Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1827) Vol 1.djvu/401

 OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. . 377 removed from his office in the whole course of the CHAP. XII. An event somewhat similar, but much less authen- tic, is supposed to have happened after the death of Romulus, who, in his life and character, bore some affinity with Aurelian. The throne was vacant during twelve months, till the election of a Sabine philosopher ; and the public peace was guarded in the same manner, by the union of the several orders of the state. But, in the time of Numa and Romulus, the arms of the people were controlled by the authority of the patri- cians ; and the balance of freedom was easily preserved in a small and virtuous community^. The decline of the Roman state, far different from its infancy, was attended with every circumstance that could banish from an interregnum the prospect of obedience and harmony ; an immense and tumultuous capital, a wide extent of empire, the servile equality of despotism, an army of four hundred thousand mercenaries, and the experience of frequent revolutions. Yet, notwithstand- ing all these temptations, the discipline and memory of Aurelian still restrained the seditious temper of the troops, as well as the fatal ambition of their leaders. The flower of the legions maintained their station on the banks of the Bosphorus, and the imperial standard awed the less powerful camps of Rome and of the provinces. A generous though transient enthusiasm seemed to animate the military order ; and we may hope that a few real patriots cultivated the returning friend- ship of the army and the senate, as the only expedient capable of restoring the republic to its ancient beauty and vigour. On the twenty-fifth of September, near eight months A.D.275. after the murder of Aurehan, the consul convoked an ^^P** ^^' , Ihe consul assembly of the senate, and reported the doubtful and assembles dangerous situation of the empire. He slightly in- ^ ^ senate. c Liv. i. 17 ; Dionys. Halicarn. 1. ii. p. 115 ; Plutarch, in Numa, p. 60. The first of these writers relates the story like an orator, the second like a lawyer, and the third like a moralist; and none of them probably without some intermixture of fable.