a Thracian named Spartacus, had broken out of a school, or rather gladiator warehouse, at Capua, where they were kept in training; and, speedily joined by all the slaves and gladiators of the neighborhood, they had taken up their position on Mount Vesuvius. Finding himself at the head of a large army, Spartacus had given battle to several Roman generals, and defeated them; and the conquering host which he commanded was on the point of crossing into Sicily, after ravaging Italy, when it was attacked and cut to pieces by the prætor Licinius Crassus (B. C. 71). Spartacus died fighting; such of the gladiators and slaves as were taken prisoners were crucified, or impaled alive; and the remnant which had escaped Crassus were met and destroyed in the north of Italy by Pompey, as he was returning from Spain. Pompey and Crassus were chosen consuls for the year B. C. 70, the former being then in his thirty-sixth year. Although both were disciples of Sulla, yet obeying the necessities of the time, they repealed several of his enactments, and passed various measures of liberal tendency.

Pompey was at this time the idol of Rome; and although after his consulship he retired into private life, he was soon called upon to exercise his abilities in a post of greater dignity and responsibility than had ever been formally conferred on any Roman before him. The Mediterranean was at that time infested with pirates, who had become so numerous and so audacious during the recent convulsions, that the coast of the Italian peninsula itself was not safe from their attacks, and not a ship could sail from any port in the Roman dominions, even in the service of government, without the risk of being captured. To enable Pompey to free the Empire from this nuisance, he was invested (B. C. 67) with supreme command for three years over the whole Mediterranean and its coasts for 400 stadia inland, with power to raise as many men and ships and as much money as he chose. Thus virtually made master of the Roman world, Pompey exerted himself so vigorously and judiciously, that within the short period of three months he had cleared the sea of every pirate vessel. That his command might not lie dormant for the remainder of the three years for which he had been appointed, a tribune of the people proposed and carried a law conferring on him the additional command of Pontus, Bithynia, and Armenia, in order to secure his services in finishing a war which was then going on with Mithridates. This was the third war with that monarch; for there had been a second short war with him B. C. 83–81. The present war had originated in some overtures made by Sertorius to Mithridates in B. C. 74; but Sertorius having died in the same year, Mithridates was left to maintain the war alone. The general sent to oppose him was Lucullus, who carried on the war very successfully till Pompey came to supersede him. For four years Pompey remained in Asia, breaking the power of Mithridates, and negotiating with the monarchs of Parthia, Armenia, etc. He traversed the greater part of Asia Minor, establishing the Roman influence; dethroned the king of Syria, and added it and Phœnicia to the number of the Roman provinces; entered Palestine, where a civil war was then raging between the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, declared in favor of the former, besieged and took Jerusalem, and having imposed a tribute on the Jews, commenced his march homewards. On his return through Asia Minor, he found that Mithridates had in the meantime killed himself in despair; and as there was no one to take up that monarch’s part, he was able to parcel out Asia Minor as he chose—​erecting some portions into provinces, and giving others in charge to tributary princes. With the glory of having thus subjugated and settled the East, the fortunate Pompey prepared to return to Rome in the year B. C. 62.

Meanwhile Rome had been the scene of one of the most extraordinary attempts at revolution recorded in history—​the famous conspiracy of Catiline. No passage in Roman history is involved in such obscurity as this; for the accounts of the conspiracy left by Sallust and other Latin authors are not nearly so satisfactory to the genuine student of history, as they are pleasant to the mere reader for amusement. M. Mérimée supposes that, several years after Sulla’s death, there arose in Rome four distinct parties—​the ‘oligarchical faction,’ consisting of the small number of families, the chiefs of which directed the senate, and in fact governed the republic; the ‘aristocratic faction,’ comprehending the mass of the senators, anxious to exercise the power which they saw usurped by a small number of their colleagues; the ‘party of Marius,’ including all those whose families had been persecuted by Sulla, and who now began to rally, and aspire to power; and lastly, the ‘military factions,’ embracing a crowd of old officers of Sulla, who, having squandered the fortunes they had gained under him, and seeing themselves excluded from public affairs, were eager for some convulsion which might improve their condition. At the head of the first party was Pompey, now absent in Asia. In his absence, the soul of the oligarchical party was the celebrated Marcus Tullius Cicero—​an advocate of extraordinary intellect, born B. C. 106, a few months after Pompey, and who, entering public life early, had soon established his reputation as the first orator in Rome. Of plebeian birth, it might have been expected that he would attach himself to the democratic side; but circumstances, and his natural disposition, which was weak, and fond of the consideration of others, had won him over to the side of the oligarchy, to whom his talents were invaluable. Having passed through the quæstorship, and edileship, and prætorship, which last he held B. C. 66, he now aspired to the highest dignity in the state. Such was the leader of the oligarchical party. The leader of the aristocratic party was Crassus, formerly the colleague of Pompey in the consulship, and now his personal rival. Besides Crassus, the senators had an active and most conscientious partisan in Marcus Porcius Cato, who had been tribune of the people—​a great-grandson of Cato the Censor, and possessed of all his integrity. The leader of the third or Marian party was a man six years younger than Pompey or Cicero, and who, known during his youth for his accomplishments, his love of pleasure, his firmness of purpose, and the boundless generosity of his character, had just earned for himself the applauses of all Rome by the lavish magnificence of his edileship (B. C. 65). This was Caius Julius Cæsar, the greatest man that ever Rome produced. He was the son of a man who had died suddenly, without having made any figure in public life; his family was one of the noblest in Rome; and his aunt had been the wife of Marius. Literature and pleasure had occupied his youth, and only now was he beginning to take an active part in public affairs, although with a force and earnestness which at once marked him out as a man who was to lead. With chivalrous recklessness of consequences, he had done justice to his uncle’s memory at a time when it was hardly safe to mention the name of Marius; and now the relics of the Marian party gathered round him with hope, while the oligarchy and aristocracy, with the presentiment of what he was to become, would fain have crushed him. Nine years older than Cæsar, and three years older than Cicero or Pompey, was the leader of the fourth or military faction—​Lucius Sergius Catilina, more commonly called Catiline, a man of illustrious birth, and who had distinguished himself as one of the ablest and most ferocious officers of Sulla. His reputation, owing partly to his haggard personal appearance, and partly to vague rumors of horrible crimes which he had committed, was one of the blackest; and as he walked along the streets with gigantic body, but hurried and uncertain step, men pointed, and said that that was Catiline. Yet he possessed extraordinary abilities, and a peculiar power of fascinating those with whom he wished to establish a friendly relation. He had already been prætor (B. C. 67), and there was a large class, consisting principally of debauched young patricians and ruined military men, who looked forward eagerly to his election to the consulship.

Prevented, by a charge of extortion brought against him in his capacity of prætor, from becoming a candidate for the consulship of the year B. C. 65, Catiline came forward as candidate in the following year. Cicero was his rival; and the senators mustered in sufficient strength to return the orator. Enraged at his defeat, Catiline began to plot a seditious movement with his patrician adherents, among whom were Lentulus, Cethegus, Cæparius, etc. Rome, it was said, was to be set on fire, and the consuls and many of the senators murdered. Towards the end of the year (B. C. 64), these designs had become ripe, and emissaries of Catiline were abroad throughout Italy. Meanwhile Cicero had obtained private intelligence of the conspiracy, and on the 8th of November he addressed Catiline in such vehement terms in the senate-house, that the conspirator fled into Etruria, from which he continued to correspond with his accomplices in Rome. Having obtained satisfactory proofs of the guilt of these accomplices, and having been empowered by the senate to act as he chose for the good of state, Cicero caused Lentulus, Cethegus, Statilius, and Cæparius to be apprehended; and these four, notwithstanding the motion of Cæsar for a more moderate punishment, were put to death in prison; Cicero’s activity had saved the Commonwealth. Catiline, however, who had raised troops in Etruria, continued to menace the state till the beginning of B. C. 62, when he and many of his patrician supporters died fighting like lions against the troops sent to destroy them. Thus the insane movement of the military faction was crushed: there remained, however, much of the Catilinarian leaven diffused through Italy—​men of broken fortunes and profligate characters, to whom turmoil and riot afforded the only chance of promotion.

THE TRIUMVIRATE—​CÆSAR’S GALLIC WARS—​WAR BETWEEN CÆSAR AND POMPEY.

