The Historians of Late Antiquity (48 page)

Beginning in 391, however, Theodosius promulgated a series of anti-pagan laws far stronger than anything the Roman world had previously seen (Williams and Friell 1994: 119–33; King 1960: 77–86). First Theodosius passed a ban on entering shrines and temples, and forbade the worship of idols in Rome and Egypt. Late in 392 he passed an even stronger law, which banned all sorts of minor charms and divinations that could be associated with paganism. In between these decrees, the anti-pagan fervor of the monks continued to boil over, and both pagans and Christians recognized that the destruction of the Serapeum, the temple of Serapis which had stood in Alexandria, marked a major escalation in religious warfare in the empire. Even though Theodosius allowed and sometimes encouraged the destruction of temples, it seems most likely that he did not pass laws that actively required such demolition, although this remains a debated question.

Eunapius’ history is contemptuous of Christians and, therefore, of Theodosius. While Eunapius probably showed little interest in Theodosius’ policies concerning non-orthodox Christians, some information on the emperor’s anti-pagan policies does remain. Eunapius’ depiction of the destruction of the Serapeum does not
survive from his
History
, but he provides some insight on the pagan view of events in a summary from his
Lives of the Sophists
(
fr
. 56). He sneers at the destruction of the temples in Alexandria, describing the events as a mock battle against stones and statues which offer no defense. Eunapius describes the seizing of idols as “grave robbery” and suggests that the Christians are motivated by greed. Eunapius’ great contempt for monks undoubtedly was fueled by their destructive activities, which went unpunished by the emperor.

It has never been entirely clear what role Theodosius played in the destruction of the temples and perhaps was not entirely clear at the time. Rufinus attempts to associate Theodosius with the “beneficial” side of temple destruction while avoiding the attribution of blame for the mob violence which often accompanied such actions. The ambiguity is clear in the case of a decree presented by Rufinus concerning a temple in Alexandria. A conflict between pagans and Christians over the possession of a basilica led to rioting and deaths, and local officials were unable to dislodge the pagans who had fortified the building. Rufinus says that the emperor’s order written in response to this riot declined to punish those responsible for the deaths in the earlier street fighting “because of his natural clemency.” On the other hand, Theodosius then called for the elimination of the idols which were “the roots of the discord” (11.22). This led, in Rufinus’ account, to the final destruction of the Serapeum (11.23–30).

Socrates’ description of the events in Alexandria differs in several ways from that of Rufinus. Socrates must have received some information about the attacks from his grammar teachers Helladius and Ammonius, pagans who participated in the violence and then fled to Constantinople. Socrates claims that Theodosius ordered the demolition of the temples unbidden. Violence erupted, according to Socrates, because the pagans, “especially philosophers,” were angered by the mocking display of sacred ritual objects and statues. Thus Socrates’ version removes Rufinus’ description of the struggle over the control of property and presents the dispute in directly ideological and religious terms. After the temple was destroyed, Socrates adds, the emperor ordered temple statues to be melted down to make utensils for distribution to the poor (5.16).

Sozomen’s account of the conflict in Alexandria mixes elements of the accounts of Rufinus and Socrates with other original material (7.15.2–10). In Sozomen, the pagans have shut themselves up in the Serapeum itself, and he provides details of the tortures and murders they committed against Christians. Theodosius himself, Sozomen
says, did not give the orders to begin the demolition, and in fact his clemency was apparent when, after the rioting, he pardoned pagans in the hope that they might more readily be converted. The emperor’s actions are thus portrayed as a reaction to the sedition of the pagans, as it was only after the riots that he demanded the demolition of the temples. Clergy and monks receive more credit in Sozomen for forwarding the anti-pagan crusade, and the emperor’s role is reduced to simply allowing the events to unfold.

Theodoret claims that Theodosius issued general laws ordering the destruction of all temples, but his characteristic vagueness makes his use of details unreliable. He provides a detailed account of one such event, the demolition of the temple of Zeus at Apamea led by the bishop Marcellus with the aid of imperial officials (5.21). By contrast, his account of the destruction of the Serapeum is much less detailed than that of Rufinus and the other ecclesiastical historians. No account of the violence at Alexandria is given. Instead, he focuses closely on presenting a vivid picture of the pagan crowd watching an axe fall on the cult statue of Serapis. When the blow caused no earthquake, but instead sent forth a family of mice who had lived in the statue’s wooden head, the folly of paganism was revealed to all (5.22). Theodoret describes these events without context, but he provides a symbolic image of the overthrow of temple cult during Theodosius’ reign.

