336 The Empire in the third century 



COMMODUS TO DIOCLETIAN 



XLVI. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 



The death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD brings us to the beginning 

 of a long period of troubles, in which the growing weakness of the 

 empire was exposed, the principate-system of Augustus finally failed 

 under the predominance of military power, and the imperial govern- 

 ment was left to be reorganized by Diocletian on a more Oriental 

 model. There is no doubt that during some hundred years the internal 

 wellbeing of the Roman empire was being lowered, and that the parts 

 most open to barbarian invasion suffered terribly. But the pressure of 

 taxation to supply military needs bore heavily on all parts and im- 

 paired the vitality of the whole. Reactions there were now and then, 

 when a strong man, or even a well-meaning one, became emperor and 

 had a few years in which to combat present evils and for the moment 

 check them. But the average duration of reigns was very brief; em- 

 perors were generally murdered or slain in battle ; from 249 to 283 

 the chief function of an emperor was to lead his army against bar- 

 barian invaders. It is a remarkable fact that the first half of this 

 unhappy century was the classical period of Roman jurisprudence. 

 The important post of Praetorian Prefect, which began with a dignified 

 military command and was more and more becoming the chief ministry 

 of the Empire, was again and again held by eminent jurists. But in 

 the long run the civil power could not stand against the jealousy of 

 the military, and the murder of Ulpian in 228 practically ends the 

 series of great lawyer-ministers, leaving the sword in undisputed con- 

 trol. The authorities for this century of troubles are meagre and un- 

 satisfactory. With the help of contemporary inscriptions, modern 

 writers are able to compose some sort of a history of the times, so far 

 as public events and governmental activities are concerned. But the 

 literature of private life, the source of our best evidence on agricultural 

 labour, is for the time at an end, and the facts of farm life were not of 

 the kind thought worthy of record in inscriptions. 



There is therefore nothing to be done but to glean the few scraps 

 of information that in any way bear upon the condition of tillers of 

 the soil in this period. They are as a rule of little value, and they come 

 from writers of little authority. But it is something if they are of a 

 piece with the general record of these unhappy times. Even the im- 

 perial biographies of Marius Maximus survive only in the meagre 

 abstracts of later writers, and modern historians are quite unable to 