When Pompey returned to Rome (B. C. 61), he found the senatorial party predominant, and Cicero incessantly talking about the Catilinarian conspiracy, and how he had crushed it. Pompey enjoyed a triumph more splendid than any conquering general had received before him; and the sums which he added to the public treasury were enormous; yet he could not procure from the senate that general ratification of his measures in Asia to which he thought himself entitled. Cato and other senators insisted on a full investigation of his measures one by one, ere the sanction which he required should be granted. This conduct on the part of the senators brought Pompey into closer connection with Cæsar; and these two eminent men, finding that they agreed in many of their views, and that at least they were one in their opposition to the senate, resolved to unite their forces so as to work for their common ends with double strength. For various reasons, it was found desirable to admit Crassus to this political partnership; and accordingly, in the year B. C. 60, was formed that famous coalition for mutual support between Pompey, Crassus, and Cæsar, which is known in Roman history by the name of the ‘First Triumvirate.’ Elected to the consulship of the year B. C. 59, Cæsar infused new life into Roman politics, proposing measures of so liberal a nature, and persevering in them with such obstinacy, that the senate became almost frantic, and his colleague Bibulus shut himself up in his house for eight months in disgust. Among these measures was a ratification of Pompey’s proceedings in Asia, and an agrarian law for providing lands for Pompey’s disbanded soldiers and a number of destitute citizens. In the same year Cæsar gave his daughter Julia in marriage to Pompey, who had already been married twice. On retiring from the consulship, he obtained, by an unusual stretch of generosity on the part of the grateful people and the intimidated senate, the supreme command for five years over the two Gauls (Cisalpine and Transalpine) and Illyricum. This was probably the great object of Cæsar’s desires; at all events, it was the best possible thing which could have happened for him and the republic. Master of Gaul, and with an army devoted to his will, he could there mature his power silently and undisturbed, and qualify himself for entering, at the proper period, upon the career for which he was destined, and rescuing, by military force, the ill-governed Empire out of the hands of contending factions.

The condition of affairs in Rome during Cæsar’s absence in Gaul was indeed such as to prove the necessity of some radical change in the system of the Commonwealth. All was confusion and violence. Clodius, a profligate relic of the Catilinarian party, having been elected to the tribuneship B. C. 58, procured the banishment of Cicero for his conduct in the affair of the conspiracy. In the following year, however, Clodius having in the meantime made himself generally odious, Cicero was recalled. Pompey and Crassus were elected consuls for the year B. C. 55. Mindful of their connection with Cæsar, who was of course in constant correspondence with them, they procured a prolongation of his command over the Gauls for a second period of five years; at the same time obtaining for themselves—​Pompey, the government of Spain for five years; and Crassus that of Syria and adjacent countries for a similar period. In B. C. 55, Crassus set out for the scene of his command, where, soon afterwards, he perished in a fruitless expedition against the Parthians; Pompey remained at home, governing Spain by deputies. During several subsequent years, Rome was in a state of anarchy and misrule—​the streets perambulated by armed mobs, partisans on the one hand of Clodius, and on the other of a powerful citizen called Milo, between whom a feud was carried on, as desperate and bloody as any that ever distracted a European town in the middle ages. In one of the numerous scuffles which took place between the contending parties, Clodius was killed; and taking advantage of the opportunity, the tottering government asserted its rights by bringing Milo to trial, and procuring his banishment.

Meanwhile the remedy was preparing. Among the marshes and forests of Gaul, the great Cæsar was accumulating that strength of men and purpose with which he was to descend on Italy and shiver the rotton fabric of the Commonwealth. ‘Fain,’ says the eloquent Michelet—​‘fain would I have seen that fair and pale countenance, prematurely aged by the debaucheries of the capital—​fain would I have seen that delicate and epileptic man, marching in the rains of Gaul at the head of his legions, and swimming across our rivers, or else on horseback, between the litters in which his secretaries were carried, dictating even six letters at a time, shaking Rome from the extremity of Belgium, sweeping from his path two millions of men, and subduing in ten years Gaul, the Rhine, and the ocean of the north. This barbarous and bellicose chaos of Gaul was a superb material for such a genius. The Gallic tribes were on every side calling in the stranger; Druidism was in its decline; Italy was exhausted; Spain untameable; Gaul was essential to the subjugation of the world.’ Cæsar’s Gallic wars of themselves form a history. We have an account of them yet remaining from the pen of the conqueror himself, and that of his friend Hirtius. Suffice it to say, that in eight years (B. C. 58–50) Cæsar had conquered all Gaul, including the present France and Belgium; had paid two visits to the island of Great Britain (B. C. 55–54); and was able, in the spring of B. C. 50, to take up his residence in Cisalpine Gaul, leaving the 300 tribes beyond the Alps, which he had conquered by such bloody means, not only pacified, but even attached to himself personally. His army, which included many Gauls and Germans, were so devoted to him, that they would have marched to the end of the world in his service.

Cæsar’s conquests in Gaul were of course a subject of engrossing interest at Rome, and when the city enjoyed an interval of repose from the commotions caused by Clodius and Milo, nothing else was talked of. ‘Compared with this man,’ said Cicero, ‘what was Marius?’ and the saying was but an expression of the popular enthusiasm. Cæsar’s visits to Britain excited especial interest; and at first there were not wanting sceptics who maintained that there was no such island in existence, and that the alleged visit of Cæsar to that place of savages, where pearls were found in the rivers, was a mere hoax on the public. As, however, the period of Cæsar’s command drew near its close, and it became known that he aspired to a second consulship, the fears of the aristocratic party began to manifest themselves. ‘What may not this conqueror of Gaul do when he returns to Rome?’ was the saying of Cato, and others of the senators. ‘Accustomed during so many years to the large and roomy action of a camp, will he be able to submit again to civic trammels? Will he not rather treat us as if we were his subordinate officers—​Roman laws as if they were savage customs—​and our city itself as if it were a Gallic forest?’ Unfortunately, also, the Triumvirate no longer existed to support Cæsar’s interests. Crassus was dead; and Pompey—​whose connection with Cæsar had been severed by the death of his wife, Cæsar’s beloved daughter Julia (B. C. 54)—​had since gone over to the aristocratic party, to which he had formerly belonged, and whose policy was, upon the whole, more genial to his character. In B. C. 52, he enjoyed a third consulship, without a colleague, having been appointed by the senators as the man most likely to restore order to the distracted state; and during the following year, he lent his aid to those enemies of Cæsar who insisted that, ere he should be allowed to stand for the consulship, he should be obliged to resign his Gallic command, and resume his station as a private citizen, ready to meet any charges which might be brought against him. Cæsar did not want agents in Rome—​some of them paid, some of them voluntary—​to plead his cause; and through these he offered to resign his command, provided Pompey would do the same with regard to Spain. The proposal was not listened to; and a decree of the senate having been passed that Cæsar should disband his army against a certain day, under pain of being treated as a public enemy, his agents left the city, and hastened to his camp in Cisalpine Gaul (B. C. 50).

Cæsar did not delay a moment. Sending orders to his various legions distributed through Gaul to follow him as speedily as possible, he placed himself at the head of such forces as were with him at the instant, crossed the small stream called the Rubicon, which separated his province of Cisalpine Gaul from Italy, and advanced towards Rome, amid cheers of welcome from the populations which he passed through. Utterly bewildered by his unexpected arrival, the whole senatorial party, with Pompey at their head, abandoned Rome, and proceeded into the south of Italy, where they tried to raise forces. Cæsar pursued them, and drove them into Greece. Then hastening into Spain, he suppressed a rising Pompeian movement in that country. Returning to Rome with the title of Dictator, which had been bestowed on him during his absence, he passed various salutary measures for restoring order in Italy, and among them one conferring the Roman citizenship on the Cisalpine Gauls; then crossed over into Greece (B. C. 49) to give battle to Pompey, who had meanwhile assembled forces from all parts of the Roman dominion. At length the two armies met on the plain of Pharsalia in Thessaly (9th August B. C. 48), when Pompey sustained a complete defeat. Not long afterwards he was killed by the orders of Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when seeking to land on the coast of that country. Cæsar, who had used his victory with great moderation, arrived in Egypt soon after, and remained there several months, fascinated by Cleopatra, who was then at war with her brother Ptolemy.

Having settled the affairs of Egypt, Cæsar proceeded to Asia Minor, crushed an insurrection there headed by Pharnaces, the son of Mithridates, and then (September, B. C. 47) returned to Italy. He remained there but a few months, setting out in the beginning of B. C. 46 for Africa, where the relics of the Pompeian party had taken refuge. These were soon defeated; and Cato, the most distinguished man among them, killed himself rather than to fall into his conqueror’s hands. Pompey’s two sons escaped to Spain, where they excited an insurrection, which, however, was soon suppressed.

EXTINCTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH—​DICTATORSHIP AND DEATH OF CÆSAR—​THE SECOND TRIUMVIRATE—​CIVIL WARS OF MARK ANTONY AND OCTAVIANUS.

