History of Julius Caesar Vol. 2 of 2. Napoleon III
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу History of Julius Caesar Vol. 2 of 2 - Napoleon III страница 7

Название: History of Julius Caesar Vol. 2 of 2

Автор: Napoleon III

Издательство: Public Domain

Жанр: Биографии и Мемуары

Серия:

isbn:

isbn:

СКАЧАТЬ and the power of this head was absolute. At his death, the next in dignity succeeded him; if there were several with equal titles, these priests had recourse to election, and sometimes even to a decision by force of arms. They assembled every year in the country of the Carnutes, in a consecrated place, there to judge disputes. Their doctrine, it was said, came from the isle of Britain, where, in the time of Cæsar, they still went to draw it as at its source.127

      The Druids were exempt from military service and from taxes.128 These privileges drew many disciples, whose novitiate, which lasted sometimes twenty years, consisted in learning by heart a great number of verses containing their religious precepts. It was forbidden to transcribe them. This custom had the double object of preventing the divulgation of their doctrine and of exercising the memory. Their principal dogma was the immortality of the soul and its transmigration into other bodies. A belief which banished the fear of death appeared to them fitted to excite courage. They explained also the movement of the planets, the greatness of the universe, the laws of nature, and the omnipotence of the immortal gods. “We may conceive,” says the eminent author of the Histoire des Gaulois, “what despotism must have been exercised over a superstitious nation by this caste of men, depositaries of all knowledge, authors and interpreters of all law, divine or human, remunerators, judges, and executioners.”129

      The knights, when required by the necessities of war, and that happened almost yearly, were all bound to take up arms. Each, according to his birth and fortune, was accompanied by a greater or less number of attendants or clients. Those who were called ambacti130 performed in war the part of esquires.131 In Aquitaine, these followers were named soldures; they shared the good as well as the evil fortune of the chief to whom they were attached, and, when he died, not one of them would survive him. Their number was considerable: we shall see a king of the Sotiates possess no less than six hundred of them.132

      The states were governed either by an assembly, which the Romans called a senate, or by a supreme magistrate, annual or for life, bearing the title of king,133 prince,134 or vergobret.135

      The different tribes formed alliances among themselves, either permanent or occasional; the permanent alliances were founded, some on a community of territorial interests,136 others on affinities of races,137 or on treaties,138 or, lastly, on the right of patronage.139 The occasional alliances were the results of the necessity of union against a common danger.140

      In Gaul, not only each state and each tribe (pagus), but even each family, was divided into two parties (factiones); at the head of these parties were chiefs, taken from among the most considerable and influential of the knights. Cæsar calls them principes.141 All those who accepted their supremacy became their clients; and, although the principes did not exercise a regular magistracy, their authority was very extensive. This organisation had existed from a remote antiquity; its object was to offer to each man of the people a protection against the great, since each was thus placed under the patronage of a chief, whose duty it was to take his cause in hand, and who would have lost all credit if he had allowed one of his clients to be oppressed.142 We see in the “Commentaries” that this class of the principes enjoyed very great influence. On their decisions depended all important resolutions;143 and their meeting formed the assembly of the whole of Gaul (concilium totius Galliæ).144 In it everything was decided by majority of votes.145

      Affairs of the state were allowed to be treated only in these assemblies. It appertained to the magistrates alone to publish or conceal events, according as they judged expedient; and it was a sacred duty for any one who learnt, either from without or from public rumour, any news which concerned the civitas, to give information of it to the magistrate, without revealing it to any other person. This measure had for its object to prevent rash or ignorant men from being led into error by false reports, and from rushing, under this first impression, into extravagant resolutions.

