214
TITUS.
He died at the age of sixty-nine, after a reign of nine years,
A.D. 79.
During his reign, the government had, in reality, been con-
ducted by his son Titus ; but I cannot say whether this was
because Vespasian thought himself incapable of ruling over
the empire, or because he had no inclination to do so. Titus
had attained his thirty-second year when he returned from
Jerusalem. It may be that many things which disgrace the
reign of Vespasian must be put down to the account of Titus;
for there seems to be no reason for doubting the statement
that, previously to his accession, the general opinion was
against him®, whatever contrast his own reign may have pre-
sented to his former conduct. The feeling towards him after-
wards completely changed; but this amor et deliciae generis
Iiumani is nevertheless a strange phenomenon. It seems to
have been extremely easy to please the circle by whom he was
surrounded; and as his real happiness consisted in possessing
their favour, he tried to win it by munificent presents out of
the well-stocked treasury which his father had left him, and the
administration of which Vespasian had reserved for himself.
LECTURE CXVIL
There is scarcely any other emperor whose reign was so truly
beneficial to the Roman world as that of Vespasian. At the
time when Titus was the object of the greatest suspicion in
the East, Vespasian’s noble openness formed an exception to the
general distrust. He continued to shew him confidence; and
when Titus returned to Rome, Vespasian made him praefectus
praetorio, and entrusted to him a considerable share in the
government. This was by no means in the spirit of eastern
princes who always feel the greatest mistrust towards their own
sons. Titus, however, was far from popular during the lifetime
of his father; and some acts of cruelty which were committed
in the reign of Vespasian are ascribed to Titus. I will only
mention the murder of Caecina, who had acted a prominent
part among the friends of Vitellius, and was cut down by
9 Sueton. Tit. 6.
EXTRAVAGANCE OF THE ROMANS.
215
Titus’ command. This act, however, is said to have been
justified by the evidence of a conspiracy against the house of
Vespasian, which was discovered in Caecina’s own hand-writ-
in o∙.1 The apprehensions commonly entertained in regard to
Titus were not verified ; for after his accession a change took
place in his whole conduct, and the prevailing features of his
character during his short reign were kindness and benevolence,
features which are in a prince valued more highly than all
otlιer virtues. A sovereign who is not kind, and does not
flatter, stands much lower in the estimation of the imperita
multitudo than one who neglects his duties. Such has been
the case at all times, and, to some extent at least, it seems to
have been the case with Titus. His father had been very
economical, whereas Titus was generous and even lavish; the
former had spent money only in raising great and costly works
of architecture. He had restored Home, changed many of the
senseless buildings of Nero, especially the golden house, and
built the Colosseum, the most gigantic edifice of ancient Bome.
If we consider that it was intended as an amphitheatre, it makes
a sad impression on the mind ; hut it was in accordance with
the taste of the Roman populace. It was not dedicated how-
ever till the reign of Titus.2 The extravagant sums which
were spent upon it, and the proceedings that took place in it
under the later emperors, make upon us the impression of
something monstrous and revolting, which is very different
from the idea of greatness. Goethe has made some excellent
remarks upon it in his “ Farbenlehre."3 Butsuchprodigality
and amusements were not confined to the time of the emperors ;
they had begun towards the end of the republic. The contests
of the Colosseum were cruel and disgusting, and even women
were trained and fought as gladiators; but Titus’ humanity
did not exert itself in that direction. '
1 Sueton. Tit. 6.
2 Sueton. Tit. 7; Dion Cass. Ixvi. 25.
3 Nachgelass. Werke, vol. xiii. p. 68. “ The Romans had risen from the
condition of a narrow, moral, comfortable and easy people, to that of rulers of
the wide world, but without laying aside their own narrowness. And this may
be regarded as the source of their love of luxury. Uneducated persons who
acquire large property, naturally make a ridiculous use of it. Their pleasures,
splendour and extravagance are always absurd and exaggerated. Hence that
fondness for what is strange, extravagant and monstrous. Their theatres
which were turned with the spectators in them, the second population of statues
with which the city was crowded, are, like the later colossal pot in which the
fish were to be kept entire, all of the same origin. Even the insolence and cruelty
о ’ their tyrants generally borders upon the absurd.”