From August B. C. 48, when he defeated Pompey at Pharsalia, till March B. C. 44, when he was assassinated, Julius Cæsar was supreme master of the Roman world. Senate and people vied with each other in conferring dignities upon him; and all the great offices and titles recognized by the Roman constitution—​as consul, dictator, censor, tribune, etc.—​were concentrated in his person, while he exercised the virtual patronage of almost all the rest. In short, the Commonwealth may be said to have ceased when he defeated Pompey; and had he lived long enough, there is no doubt that he would have fully established the Empire. It was not so much, however, in organic changes of the constitution, as in practical reforms of vast moment, that Cæsar exercised the enormous power which had been placed in his hands. Besides the various measures of reform which he actually carried into effect during his dictatorship, among which his famous reform of the Calendar deserves especial mention, there were innumerable schemes which he had projected for himself, and some of which he would probably have executed, had his life not been cut short. To extend the Roman dominion in the East; to drain the Pontine marshes; to cut through the Isthmus of Corinth; to prepare a complete map of the Roman Empire; to draw up a new digest of Roman law; to establish public libraries in the metropolis—​such were a few of the designs which this great man entertained at the time when the conspiracy was formed which led to his assassination. At the head of this plot, which consisted of about sixty persons of note, were Brutus and Cassius, both men of the highest abilities, and esteemed by Cæsar; and the former at least actuated by motives of the purest character. The immediate occasion of the conspiracy was the rumor that Cæsar intended to accept the title of king, which some of his adherents were pressing upon him. When the plot was matured (B. C. 44) it was resolved that Cæsar should be assassinated in the senate-house on the ides (the 15) of March, on which day it was understood a motion was to be brought forward by some of his friends for appointing him king of Italy. ‘Upon the first onset,’ says Plutarch, ‘those who were not privy to the design were astonished, and their horror of the action was so great, that they durst not fly, nor assist Cæsar, nor so much as speak a word. But those who came prepared for the business enclosed him on every side, with their naked daggers in their hands, and which way soever he turned he met with blows, and saw their swords leveled at his face and eyes. Brutus gave him one stab in the groin. Some say that he fought and resisted all the rest, and moved from one place to another calling for help; but when he saw Brutus’s sword drawn, he covered his face with his robe, and quietly surrendered himself, till he was pushed, either by chance or design, to the pedestal on which Pompey’s statue stood, which by that means was much stained with his blood: so that Pompey himself may seem to have had his share in the revenge of his former enemy, who fell at his feet, and breathed out his soul through the multitude of his wounds; for they say he received three-and-twenty.’

The assassination of Cæsar has justly been pronounced ‘the most stupid action that ever the Romans committed.’ The later ages of the republic had been one continued scene of violence and anarchy; and not until Cæsar had risen to the chief power in the state was there a restoration of order and efficient government. His assassination plunged the Roman dominions into new and complicated civil wars. On the one side were the conspirators with Brutus and Cassius at their head, bent on the futile project of throwing back the Empire into the condition of a republic. On the other were Mark Antony, an able and valiant officer of Cæsar’s; Lepidus, another officer of less distinguished abilities; and Marcus Octavius, a young man of eighteen, Cæsar’s grandnephew, and who, as his uncle’s heir, now assumed the name of Caius Julius Cæsar Octavianus. These three united themselves into a triumvirate (November B. C. 44) for avenging Cæsar’s death, and settling the affairs of the republic. After making themselves masters of Italy, and putting to death by wholesale proscription all those citizens whose views they suspected, among others the great and amiable Cicero, they pursued the conspirators into Greece. At length, in the autumn of B. C. 42, two great battles were fought at Philippi in Macedonia between the republican forces and those of the triumvirate. The former were defeated; Cassius caused himself to be slain, Brutus committed suicide, and the triumvirs thus remained masters of the Roman world. They divided it among them: Antony assuming the government of the East, Lepidus obtaining Africa, and Octavianus returning to Italy, master of the countries adjacent to that peninsula. Each continued to govern his share for some time independently; but a quarrel ensuing between Octavianus and Lepidus, the latter was deprived of his power, and obliged to retire into private life. The Empire was now divided between Antony and Octavianus, the former master of the East, the latter of the West. At length, however, political and private reasons led to a rupture between the two potentates (B. C. 33). The rash and pleasure-loving Antony, who had been caught in the toils of Cleopatra, the licentious queen of Egypt, and therefore one of his subject sovereigns as master of the East, was no match for the cunning, abstemious, and remorseless Octavianus. Defeated at the battle of Actium (2d September B. C. 31), he fled with Cleopatra to Egypt, where, being hard pressed by Octavianus, they both died by their own hands. Octavianus thus remained sole master (B. C. 30) of the great Empire which Julius Cæsar had prepared for him; and under the new name of Augustus, he continued to wield the sovereignty during the long period of forty-four years (B. C. 30-A. D. 14). During these forty-four years, the various races and nations which so many centuries of conquest had connected together, became consolidated into that historic entity—​‘The Roman Empire.’

CONDITION OF THE EMPIRE UNDER AUGUSTUS.

The Roman Empire under Augustus consisted of Italy and the following countries governed as provinces:—​In Europe, Sicily, Sardinia, and the other islands in the west of the Mediterranean, Gaul as far as the Rhine, Spain, Illyricum, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece, and the islands of the Ægean; in Asia, all the countries between the Caspian Sea, the Parthian Empire, the Persian and Arabian Gulfs, the Mediterranean, and the Caucasus; and in Africa, Mauritania, Numidia, the ancient territory of Carthage, Cyrene, and Egypt. Within these limits there may have been included, in all, about 100,000,000 of human beings, of different races, complexions, languages, and degrees of civilization. Not less than one-half of the whole number must have been in a condition of slavery, and of the rest, only that small proportion who, under the envied name of Roman citizens, inhabited Italy, or were distributed, in official or other capacities, through the cities of the Empire, enjoyed political independence. These ‘citizens,’ diffused through the conquered countries, constituted the ingredient by which the whole was kept in union. Working backwards and forwards in the midst of the various populations in which they were thus planted, the Romans assimilated them gradually to each other, till Celts, Spaniards, Asiatics, etc., became more or less Romanized. This process of assimilation was much facilitated by the circumstance that, with the exception of Judea and other portions of the East, all the nations of the Roman Empire were polytheistic in their beliefs, so that there was no fundamental repugnance in this respect between the modes of thought of one nation and those of another. In fact, the Roman Empire may be defined as a compulsory assemblage of polytheistic nations, in order that Christianity might operate over a large surface at once of that polytheism which it was to destroy and supersede. In the twenty-fifth year of the reign of Augustus, and while that prince was ruling with undisturbed sway over 100,000,000 of fellow-polytheists, there took place in that small monotheistic corner of his dominions which lay on the southern border of the Levant, an event, the importance of which the wisest of the Romans could not have foreseen. This was the birth, in an obscure Jewish town, of Jesus Christ. From that town, and from that obscure corner of the vast Roman Empire, was to proceed an influence which was to overspread the polytheistic nations, eat out or dissolve into itself all existing creeds and philosophies, and renovate the thoughts, the habits, the whole constitution of mankind. Waiting for this influence, the various nations—​Celts, Greeks, Spaniards, etc.,—​were submitted to the preliminary pressure of Roman institutions, modifying, and in some cases changing, their native characters. The eastern half of the Empire, however, had been too thoroughly impregnated with the Greek element to yield easily to the new pressure; and accordingly while the Latin language spread among the barbarians of the west, Greek still continued to be the language of the East. This demarcation between the western or Latin-speaking and the eastern or Greek-speaking portions of the Empire became exceedingly important afterwards.

Of this vast empire Rome was the metropolis, now a city of innumerable streets and buildings, and containing, it is calculated, a population of about two millions and a half. From Rome roads branched out in all directions leading to the other towns of Italy, and passing through the villa-studded estates of the rich Roman citizens. From the coasts of Italy, the Mediterranean afforded an easy access to the various provinces, by whose industry the metropolis and Italy itself were in a great measure supported. The provinces themselves were traversed by roads connecting town with town, and laying all parts of the Empire open to the civil and military functionaries of government. Usually residing at Rome, the will of the emperor vibrated through a hierarchy of intermediate functionaries, so as to be felt throughout the whole of his vast dominions. In effect, this will was absolute. In Augustus, as in Julius Cæsar, all the great offices of state, which had so long subsisted as mutual checks upon each other, were united, so as to confer on him power of the most unlimited description. The senate still met, but only as a judicial body in cases of treason, or legislatively to pass the decrees which Augustus had previously matured with a few private counselors; and the comitia were still held, but only to elect candidates already nominated by the emperor. In this system of absolute dominion in the hands of a single individual, the Romans cheerfully acquiesced, partly from experience of the superior nature of the government thus exercised to the wretched anarchy from which they had escaped, and partly in consequence of the hopelessness of revolt against a man who had the entire military force of the Empire at his disposal. In Rome and Italy, the public peace was preserved by the prætorian cohorts—​bodies of soldiers of tried valor, to whom Augustus gave double pay. Throughout the provinces, the people were kept in check by the regular troops, who were accumulated, however, principally in the frontier provinces of the Empire, where they might both maintain tranquillity among the recently-conquered populations, and resist the attacks of the barbarian races beyond. The provinces where military force was required, Augustus retained in his own hands, administering them through legates appointed by himself, usually for several years; the others he intrusted to the senate, who named governors for a single year.