      In the same manner as each state was divided into two rival factions, so was the whole of Gaul (with the exception of Belgic Gaul and Helvetia) divided into two great parties,146 which exercised over the others a sort of sovereignty (principatus);147 and when, in extraordinary circumstances, the whole of Gaul acknowledged the pre-eminence of one particular state, the chief of the privileged state took the name of princeps totius Galliæ, as had been the case with the Arvernan Celtillus, the father of Vercingetorix.148

      This supremacy, nevertheless, was not permanent; it passed from one nation to another, and was the object of continual ambitions and sanguinary conflicts. The Druids, it is true, had succeeded in establishing a religious centre, but there existed no political centre. In spite of certain federative ties, each state had been more engaged in the consideration of its own individuality than in that of the country in general. This egoistic carelessness of their collective interests, this jealous rivality among the different tribes, paralysed the efforts of a few eminent men who were desirous of founding a nationality, and the Gauls soon furnished the enemy with an easy means of dividing and combating them. The Emperor Napoleon I. was thus right in saying: “The principal cause of the weakness of Gaul was the spirit of isolation and locality which characterised the population; at this epoch the Gauls had no national spirit or even provincial spirit; they were governed by a spirit of town. It is the same spirit which has since forged chains for Italy. Nothing is more opposed to national spirit, to general ideas of liberty, than the particular spirit of family or of town. From this parcelling it resulted that the Gauls had no army of the line kept up and exercised; and therefore no art and no military science. Every nation which should lose sight of the importance of an army of the line perpetually on foot, and which should trust to levies or national armies, would experience the fate of the Gauls, without even having the glory of opposing the same resistance, which was the effect of the barbarism of the time and of the ground, covered with forests, marshes, and bogs, and without roads, which rendered it difficult to conquer and easy to defend.”149 Before Cæsar came into Gaul, the Ædui and the Arverni were at the head of the two contending parties, each labouring to carry the day against his rival. Soon these latter united with the Sequani, who, jealous of the superiority of the Ædui, the allies of the Roman people, invoked the support of Ariovistus and the Germans. By dint of sacrifices and promises, they had succeeded in bringing them into their territory. With this aid the Sequani had gained the victory in several combats.150 The Ædui had lost their nobility, a part of their territory, nearly all their clients, and, after giving up as hostages their children and their chiefs, they had bound themselves by oath never to attack the Sequani, who had at length obtained the supremacy of all Gaul. It was under these circumstances that Divitiacus had gone to Rome to implore the succour of the Republic, but he had failed;151 the Senate was too much engaged with intestine quarrels to assume an energetic attitude towards the Germans. The arrival of Cæsar was destined to change the face of things, and restore to the allies of Rome their old preponderance.152

СКАЧАТЬ



<p>127</p>

“The Gauls have poets who celebrate in rhythmic words, on a sort of lyre, the high deeds of heroes, or who turn to derision disgraceful actions.” (Diodorus Siculus, V. 31.) And he adds: “They have philosophers and theologians, who are held in great honour, and are named Druids (according to certain texts, Saronides). They have diviners, whose predictions are held in great respect. These consult the future by the aid of auguries and the entrails of the victims; and, in solemn circumstances, they have recourse to strange and incredible rites. They immolate a man by striking him with a sword above the diaphragm, and they draw presages from the manner in which he falls, in which he struggles, or in which the blood flows. They authority of the Druids and bards is not less powerful in peace than in war. Friends and enemies consult them, and submit to their decision; it has often been sufficient to arrest two armies on the point of engaging.” – Strabo (VI., p. 164, edit. Didot) relates nearly the same facts. He makes a distinction also between the bards, the priests, and the Druids.

<p>128</p>

Ammianus Marcellinus (XV. 9) speaks as follows of the ancient Druids: “The men of that country (Gaul), having become gradually polished, caused the useful studies to flourish which the bards, the euhages (prophets), and the Druids had begun to cultivate. The bards sang, in heroic verse, to the sound of their lyres, the lofty deeds of men; the euhages tried, by meditation, to explain the order and marvels of nature. In the midst of these were distinguished the Druids, who united in a society, occupied themselves with profound and sublime questions, raised themselves above human affairs, and sustained the immortality of the soul.” These details, which Ammianus Marcellinus borrows from the Greek historian Timagenes, a contemporary of Cæsar, and from other authors, show that the sacerdotal caste comprised three classes – 1, the bards; 2, the prophets; 3, the Druids, properly so called.

<p>129</p>

Amédée Thierry, II. 1.

<p>130</p>

See Paulus Diaconus, p. 4, edit. Müller.