Church and state

In addition to Theodosius’ innovations in the relationship between the state and the heretic or pagan, his reign marked the beginning of a new relationship between emperor and church in the view of later writers (McLynn 1994: 291–330). In 388 a mob in Callinicum near the Persian border had rioted and destroyed a Jewish synagogue. The emperor demanded that the bishop or at least the townspeople pay restitution for this illegal act, but Ambrose, the powerful bishop of Milan, intervened, suggesting that if the Roman military should take the side of the Jews, the Romans would suffer the same fate that the Jewish people had suffered (Ambrose
epp
. 40, 41). Theodosius heeded the bishop’s advice.

Theodosius’ capitulation to Ambrose over the destruction of the synagogue proved to be a harbinger of his reaction to the bishop’s demands after a more celebrated and more significant event in late 390. A popular charioteer tried to rape a Gothic soldier, Butheric, in the city of Thessalonica, and was imprisoned. The people
demanded his release, in order that he be able to participate in the games, but were denied. Rioting then broke out, and Butheric and some other Gothic soldiers were killed and their bodies dragged through the city. Neil McLynn has argued that Theodosius’ revenge was ineptly carried out by his soldiers (McLynn 1994: 315–30; cf. Williams and Friell 1994: 67–8; King 1960: 77–86). Although the soldiers were authorized to find and kill those responsible, the slaughter spiralled out of control and became an indiscriminate attack against the entire city. Theodoret claims that seven thousand people were killed (5.17.3). Theodosius was faced with a difficult situation, which Ambrose helped to solve. Likening the emperor to King David, Ambrose demanded public penitence before he could receive the eucharist. Reliable details of the penance are lacking, although fifth-century historians claim that Theodosius spent several months as a penitent at Ambrose’s church in Milan, dressed in civilian clothes, until he was readmitted to communion at Christmas 390. Rather than admit that he had lost control of his subordinates, the emperor won back the affections of his subjects by a dramatic acceptance of responsibility. The story was then framed by the church historians as an example of redemption, rather than cruelty. The immediate effect of the episode was to strengthen Theodosius’ position as emperor. The episode was remembered, however, as marking a new era in the relationship between church and state with the subordination of the emperor to a bishop.

Rufinus describes the massacre quickly but critically, accusing the emperor of satisfying “not justice but madness” (11.18). He claims that the massacre took place in the Hippodrome, probably mistakenly transposing the scene of the original crime with the place of Theodosius’ vengeance (McLynn 1994: 320). Rufinus attributes the chastisement of Theodosius not to Ambrose specifically but to “the priests of Italy,” the church as a whole, thereby strengthening the archetypal nature of the scene. Rufinus also stresses that something “wonderful” came from the massacre, a law which required thirty days for reflection before the sentence of the emperor would be carried out.

The story is absent from Eunapius and Zosimus, perhaps because the Christian elements could not be easily incorporated into a classicizing frame. Socrates, too, omits the story, which contradicts the message of his history that strong emperors and weak bishops work together to ensure peace in the church.