The cities of the Empire were the centres of Roman influence. It was in them that the Roman citizens were congregated, that schools were established, and that the various agencies of civilization operated most uniformly. In the rustic populations of the provinces, the national individuality was preserved with the national language. It was part of the policy of Augustus to found cities in the choicest situations in the provinces; and so rapid was the spread of the Roman civilization during his reign, that Roman writers and orators of note began to be produced even in remote parts of the Empire. The Greek language and literature began also to penetrate the provinces of the west, and to find students among the Celts and Spaniards.

THE SUCCESS OF AUGUSTUS—​DISSEMINATION OF CHRISTIANITY—​DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE.

During a period of nearly three centuries after the death of Augustus, the Empire remained, so far as political arrangements were concerned, pretty nearly as he had left it; and the history of Rome during these centuries is little more than an account of the personal characters of the successive emperors. Some of these seem to have been specimens of the utmost depravity to which human nature could attain; others were men of great mind, and worthy of their station. At first, the Empire was inherited as a birthright by those who could claim descent from Augustus; but in the end, the real patrons of the sovereign dignity were the armies, and especially the prætorian cohorts. To raise favorite generals to the purple, and afterwards to murder them for the sake of the donations which it was customary to receive in the case of a new accession, became the pastime of the various armies; and sometimes it happened that there were several emperors at the same time, different armies throughout the Empire having each appointed one. The effect of these military appointments was to raise to the highest dignity of the state men born at a distance from Rome, and who, spending their lives in the camp, entertained no affection for the city of the Cæsars. Meanwhile, under all the emperors alike, the great family of nations incorporated under the Roman rule were daily advancing towards that condition out of which modern society was to arise. The reader, however, must imagine for himself the toil and bustle of the successive generations of Celts, Spaniards, Greeks, Africans, and Asiatics, who were born and buried during these three important centuries in which modern civilization was cradled; all that we can give here is a chronological list of the emperors during that period:—

Augustus, from 30 B. C. to 14 A. D.

Tiberius, “ 14 A. D. to 37 “

Caligula, “ 38 “ 41 “

Claudius, “ 41 “ 54 “

Nero, “ 54 “ 68 “

Galba, Otho, Vitellius, “ 68 “ 70 “

Vespasian, “ 70 “ 79 “

Titus, “ 79 “ 81 “

Domitian, “ 81 “ 96 “

Nerva, “ 96 “ 98 “

Trajan, “ 98 “ 117 “

Hadrian, “ 117 “ 138 “

Antonius Pius, “ 138 “ 161 “

Marcus Antoninus, “ 161 “ 180 “

Commodus, “ 180 “ 192 “

Pertinax, “ 193

Septimius Severus “ 193 “ 211 “

Caracalla, “ 211 “ 217 “

Heliogabalus, “ 218 “ 222 “

Alexander Severus, “ 222 “ 235 “

Julius Maximinus, “ 235 “ 238 “

Gordian, “ 238 “ 243 “

Philip, “ 243 “ 249 “

Decius, “ 249 “ 251 “

Gallus, “ 251 “ 253 “

Valerian and Gallienus, “ 253 “ 260 “

Gallienus, “ 261 “ 268 “

Aurelius, “ 268 “ 270 “

Aurelianus, “ 270 “ 275 “

Tacitus, “ 275 “ 276 “

Florian, “ 276

Probus, “ 276 “ 282 “

Carus, “ 282 “ 284 “

Diocletian & Maximian, “ 284 “ 305 “

The only facts connected with the reigns of these emperors which need be noticed here are, that in the reign of Claudius, Britain was added to the Roman dominion; that under the great Trajan, the Empire was still farther extended; and that under Caracalla, the Roman franchise was extended to all the free inhabitants of the Empire. The vices of such emperors as Caligula, Nero, Commodus, Caracalla, and Heliogabalus, may pass unnoticed, as may also the military achievements of some of the later emperors. The reign of Diocletian, however (A. D. 248–305), constitutes an epoch in the history of the Empire. Finding the unwieldy mass too great for the administration of a single individual, he divided it between himself and his colleague Maximian, assigning to Maximian the western or Latin-speaking nations, and retaining the East in his own hands. Under each emperor there was to be a royal personage called Cæsar, who was to govern part of that emperor’s section of the Empire, and afterwards succeed him in the chief dignity. This arrangement did not last long; and after various subdivisions of the Empire, and struggles between emperors and Cæsars, the whole was reunited under Constantine the Great (A. D. 306–337). Under this remarkable man Christianity was established as the religion of the Empire.

During the three centuries which had elapsed between the crucifixion of Christ—​which took place in the nineteenth year of the reign of Tiberius—​and the accession of Constantine to the supreme government of the whole Empire, the new religion had been silently but surely spreading itself; first among the Jews, then among the Greek or eastern, and lastly among the Latin or western Gentiles. It had been subjected to numerous persecutions, some local, and others general, over the whole Empire; but had, nevertheless, made such progress, that it is calculated that in Constantine’s reign about a twentieth part of the whole population of the Empire were professed Christians, while even over the nineteen-twentieths who continued in polytheism, the indirect influence of Christianity had been immense. Led to embrace Christianity himself, although with a considerable tincture of polytheistic superstition, Constantine gave his imperial recognition to the already fully-organized ecclesiastical system of the Christians, with its churches, presbyters, bishops, metropolitans. The civil ban having thus been removed from the profession of Christianity, it began to prevail in form, as it already did in fact, over the heterogeneous polytheism of the Empire.

Another important act of Constantine’s reign, besides his proclamation of toleration for Christianity (A. D. 321), was his removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople. Not long after this was effected, Constantine died at the age of sixty, leaving the Empire divided among his three sons. One of them, Constantius, ultimately acquired the whole, and transmitted it to his successors; but in the year 395, Theodosius, one of these successors, effected a permanent separation between the East and the West. From that date, the history of Rome divides itself into two distinct histories—​that of the Western or Latin and that of the Eastern or Greek empire. The latter protracted its existence till A. D. 1453, when Constantinople was taken by the Turks: the former crumbled to pieces much earlier, before the attacks of the northern barbarians, who finally destroyed it in 476.

DOWNFALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE.

From an early period, the Empire had been assailed on its northern frontier by the German and Sclavonian races living east of the Rhine and north of the Danube. Partly by force, and partly by negotiation, the authorities of the Empire had been able to keep these barbarian populations in check; but towards the end of the fourth century, the growing decrepitude of the Empire tempted invasion, and hordes of barbarians from Scandinavia, Russia, and Tartary, rolled themselves toward the Danube. At first, it seemed as if the eastern empire would be the first to fall before them; but the tide of invasion was at length decisively diverted towards the west. Province after province was torn away by Goths, Alans, Huns, Vandals, and others: Italy itself was ravaged several times; and at length, A. D. 476, Romulus Augustus, the last sovereign, was dethroned, and Italy became a prey to the Germans. The various steps in this gradual disintegration of the Empire, the heroic deeds of the two chief agents in the dismemberment—​Alaric, king of the Goths, and Attila, king of the Huns—​and the gradual formation of Romano-Germanic kingdoms out of fragments of the shattered Roman society, cannot here be detailed.

HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

Under the title of the Middle Ages is comprehended that period of history which succeeded the destruction of the Roman western empire and extended to the end of the fifteenth or beginning of the sixteenth century, when learning was revived in Europe. This period of about eight hundred years may be said to divide ancient from modern times. The early portion of the middle ages is sometimes styled the Dark Ages; for during this time the ancient civilization of Rome, a bequest from Egypt and Greece, disappeared, and ancient institutions perished, without anything better being substituted. The middle ages altogether differ from any other period in history. They may be generally described as an era of universal disorder, in which was maintained a struggle between force and reason. Old governments were broken up, and new ones took their place, only to be dismembered in turn. Literature sunk into obscurity, and was confined to the cells of monks. Slavery was universal, and was modified alone by the benign influence of Christianity. Gradually, as it will be seen, nations assumed a settled character, arts were discovered, and for military turbulence were substituted peaceful institutions. Much, therefore, as there is to deplore in the history of the middle ages, there is not a little to commend and be grateful for. We must view these ages as being the cradle of modern civilization, the era whence sprung much that we venerate in our institutions, much that distinguishes modern from ancient manners.