<p>131</p>

Diodorus Siculus, V. 29.

<p>132</p>

De Bello Gallico; III. 22.

<p>133</p>

Cæsar mentions the names of ten kings: 1. Catamantalœdes, among the Sequani (I. 3); 2. Divitiacus and Galba, among the Suessiones (II. 4, 13): 3. Commius, among the Atrebates (IV. 21, 27, 35; V. 22; VI. 6; VII. 75, 76, 79; VIII. 6, 7, 10, 21, 23, 47, 48); 4. Catuvolcus, among the Eburones (V. 24, 26; VI. 31); 5. Tasgetius, among the Carnutes (V. 25, 29); 6. Cavarinus, among the Treviri (V. 54; VI. 5); 7. Ambiorix, among the Eburones (V. 24, 26, 27, 29, 38, 41; VI. 5, 6, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, 42, 47; VIII. 24, 25); 8. Moritasgus, among the Senones (V. 54); 9. Teutomatus, among the Nitiobriges (VII. 31, 46).

<p>134</p>

De Bello Gallico, VII. 88; VIII. 12.

<p>135</p>

De Bello Gallico, I. 16.

<p>136</p>

Thus the Civitates Armoricæ (V. 53; VII. 75; VIII. 81); Belgium (V. 12, 24, 25; VIII. 46, 49, 54; the Aulerci Cenomanni and the Aulerci Eburovices (II. 34; III. 17; VII. 4, 75; VIII. 7). See the interesting memoir by Mr. Valentino Smith.

<p>137</p>

Ambarri, necessarii et consanguinei Æduorum (I. 11); Suessiones fratres consanguineosque Remorum, qui eodem jure et iisdem legibus utuntur (II. 3); Suessiones qui Remis erant adtributi (VIII. 6).

<p>138</p>

In fide; thus the Ædui with the Bellovaci (II. 14); with the Senones (VI. 4); with the Bituriges (VII. 5).

<p>139</p>

Eburonum et Condrusorum, qui sunt Trevirorum clientes (IV. 6); Carnutes … usi deprecatoribus Remis, quorum erant in clientela (VI. 4); imperant Æduis atque eorum clientibus Segusiavis, Ambluaretis, Aulercis Brannovicibus, Brannoviis (VII. 75)

<p>140</p>

The known federations of this kind are – 1, that of the Belgæ against the Romans, in the year 57 before Jesus Christ (De Bello Gallico, II. 4); 2, that of the Veneti with the neighbouring tribes, in the year 56 (De Bello Gallico, III. 9); 3, that of the Treviri, the Nervii, The Aduatuci, and the Menapii, in the year 53 (De Bello Gallico, VI. 2); 4, that of the peoples who invested Camulogenus with the supreme power, in 52 (De Bello Gallico, VII. 57); 5, the great federation which placed all the forces of Gaul under the command of Vercingetorix (De Bello Gallico, VII. 63).

<p>141</p>

De Bello Gallico, VI. 11.

<p>142</p>

De Bello Gallico, VI. 11.

<p>143</p>

De Bello Gallico, V. 3, 54; VI. 11; VII. 75; VIII. 22.

<p>144</p>

De Bello Gallico, I. 30.

<p>145</p>

De Bello Gallico, VII. 63.

<p>146</p>

De Bello Gallico, VI. 11.

<p>147</p>

De Bello Gallico, VI. 12.

<p>148</p>

De Bello Gallico, VII. 4.

<p>149</p>

Précis des Guerres de César, by the Emperor Napoleon I., p. 53, Paris, 1836.

<p>150</p>

The hostility which prevailed between the Sequani and the Ædui was further augmented, according to Strabo, by the following cause: “These two tribes, separated by the Arar (the Saône), both claimed the right of tolls.” (Strabo, p. 160, edit. Didot.)

<p>151</p>

“Divitiacus, introduced to the Senate, explained the subject of his mission. He was offered a seat, but refused that honour, and pronounced his discourse leaning on his buckler.” (Eumenius, Panegyric of Constantine, cap. 3.)

<p>152</p>

De Bello Gallico, VI. 12.