Theodoret tells the story of Theodosius’ penance with far greater detail than any other historical source. First he provides a preface to
the story by musing on the propensity of humans to exceed proper boundaries due to their passions, explaining that it is therefore unsurprising to learn that Theodosius committed an act of extreme cruelty. Nevertheless, he promises that the story will be profitable for the reader, and that the details in the end will prove more beneficial than detrimental to Theodosius’ reputation (5.16.6–7). The massacre itself is treated cursorily, and he omits the names of those involved, the purpose of the rioting, and even the setting of the events. Theodoret emphasizes only the violence and lack of discrimination in the killing (5.17). He tells the rest of the story with considerable amounts of first-person narration and with an eye toward the dramatic tableau. Theodosius is confronted at the door of the church by Ambrose, who speaks rhetorically and at length: “How could you stretch forth in prayer hands still dripping with the blood of unjust murder?” Theodoret then claims that the emperor spent eight months in the palace weeping and explaining to Rufinus, his pagan master of offices, that his exclusion from the church is nevertheless just. Rufinus attempted to intercede with Ambrose, but the bishop rebuffed him, saying, “Rufinus, you are as shameless as a dog” (5.18.10). Finally the emperor repented for his sins, throwing himself on the floor of the church and tearing his hair. Theodoret particularly highlights Theodosius’ submission to Ambrose by claiming that, when the bishop asked the emperor what form his repentence will take, the emperor responded that it is the business of the bishop to command, and the emperor to obey. Theodoret further suggests that the bishop’s power over the emperor extended to his ability to demand the promulgation of specific laws, since he claims that Ambrose imposed as a condition of penance the passing of the law which required thirty days’ consideration before carrying out a capital sentence. The usefulness of the law, Theodoret claims, was soon revealed during riots in Antioch, after which Theodosius’ immediate desire to punish harshly was constrained by the “thirty days” law (5.20.3). In fact, these riots took place in 387, preceding the passage of the law by years. Theodoret’s version of the events surrounding the massacre at Thessalonica, then, manipulates chronology and invents dialogue and details to recast the incident as a morality lesson which emphasizes the proper dominance of church over state.

Sozomen’s account of the massacre is less pointed and less coherent. He has Ambrose confront Theodosius outside the church in Milan in 394, years after the event. Sozomen places emphasis upon the pathos of the slaughter, providing several anecdotes of
brave behavior by the victims, including a faithful slave who chose to die on behalf of his master and a father who saw two of his sons die because of his inability to choose a favorite. Sozomen is less didactic than Theodoret in his account, which is presented as one of several examples of Ambrose’s outstanding deeds, and of his boldness when confronting the powerful on behalf of God (7.25).

Magnus Maximus

In addition to information on Theodosius’ religious activities, historians provide conflicting information and judgements on the military activities of the emperor. After Theodosius’ accession, he fought a series of wars against the Goths which are poorly recorded in our sources. These wars ended in 382 with a treaty of peace and a triumphal procession for Theodosius in Constantinople. While Theodosius was occasionally occupied keeping peace on the frontiers during the rest of his reign, his primary military accomplishment was the suppression of two usurpers in the west. The first usurper was the Spanish general Magnus Maximus, who revolted for reasons unknown in spring 383 and killed the emperor Gratian in Gaul. Maximus tried to come to terms with Theodosius, but the legitimate emperor remained non-committal for several years. The position of the boy emperor Valentinian II at Milan, whose affairs were managed by his mother, Justina, was precarious. Eventually, after Maximus invaded Italy and caused Valentinian to flee, Theodosius marched to northern Italy, where he defeated and killed the usurper in August 388. Theodosius arrived in triumph in Rome the next year and remained in the west until spring 391.

Photius says that Eunapius offered slander and ill will toward every Christian emperor (
cod
. 77), and Eunapius’ discussion of Theodosius’ campaigns provides good evidence for his assertion. In his criticisms Eunapius tends to recycle the same accusations he had made earlier against Constantine, blaming Theodosius’ failures upon an excess of luxury and indolence and condemning the military innovations which he introduced (Buck 1988: 41–2). He states bluntly that during Theodosius’ reign “the barbarians gradually ravaged Thrace” (
fr
. 47.2). Eunapius is also critical of Theodosius’ policy of recruiting barbarians into the army, and he includes several stories which demonstrate the fundamental untrustworthiness of barbarian soldiers, who are said to have pledged eternal treachery against the Romans (
fr
. 59; Buck 1988: 42–4). Theodosius’ success in his western wars serves as an opportunity to lament
the wasting of resources that could have been better used for foreign expansion. Eunapius claims that when Theodosius mustered troops for the campaign against Magnus Maximus, the barbarians fled in fear and hid in the marshes. This demonstrated, he argues, that if only Theodosius and the Romans were less concerned with pleasure and ease, they would easily conquer the entire world (
fr
. 55). Eunapius’ criticism of the delay between the death of Gratian and the retaliatory invasion by Theodosius is particularly unfair, since in order to protect his eastern flank Theodosius needed sufficient time both to build up the badly depleted army and to conclude negotiations with Persia over the status of Armenia.