THE EASTERN EMPIRE TO THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

It is necessary to begin a history of the middle ages with reference to the decline of the Roman Empire. This decline was caused by various circumstances, but chiefly by the weakened condition of society. Instead of rearing a respectable lower and middle class, the Roman aristocracy kept the mass of the people in slavery, so that at length society consisted of but a comparatively small number of privileged persons, including the military, and vast numbers of serfs or slaves—​the hangers-on of great men—​and in effect paupers. ‘The freedom of the ancient world expired in the course of ages,’ says Alison, ‘from the small number of those who enjoyed its benefits. The ruling citizens became corrupted from the influence of prosperity, or by the seduction of wealth; and no infusion of energy took place from the lower ranks to renovate their strength or supply their place.’ Besides this general, there was a special cause. In 321, Constantine transferred the imperial abode from Rome to Byzantium, a city situated on the Bosphorus, and afterwards called Constantinople. In his endeavors to make this city the seat of government, Constantine only partially succeeded; for it generally happened after his day that there was one emperor in the East and another in the West, and not unfrequently two or three different individuals in the provinces, at the head of considerable military forces, claiming partial and even universal empire. Rome itself, and the countries of western Europe, were soon taken posession of by barbarous intruders, and lost all the characteristics and individuality of empire; but Constantinople continued for a thousand years the abode of men who had still the name of emperors, reckoning themselves the descendants of the Cæsars, although they had long ceased to wield anything but the shadow of power. Constantine was himself instrumental in dismembering his empire, having before his death divided it among no fewer than five individuals—​namely, his three sons, Constantine, Constans, Constantius, and his two nephews, Dalmatius and Annipalianus, both of whom bore in addition the surname of Cæsar—​a name still popular among a people who wished themselves to be considered Roman.

Constantine II soon fell a sacrifice to the cruelty and ambition of his brother Constans, who in his turn lost his life in attempting to quell a revolt among his subjects; and Constantius, the youngest of the sons, having found means to destroy the two Cæsars, and five other cousins, and two uncles, found himself at an early period of life the undisputed master of the empire. He reigned twenty-four years, but left no monuments of goodness or of greatness, having wasted his time in the practice of vice, or in the equally unprofitable, if more innocent, employment of disputing with bishops on the abstrusest points of doctrinal theology; while a host of enemies, apparently from every side of his dominions, were engaged in undermining and laying waste the empire. It was in the West that these attacks were first made, though perhaps it was in the East that they were fiercest. Numberless and powerful barbarians now began to pour unceasingly upon Gaul, Spain, and latterly upon Italy itself, from the forests of the north, and in particular from those of Germany—​a country whose inhabitants have been remarkable in the history of the world, both as having originated many of the greatest movements in society, and as having laid open more of the sources of human thought than any people that could be named. The Franks, Saxons, Goths, and Alemanni, devastated the fine countries watered by the Rhine, and so effectually severed them from the Empire, that from this period their history becomes wholly separate. At the same time the Sarmatians, Persians, Scythians, and others, made dreadful incursions in the East. All that Constantius could do to stem this powerful tide was to raise his kinsman Julian, whom he surnamed Cæsar, to command in the army.

Julian had been early instructed in the Christian religion, but he is not known to have ever given it any credit, although he has been often called apostate. He had imbibed the philosophy of Plato in the schools of Athens; and with this learning, with the elements of a great character in his mind, and with the models of Cæsar, of Trajan, and of Marcus Antonius in his eye, he formed the design, and seemed to have the ability, to raise up and consolidate the glories of a falling Empire. His victories over the Alemanni in Gaul, although they preserved the Empire, excited only the envy of the emperor, and Constantius was about to depose him from his command, when his own death saved him from the ignominy to which the soldiery would certainly have subjected him for any attempt to degrade their favorite commander. Julian was himself declared emperor by the army, and the people had lost both the power and the will to resist. Unfortunately for his fame, Julian perished in battle with the Persians only three years after his accession. In that short period he had reformed many abuses in the state; and though personally hostile to the Christian religion, and though he used both arguments and ridicule against it, he not only advocated, but practiced universal toleration. It is creditable also to Julian, that in establishing the ancient orders of Roman priesthood, he was at pains to enforce a strict morality in all the relations of life. He was succeeded, after the fall of several candidates, by Valentinian, whose father had been a soldier from the Danube. This emperor took for colleague his brother Valens, to whom he assigned Constantinople and the government of the East. The reign of Valens was signalized by the irruption into Europe of an enemy till then unknown to the Romans; these were the Huns, a confederation of Tartar tribes, some of whom had obtained the ascendancy and control over the rest, and led them on to invade the nations of Europe. Their numbers and ferocity led the ancient writers to describe them in terms of consternation, which to moderns, who are no strangers to Calmucs, Cossacks, Tartars, and other tribes of similar origin, appear sufficiently ludicrous. They never lived in houses, slept under trees, ate raw flesh, and were altogether superior in war even to the Goths, who were now in alliance with the Romans, and had begun to relish the comforts of a settled life. They were, therefore, driven away before the Huns, and were forced, in search of a home, to invade the Roman territory. Here they were opposed by the Emperor Valens; but they defeated his army, and made his own life a sacrifice. He was succeeded by his nephew Gratian, who chose for his colleague Theodosius, a general of talents and celebrity. This emperor restored the confidence of his own army, and broke the power of the Goths, by his skill and caution; and was the first of the emperors who practiced the mode of dividing the barbarians against one another, by giving money to such of their tribes as he imagined would make useful auxiliaries. This system, which the wealth of the emperors (from their possession of all the maritime and trading cities) enabled them long to use against their poorer enemies, often saved the Empire at the expense of its dignity; for though the money was given at first as a gratuity, it was sometimes demanded in times of weakness as a tribute. This Theodosius (commonly called the Great) was the first who made Christianity the established religion of the Empire (390). He procured a senatorial edict in favor of the Christians and their religion, sanctioned the destruction of the heathen temples, and forbade the performance of sacrifices either in public or private. The Empire under this prince still preserved its original extent; but he divided it between his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius (394), and its parts were never afterwards reunited.

From the death of Theodosius II (449) to the reign of Justinian (527), the Eastern Empire continued without any considerable alteration, though there were many changes and intrigues in the court and army. The reign of the latter prince is memorable on several accounts: it was under his auspices that a knowledge of the silk manufacture was first brought to Europe, where it gave employment to much ingenious industry (900). Justinian also caused certain eminent lawyers to prepare a code of laws, and an abridgement of law decisions, etc. called the Pandects, which were used by all his successors, and have been adopted as the basis of their laws by several countries of Europe. With the single exception of the Code de Napoleon, these form the only complete and perfect abstract of national law which any government has given to its people. Whatever may have been Justinian’s errors in other respects, his having projected this work, and procured so many able ministers to execute it, must redound forever to his honor. The talents and virtues of his general Belisarius regained to the Empire Africa and a great part of Italy, from the Vandals and Ostrogoths; this conquest, however, only prevented the latter region from being united under one government, and has been the cause of its remaining a feeble and divided country ever since. In the reign of Tiberius shortly after (580), the people of Rome, though they entreated with great earnestness the aid and pity of the emperor, who now claimed to rule over them, were unable to obtain any relief, and remained distracted between their attachment to the ancient head of the Empire, and the claims of his enemies who occupied the rest of Italy.

The next emperor who merits attention is Heraclius (610), a native of Africa. The Eastern Empire had till now preserved its ancient boundaries in their full extent, and was mistress of Carthage, Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, besides Greece, and the countries on the Danube. The Roman armies on the eastern frontier had, however, been lately driven in by Chosroes, king of Persia, who now occupied all the north of Africa and Syria. This was the first great violation of their territory sustained by the emperors of Constantinople; and Heraclius avenged it with a celerity and effect which made the Persians tremble. His triumph, however, was short, for the latter part of his reign was disturbed by the rise and victories of Mohammed. The successors of this signal impostor, after breaking the power of Persia (already weakened by the victories of Heraclius), immediately attacked the Roman Empire; then defeated its armies in two battles, occupied all Syria, and obliged the emperor (now an old man) to retire to Constantinople. He died in 641.

The continued victories of the followers of Mohammed (called Arabs or Saracens) soon deprived the Empire of Egypt, Africa, and Syria; and in 668 they followed up their success by attacking Constantinople itself. The city sustained two sieges, in the first of which the Saracens were encamped in its neighborhood, and carried on the operations of a siege at intervals, for seven years; and in the second, for nearly two. In both the Saracens wasted immense resources ineffectually.

The Empire had now lost all its provinces eastward of Mount Taurus, and the cities of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch, were in the hands of the Mohammedans. There was little further change in its condition till the year 867, under the Emperor Basil, who gave new vigor both to the internal administration and to the military resources of the government. This prince, and his immediate predecessor Zimisces, made the Roman arms—​for they still wished to be called Romans—​respected on the Euphrates, and Tigris, and asserted the ancient warlike reputation and boundaries of the Empire. They were now, however, deprived of the resources they had enjoyed in the secure possession of the great commercial cities of the Mediterranean—​Alexandria, Carthage, Cæsarea, etc.; and the trade and revenues of those which remained were crippled and diminished, from the want of that free general intercourse which had existed when they were all under one government. Hence the armies were maintained with greater difficulty, and any victories that were gained could not be followed up with effect. The early enemies of the Empire—​the Goths, Vandals, and Huns—​had now settled into civilized communities, and were no longer formidable. The foes with whom it contended latterly were the Bulgarians and Seljukian Turks; the former of whom were rather troublesome than dangerous, but the latter, who had succeeded the Saracens in the dominion of Asia, aimed at nothing short of the destruction of the Roman name. They succeeded at last by defeating and taking prisoner the Emperor Romanus Diogenes, in tearing away almost the whole province of Asia Minor (1099); so that the emperors were now confined to the dominions in Europe, which, however, still formed a monarchy not much smaller than France or Spain.

The manners of the court of Constantinople during much of this period were dissolute and corrupt. We are told of one emperor who ordered a plate of human noses to be brought to his table; another was accustomed to seize the deputies of cities whose tribute was in arrear, and suspend them with their heads downwards over a slow fire; a third got up farces in mockery of the ceremonies of religion; and, in general, the appointment of officers, and even the succession to the Empire (where it was not seized by some successful general), were in the hands of the women and eunuchs of the palace. The cities and provinces generally acquiesced as to the choice of an emperor in the decision of the capital or army; this circumstance shows that the laws were attended to, and that there was a regular system of government, which were not much disturbed by the personal character of the reigning prince. The countries of Greece, however, which had formerly been the seat of knowledge and the arts, were now sunk in ignorance; and the little learning that was cultivated in Athens was only scholastic divinity, or the pedantry of law and grammar. There is no scholar, or philosopher, or poet, of the empire of Constantinople who is generally known to posterity.

A great change took place in the relations of the Empire after the eleventh century. It was still pressed by the Turks on the East, who now occupied Asia Minor, and were only separated from Constantinople by the Hellespont; while in Europe its territories were disturbed by the incursions of certain Norman adventurers who had settled in Sicily. Against these enemies the Emperor Claudius Comnenus, an active prince, and full of resources, made all the resistance which his diminished revenues allowed. He applied to the Christian sovereigns of Europe to aid him in expelling the Mohammedans from the territories of the Empire, but above all, to drive out the Turks from the land of Judea, which they occupied and profaned, and where they harassed the Christian pilgrims who desired to visit the scenes of Scripture history. His appeal was received in Europe at a time when many concurring causes had brought the mass of the people to a state of uneasiness which at once foreboded and rendered necessary some extensive change in their condition. Countrymen of their own, pilgrims from the shrine of the tomb of Chist, had returned and filled them with horror by a recital of indignities which Turkish infidels were casting on those scenes and subjects with which their own most sacred feelings were associated; and the result was that extraordinary outpouring of the inhabitants of Europe upon Asia, which has been termed the Crusades, and to which we shall afterwards advert.

ARABIA—​MOHAMMED—​EMPIRE OF THE SARACENS.

It was not before the sixth century that Arabia became peculiarly remarkable in the history of the world. The wild Arabs, as they have been generally called, had already signalized themselves by incursions on the Empire of the East, when Mohammed was born, in the year 569 (some say, 571) of the Christian era, at Mecca, the principal city of their country. He is said to have been descended from some great families; but it is certain that his immediate progenitors were poor, and he had little education but what his own means and his own mind could give him. Yet this man became the founder of a great empire, and the fabricator of a religion which has continued to our own day to affect greater numbers of mankind than Christianity itself. At an early period of life, we are told, ‘he retired to the desert, and pretended to hold conferences with the Angel Gabriel, who delivered to him, from time to time, portions of a sacred book or Koran, containing revelations of the will of the Supreme Being, and of the doctrines which he required his prophet (that is, Mohammed himself) to communicate to the world.’ The Mohammedan religion, as the so-called revelations of this great imposter have since been designated, was a strange mixture of the superstitions of Arabia, the morality of Christ, and the rites of Judaism. It was to this happy mixture of tenets, usages, and traditions already existing among his countrymen, and to the applicability of the precepts of the Koran to all legal transactions and all the business of life, that Mohammed seems to have owed his extraordinary success. Others, indeed, have attributed this to certain indulgences allowed in the Koran; but in reality these indulgences existed before, and the book breathes upon the whole an austere spirit. This extraordinary work inculcated elevated notions of the Divine nature and of moral duties: it taught that God’s will and power were constantly exerted towards the happiness of His creatures, and that the duty of man was to love his neighbors, assist the poor, protect the injured, to be humane to inferior animals, and to pray seven times a day. It taught that, to revive the impression of those laws which God had engraven originally in the hearts of men, He had sent his prophets upon earth—​Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed—​the last, the greatest, to whom all the world should owe its conversion to the true religion. By producing the Koran in detached parcels, Mohammed had it in his power to solve all objections by new revelations. It was only after he was well advanced in years that his doctrines began to be received. At first, indeed, they were so violently opposed by his fellow-citizens of Mecca, that the prophet was obliged to flee from the city to save his life. This event is called by his followers Hegira, or the Flight: it occurred in the 622d year of the Christian era; and they reckon dates from it as we do from the birth of Christ. Mohammed took refuge in the city of Medina, and by the aid of his disciples there, he was soon able to return to Mecca at the head of an armed force. This enabled him to subdue those who would not be convinced; and henceforward he proceeded to make proselytes and subjects together, till at length, being master of all Arabia and of Syria, his numerous followers saluted him king (627). This extraordinary man died suddenly, and in the midst of successes, at the age of sixty-one (632). Abubeker, his father-in-law and successor, united and published the books of the Koran, and continued and extended the empire which Mohammed had left him.

A more powerful caliph (such was the title given to this series of monarchs) was Omar, the successor of Abubeker (635). Barbarity, ferocity, and superstition seem to have been mingled and to have reached their height in the person of Omar. It was by his order that the most magnificent library of antiquity, that of Alexandria, consisting of 700,000 volumes, was burned to ashes. The reason which he gave for this act is worth preserving:—​‘If these writings,’ he said, ‘agree with the Koran, they are useless, and need not be preserved; if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed.’ By himself and his generals this ferocious conqueror added Syria, Phœnicia, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Egypt, Lybia, and Numidia, to his empire. Next came Otman, and then Ali, the son-in-law of Mohammed himself. The name of Ali is still revered by Mussulmans. His reign was short, but glorious. ‘After some internal troubles,’ says Hallam, ‘the Saracens won their way along the coast of Africa, as far as the pillars of Hercules, and a third province was irretrievably torn from the Greek empire. These Western conquests introduced them to fresh enemies, and ushered in more splendid successes. Encouraged by the disunion of the Visigoths [in Spain], and invited by treachery, Muza, the general of a master who sat beyond the opposite extremity of the Mediterranean Sea, passed over into Spain, and within about two years the name of Mohammed was invoked under the Pyrenees.’

Nineteen caliphs of the race of Omar succeeded Ali, and after these came the dynasty of the Abassydæ, descended by the male line from Mohammed. The second caliph of this race, named Almanzor, removed the seat of empire to Bagdad (762), and introduced learning and the culture of the sciences, which his successors continued to promote with zeal and liberality. This was some recompense for those indignities which had been cast upon literature by the brutal Omar. Perhaps the obligations of modern Europe to Arabia at this time have been overstated; but it is not to be denied that learning, almost totally excluded and extinct in Europe during the eight and ninth centuries, found an asylum here. It has been matter of dispute how the tastes of these fierce Arabians became thus first directed. They probably owed it to the Greeks; but it is certain that what they got they returned with interest. We are said to derive our present arithmetical figures from this strange people; and geometry, astronomy, and alchemy were their favorite pursuits. The graces of light literature were not neglected, as is shown by the One Thousand and One Nights’ Entertainments, a production of this period, which still continues to solace the hours of childhood and old age among ourselves, and attests the extent of fancy and the variety of genius among those that gave it birth. Haroun al Raschid, who flourished in the beginning of the ninth century, is celebrated as a second Augustus. He was cotemporary with Charlemagne, and communications of a friendly nature are said to have passed between them.

Within fifty years from the death of Mohammed, the Saracens had raised an empire, not only temporal, but also spiritual, more extensive and more powerful than what remained of the empire of Constantinople; and within a hundred, they had subdued not only Persia, Syria, Asia Minor, and Arabia, but also Egypt, North Africa, and Spain. It seemed, indeed, in the course of the eight century, as if Asia and Europe both should yield to their victorious arms, and become one great Mohammedan dominion. But the mighty fabric, of mushroom growth, crumbled into dust with equal speed. After the first extension of their conquests, they ceased to acknowledge any one head of their empire, and the successful generals of the provinces contented themselves by paying a religious respect to the caliphs of Bagdad, as the successors of the prophet, while they retained the power of conquerors for themselves. In the year 732 they sustained a great defeat in France from Charles Martel, who became the father of an illustrious race of kings. No fewer than 375,000 Saracens are said to have been left dead on the field of this battle, and it is certain that they never after cherished the hope of subduing Europe. About the middle of the ninth century (848), they projected the conquest of Italy, and even laid siege to Rome itself. But they were entirely repulsed by Pope Leo IV; their ships were dispersed by a storm, and their army cut to pieces. Spain was the only European country in which they were able to obtain a permanent footing, and in it alone have they left traces of their existence.

FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF ROME TO THE AGE OF CHARLEMAGNE—​ORIGIN OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

The Empire of the Cæsars fell in the West only by degrees, and the changes introduced by the northern tribes were gradual, though they proved great. Province after province yielded to the invaders; and before the end of the fifth century, every country in Europe had undergone extensive changes, and received fresh accessions to the number of its inhabitants. The Visigoths had seated themselves in Spain, the Franks in Gaul, the Saxons in the Roman provinces of South Britain, the Huns in Pannonia, and the Ostrogoths in Italy and the adjacent provinces. And not only had they been enabled to take up their abode, but in general they became masters, and changed the face of all that they touched: ‘new governments, laws, languages; new manners, customs, dresses; new names of men and of countries, prevailed; and an almost total change took place in the state of Europe.’ That change has been called a change from light to darkness, and it assuredly led to the extinction of that taste for literature and that regular administration of government which were the relieving features of the Roman despotism. But if it thus produced an immediate evil, it led to an ultimate good. The population was reinvigorated by the admixture of the new races, and from the fresh elements it had acquired there sprung institutions which might be considered as in many respects an improvement upon those that formerly prevailed.

It was out of these new circumstances that what has been called the Feudal System took its rise. This was a feature in society unknown in former ages. Hitherto men had been the slaves of individual masters, or, as in the more celebrated states of antiquity, they were bound together by the common tie of citizenship, and owed allegiance to none. Patriotism was their highest virtue, and all looked upon the state as a parent, to which, having got support from it, they were bound to give support in their turn. But in these times the rude inhabitants of the north had formed little or no conception of what a state was, and at first they were not prepared to relinquish their much-cherished individual freedom in exchange for rights which they thought they did not need. Changes at length came over them; and society gradually took new forms. Those who had led them on to battle, began to be looked upon as their guardians in peace. Victorious armies, cantoned out into the countries which they had seized, continued arranged under their officers, each of whom had a separate territory allotted to him, on which he could retain and support his immediate followers, while the principal leader had the largest; and in this way all were bound in allegiance, both to their immediate superiors and to their chief, and all were in readiness to be called out to arms whenever their services were thought to be required. This ‘military chieftainship,’ infusing itself as an element in the barbarian societies, was the first advance to anything like civil or social government since the extinction of the Roman power. Nations, indeed, were still far from having the advantage of a regular government. The method of conducting judicial proceedings, and of administering justice, was still peculiarly unsettled and uncertain. The authority of the magistrate was so limited, and the independence assumed by individuals so great, that they seldom admitted any umpire but the sword. It was then that trial by ordeal became universal, and men’s guilt or innocence was thought to be proved by the capacity of their bodies to withstand the influences of red-hot iron or boiling water applied to them, or by their overcoming their accuser in single combat.

These observations are applicable, with scarcely any variation, to all the nations which settled in Europe during the fifth and sixth centuries. Speaking of this subject, Dr. Robertson says—​‘Though the barbarous nations which framed it [the Feudal System], settled in their new territories at different times, came from different countries, spoke various languages, and were under the command of separate leaders, the feudal policy and laws were established, with little variation, in every kingdom of Europe. This amazing uniformity hath induced some authors to believe that all these nations, notwithstanding so many apparent circumstances of distinction, were originally the same people. But it may be ascribed, with greater probability, to the similar state of society and of manners to which they were accustomed in their native countries, and to the similar situation in which they found themselves on taking possession of their new domains.’ We shall now offer a few remarks respecting them individually.

No people at this period exhibited a more energetic character than the Franks, a Teutonic race originally settled on the Lower Rhine and Weser, and who had acquired their name (freemen) while successfully resisting the Roman power in an earlier age. About the year 486, they were under the rule of Clovis, who achieved the conquest of Gaul by the defeat of the Roman governor, and afterwards added Burgundy and Aquitaine to his dominions—​the former by marriage, and the latter by the forcible expulsion of the Visigoths. This may be considered as the foundation of the French monarchy. Clovis adopted the Christian faith, and caused his people to follow his example. It is remarkable that while in war he exercised unlimited power over his subjects, they shared with him the legislative authority, meeting annually in the Champs de Mars to suggest and deliberate upon public measures, in the settlement of which the meanest soldier had equally a voice with his sovereign.

At the death of Clovis in 511, his four sons divided the kingdom, which was afterwards reunited, divided again, and again united, amidst scenes of tumult and bloodshed. The line of kings proceeding from Clovis (called Merovignian from his grandsire Meroveus) dwindled in time into utter insignificance, while the chief power was wielded by an important officer, called the Mayor of the Palace. Among the most remarkable of these was Pepin Heristal, Duke of Austrasia, who ruled France for thirty years with great wisdom and good policy. His son, Charles Martel, who succeeded to his power, distinguish himself by that great victory over the Saracens (A. D. 732), which checked their career in Europe.

An appeal by Pepin le Bref, the son of Charles Martel, to the pope of Rome, whose authority had by this time become great, ruled that he who had the power should also have the title of king, and this put an end to the reign of the descendants of Clovis (752). Pepin remunerated the pope for this service by turning his arms against the Lombards in Italy, some of whose dominions he conferred upon the Holy See; and these, it is said, were the first of the temporal possessions of the church. Pepin died (768), leaving two sons, Carloman and Charles, who succeeded him in the empire. Carloman died at an early period of life, but Charles (subsequently Charlemagne) survived to achieve for himself a fame far greater than that of any other individual during the middle ages, with perhaps the single exception of Mohammed. We shall proceed to speak of him and of his times, after making one or two observations on some other European countries.

Spain was among the earliest countries lost to the Roman Empire. From about the year 406, this country, in whole or in part, had been successively invaded and subdued by Suevi, Alans, Vandals, and Visigoths. The last-named people were in possession of the greater part of the country before the year 585, and erected a monarchy which existed till 712, when they were subdued by the Saracens or Moors. The Saracens made their descent on Spain from Africa, where Nuza, a viceroy of the caliph of Bagdad, had already made extensive conquests. They easily overran Spain and vanquished Don Rodrigo, or Roderic, the last of the Gothic kings. Abdallah, son of Muza, married the widow of Roderic, and the two nations entered into union. Before the conclusion of the eighth century, Abdalrahman, one of the Moorish generals, had laid aside all temporal subjection to the caliph of Bagdad, and formed Spain into an independent kingdom. His residence was at Cordova, and this city became renowned as one of the most enlightened in Europe under several succeeding reigns. Those parts of Spain which were under the Moorish kings embraced also their religion. The northern provinces never owned their dominion.

Towards the conclusion of the sixth century, Italy was in the possession of the Longobeards, or Lombards, who continued master of the greater part of it for two centuries. Of their rule, history has recorded little besides murders and confusion.

It was during this period that the Saxon Heptarchy was formed in Britain.

CHARLEMAGNE—​THE NEW WESTERN EMPIRE.

By far the greatest character who appeared in Europe at this period was Charles, the son of Pepin le Bref, and known in history by the name of Charlemagne, or Charles the Great. ‘In the course of a reign of forty-five years,’ says Mr. Tytler, ‘Charlemagne extended the limits of his empire beyond the Danube, subdued Dacia, Dalmatia, and Istria, conquered and subjected all the barbarous tribes to the banks of the Vistula, made himself master of a great portion of Italy, and successfully encountered the arms of the Saracens, the Huns, the Bulgarians, and the Saxons. His war with the Saxons was of thirty years’ duration; and their final conquest was not achieved without an inhuman waste of blood. At the request of the pope, and to discharge the obligations of his father Pepin to the holy see, Charlemagne, though allied by marriage to Desiderius, king of the Lombards, dispossessed that prince of all his dominions, and put a final period to the Lombard dominion in Italy (774).

When Charlemagne made his first entry into Rome, he was crowned king of France and of the Lombards by Pope Adrian I; and afterwards, on a second visit, he was consecrated Emperor of the West by the hands of Pope Leo III (800). He probably attached some importance to these rites, but it is to be remarked that, as yet, the pontiff was not in the enjoyment of that high influence by which he afterwards could confer or withdraw sovereignty at his pleasure.

‘It is probable,’ continues the authority above quoted, ‘that had Charlemagne chosen Rome for his residence and seat of government, and at his death transmitted to his successor an undivided dominion, that great but fallen empire might have once more been restored to lustre and respect; but Charlemagne had no fixed capital, and he divided, even in his lifetime, his dominion among his children (806).’ Charlemagne died in the year 814, aged seventy-two. His last days were employed in consolidating, rather than extending, his empire, by the making of laws which have rendered his name famous, and his memory even blessed. ‘Though engaged in so many wars,’ says Dr. Russell, ‘Charlemagne was far from neglecting the arts of peace, the happiness of his subjects, or the cultivation of his own mind. Government, manners, religion, and letters, were his constant pursuits. He frequently convened the national assemblies for regulating the affairs both of church and state. In these assemblies he proposed such laws as he considered to be of public benefit, and allowed the same liberty to others; but of this liberty, indeed, it would have been difficult to deprive the French nobles, who had been accustomed, from the foundation of the monarchy, to share the legislation with their sovereign. His attention extended even to the most distant corners of his empire, and to all ranks of men. He manifested a particular regard for the common people, and studied their ease and advantage. The same love of mankind led him to repair and form public roads; to build bridges where necessary; to make rivers navigable for the purposes of commerce; and to project that grand canal which would have opened a communication between the German Ocean and the Black Sea, by uniting the Danube and the Rhine.’ Amidst all his greatness, his personal habits were simple; his dress was of the plainest sort, and such even as to shame his own courtiers; his hours of study set apart, and seldom omitted even in the busiest times of his life; his daughters were taught spinning and housewifery, and his sons trained by himself in all the accomplishments of the age. Charlemagne was fond of the company of learned men, and greatly encouraged their residence in his dominions. In this respect he resembled his cotemporary Haroun Raschid, so famous in Arabian history, and Alfred the Great, who appeared in England shortly after this period. Superior to all national prejudice, he elevated an Englishman named Alcuin to the head of his royal academy. He was zealous for the extension of Christianity; and one of the few blots upon his name arises from his having, in the spirit of his age, caused 4000 Saxon prisoners to be beheaded in one day, because they would not submit to be baptized. Charlemagne established schools in the cathedrals and principal abbeys, for the teaching of writing, arithmetic, grammar, logic, and music.

Of the sons of Charlemagne, Louis, the youngest, surnamed the Debonnaire, or gentle, was the only one who survived. He succeeded to all his father’s dominions, except Italy, which fell into the hands of Bernard, a grandson of Charlemagne. Louis, deficient in vigor of character, was unable to hold together the great empire left to him by his father. Having, among the first acts of his reign, given large portions of it to his children, the remainder of his life was spent in disgraceful quarrels with them; and after his death (840), the empire was formally divided—​Lothaire, his eldest son, obtaining Lorraine and Provence; while Charles the Bald, a younger son, continued sovereign of the western parts of France; and Louis became king of Germany. Thus abruptly terminates the history of the second western empire.

FRANCE FROM THE TIME OF CHARLES THE BALD TO THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

During the reign of Charles the Bald, France first suffered from the attacks of the Normans, a race of bold and needy adventurers from the north of Europe. Their plundering invasions were continued for upwards of seventy years; till at length (912) the French king was compelled to purchase their amity by yielding to Rollo their leader the country afterwards from them called Normandy, of which Rouen was the capital. The first successor of Charles the Bald with whose name history has associated anything worth remembering, was Charles, surnamed the Fat (885). He was the son of that Louis to whom Germany had been before assigned, and was thus enabled to bring that country and France for a short time once more under a single ruler. In the turbulence of the times Charles was soon deposed; and during the century which followed, France, so lately the centre of an empire little less than that of Rome in the days of its Cæsars, was split up into a multitude of independencies, by nobles who would own only a very slender subjection to the kings. Out of these nobles at last sprang Hugh Capet (987), who was enabled, on the death of Louis V, to place himself on the throne. He was already possessed of great property, and proved to be also a prince of much ability and penetration. He established the royal residence at Paris, which his predecessors had deserted, and became the founder of a family which, in one of its branches, occupied the throne of France till the overthrow of monarchy in 1848. He deserves to be mentioned with honor, as being among the first of European kings who trusted to prudence, counsel, and moderation, rather than force of arms, in effecting his purposes. On his death (996), in the fifty-seventh year of his age and the tenth of his reign, he was succeeded by his son Robert, who had all his father’s equitable disposition without his vigor of character. He was subjected to a degree of tyranny on the part of the church of which perhaps the history of the world does not afford such another example. Robert had been guilty of marrying a cousin in the fourth degree without a dispensation from the Holy See—​that is, without paying a fine for what was only an imaginary offense. Gregory V, who then occupied the pontifical chair, threatened to excommunicate Robert if he should not dismiss his wife, and, on Robert’s refusal, actually did so, and laid all his dominions under an interdict. This punishment proved tremendous in its effects; for though the king himself showed sense and courage enough to despise the wrath of the pontiff, yet his subjects deserted him in terror. The priests, in consequence of the interdict, refused sacrament to the sick all over the country, and the dead were everywhere left unburied, when mass was no longer said. In these circumstances the unfortunate king submitted. A second marriage, contracted with the consent of the church, proved very unhappy. The new queen, Constantia, or Constance, made many efforts to embroil her husband and his family, and in the midst of these Robert died (1031). His son Henry succeeded, and it was during his reign that those pilgrimages to the Holy Land, which were so soon to end in the Crusades, took their rise. Of these we shall speak by themselves. In the meantime we take leave of France by mentioning that Henry’s successor was Philip (1060), whose reign is remarkable as having witnessed the beginning of those contests with England which continued at intervals till the early part of the nineteenth century.

At this period (1066) the Normans invaded and conquered England, where their leader, William, Duke of Normandy, became the founder of an important dynasty.

THE GERMAN EMPIRE BEFORE THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.

Germany had no political existence until the time of Charlemagne, when it was formed by him into part of the western empire. Towards the conclusion of the ninth century it became an empire of itself. In the year 887, Arnold, a natural son of Charloman, and nephew of Charles the Fat, was declared emperor by an assembly of bishops and nobles. These assemblies in Germany always retained a voice in the election of their emperors; and though they often made their choice from the line of succession, they never acknowledged any hereditary rights whatever. After the death of Arnold’s son, called Louis III, their choice fell upon Conrad, Duke of Franconia (912). Conrad’s successor was Henry I, surnamed the Fowler. He was a prince of great abilities, and introduced order and good government into the empire. ‘He united the grandees and curbed their usurpations; built, embellished, and fortified cities; and enforced with great rigor the execution of the laws in the repression of all enormities. He had been consecrated by his own bishops, and maintained no correspondence with the see of Rome. His son, Otho the Great, who succeeded him (938), united Italy to the Empire, and kept the popedom in complete subjection. He made Denmark tributary to the imperial crown, annexed the crown of Bohemia to his own dominions, and seemed to aim at a paramount authority over all the sovereigns of Europe.’

In these times the papacy was much disordered. ‘Formosus, twice excommunicated by Pope John VIII, had himself arrived at the triple crown. On his death, his rival, Pope Stephen VII, caused his body to be dug out of the grave, and after trial for his crimes, condemned it to be flung into the Tiber. The friends of Formosus fished up the corpse, and had interest to procure the deposition of Stephen, who was strangled in prison. A succeeding pope, Sergius III, again dug up the ill-fated carcase, and once more threw it into the river. Two infamous women, Marosia and Theodora, managed the popedom for many years, and filled the chair of St Peter with their own gallants or their adulterous offspring.’—​Tytler. It was amidst this confusion and these disturbances that Otho was induced to turn his arms on Italy. He shortly became master of it all, and had himself declared emperor by the Holy See, with all the pomp that had attended the same ceremony to Charlemagne (962). Pope John XII, whom Otho had been the means of raising to the pontifical chair, rebelled soon after. Otho returned to Rome in fury, had John deposed, hanged one-half of the senate before he left the city, and wrung a solemn acknowledgement from an assembly of reluctant bishops, that the emperor had a right not only to nominate to vacant bishoprics, but also to elect the pope himself. Otho died (972), and was followed in succession by Otho II, Otho III, St. Henry, Conrad II, and Henry III, the history of whose reigns exhibits nothing instructive, or upon which the mind can rest with pleasure. Henry IV (1056) was a distinguished victim of papal tyranny. The celebrated Hildebrand, known as Gregory VII, was in this age the means of raising the power of the church to a height which it had never reached before. During Henry’s contest with this daring and ambitious pontiff, he made him twice his prisoner, and twice did the thunders of the Vatican excommunicate and depose him in consequence. As a specimen of the power and insolence of this pope, we may mention that Henry, dispirited by the effect which his excommunication had upon his friends and followers, having resolved to go to Rome and ask absolution from Gregory in person, did so; and presenting himself as a humble penitent at the palace of St Peter, was there stripped of his robes, and obliged to remain in that condition, in an outer court, in the month of January (1077), barefooted, among snow, and fasting, for three successive days, before he was allowed to implore forgiveness for his offences! On the fourth day he was permitted to kiss the toe of his holiness, and then received absolution! Henry died in 1106.