Socrates’ version is more complete. He claims that Julian had invaded Persia in early spring because he had heard that Persians are naturally sluggish and indolent during the winter (3.21). He describes the invasion as initially so successful that the Romans succeeded in besieging Ctesiphon and causing the Persian king to sue for peace. At this point, however, Julian refused to negotiate, Socrates claims, because he had become convinced that he was the reincarnation of Alexander the Great and could be satisfied with nothing less than complete victory. In full battle the Romans again defeated the Persians, but Julian was killed. In the version presented by Socrates, Julian is even more successful in war than the most partisan pagan historians had claimed. The result is to pin the final blame for the failure not on the army or on his successor but on Julian’s own megalomania.
After Julian’s death, Socrates says, the army blamed the emperor’s intemperance for their defeat, and in particular they blamed his foolishness in listening to a Persian deserter, who convinced him to burn the ships (3.22.9). Julian’s delusion and hubris cause him, in Socrates’ account, to continue to fight despite the Persian willingness to submit, and similar conceit leads to his death (3.21.11). In Ammianus’ account, Julian entered his final battle with a shield but no breastplate owing to the suddenness of the attack, but Socrates’ Julian wears no armor simply because of his delusional self-confidence. The historian gives various possible accounts of Julian’s slayer. He is inclined to agree with those who say that he was killed by his own men, although some say that a Persian was to blame. As an alternative theory, he adds that an epic poem by a certain Callistus on the war attributes the killing to a demon (3.21.14–15). While Socrates thinks that this is possible, he recognizes that Callistus may be simply writing poetically.
Sozomen continues to focus on religious aspects of Julian’s reign which Socrates had overlooked or downplayed (6.1). To prepare for the invasion of Persia, he reports that Julian wrote an arrogant letter to Arsaces, the Christian king of Armenia, in which he abused Constantius, blasphemed Christ, and demanded that he support the invasion. Sozomen also accuses Julian of planning his route east to avoid cities which are overtly Christian, and notes that the emperor stopped at Carrhae to sacrifice at the temple of Zeus. Recognizing that the failure of the expedition resulted from the threat of starvation which the army faced under Jovian, Sozomen builds his critical account of Julian’s leadership around his failure to properly supply his army. As the Romans marched south through Assyria and took many cities, Sozomen maintains that Julian foolishly destroyed storehouses and granaries without considering that he would have to retrace his steps to return to Rome (6.1.4). This mistake becomes clear when the emperor, camped with the army at Ctesiphon, recognized that he was in danger of being trapped between the Tigris and the Euphrates, yet was unable to return by his original path which he had destroyed. Julian again showed his lack of foresight when he ordered all the provisions to be thrown off the ship, thinking that the soldiers would fight more boldly from necessity. A Persian who had resolved to die for his country struck the final blow against the army when he led them for three days through a wasteland. In Sozomen’s account, this deserter was not responsible for the burning of the ships, which was carried out to free up the men guarding them for combat (6.1.9). Nevertheless, the repeated lack of foresight by Julian left the army worn out from the journey and weakened by the lack of supplies.
Sozomen provides a striking description of the emperor’s death. A gust of wind threw up a cloud of dust, and in the moment of darkness which resulted, a horseman with a spear killed the emperor and rode off (6.1.13). At the moment of his wounding, Sozomen says that Julian threw some of his blood in the air, either to reproach Jesus, whom he blamed for the blow, or in anger at the sun god, who he felt had favored the Persians (6.2.10–11). Like Socrates, Sozomen offers the reader several possible identities for the unknown assailant. While he may have been a Persian or a Saracen, Sozomen thinks that it is most likely that the killer was a Roman Christian. Sozomen, unlike Socrates, spends several lines defending the murder, explaining that the Greeks have a long and healthy tradition of tyrannicide, and of standing by their families, their country, and their God (6.2.1–2). Whatever the nationality of the killer, the real cause, Sozomen argues, was divine wrath, as several omens had demonstrated. Sozomen is more confident than Socrates in attributing Jovian’s unfavorable peace treaty to the danger and disruption which Julian’s strategy had caused (6.3.2). As an epilogue to Julian’s reign, Sozomen mentions certain catastrophes, such as droughts and earthquakes, which reveal the awful state of the empire during the emperor’s rule (6.2.13–16). He even blames a tidal wave in Egypt which occurred during the reign of Valentinian and Valens on Julian.
Theodoret writes from Antioch, the city that served as a staging ground for Persian campaigns. Perhaps his Antiochene perspective explains why he is the only ecclesiastical historian to provide Julian with a creditable reason for his Persian campaign. At Constantius’ death, he claims, the Persian army invaded the empire, and thus Julian justly plotted revenge. Unfortunately, his godless army was unable to have success (3.21). Theodoret, like Sozomen, focuses on the failure of Julian to properly provision his army (3.25). He accuses Julian of burning the ships to inspire his troops to fight harder, and he charges that he neither brought ample supplies from Rome, nor plundered the enemy’s territory. Instead, Julian forced his army to march without food or drink through the desert. Theodoret does not claim the killing of Julian for the Christians, but instead suggests that the slayer could have been a Persian, a Saracen, or a soldier who could not endure his hunger. Theodoret provides a dramatic scene of the fatal wounding, as Sozomen had, with Julian flinging a handful of his blood in the air and crying out, “You have won, Galilean!” (3.25.7).
Theodoret paints a sinister picture of the aftermath of Julian’s rule. In the temple at Carrhae where Julian had sacrificed, a woman’s body was discovered, cut open for the evil divinatory purposes of the emperor and his philosopher friends (3.26). Many boxes filled with human heads were found at Antioch (3.27). Not only does Theodoret attempt to defend Jovian against the partisan histories of Julian’s adherents, but he brazenly denies that such a controversy existed. Following the account of Rufinus, he claims that as soon as the Persian king learned that Jovian, not Julian, was emperor, he sent envoys to discuss peace and established a marketplace to feed the Roman soldiers in the desert. Then the army came home safely, and peace was established for the next thirty years (4.2).
Conclusion
Their representation of Julian provided late antique historians with a way to explore numerous issues of religion, the role of the emperor, and foreign policy. While the split between pagan and Christian images of Julian was, of course, particularly sharp, it was not absolute. Ammianus, Socrates, and Festus, for example, in different ways, analyze the emperor with results that transcend expectations based on religious loyalties. Modern scholars no less than ancient historians are divided in their evaluation of this complex, revolutionary figure. Although late antique histories must serve as one of the major sources for the information we have about Julian, the sharp differences between them serve as a reminder of how hesitantly and carefully we must use the information they provide to reconstruct the past.
19
THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS I (THE GREAT)
As the last emperor to rule an undivided emperor, Theodosius’ reign appears particularly important in retrospect (Williams and Friell 1994; Matthews 1975; King 1960). After his death in 395, the empire would never be so united again. Upon assuming power after the military disaster at Adrianople, he rebuilt the army, but then presided over its decline in several civil wars. Theodosius also played a part in putting an end to the Trinitarian struggles of the fourth century by repeated legislation against heresy, helping to establish what has been considered orthodoxy ever since. His reign also saw significant steps toward the outlawing and destruction of paganism. His submission to
the powerful bishop Ambrose signaled a new relationship between church and emperor. Late antique historians provide us with insight into the nature of the changes and conflicts of the age of Theodosius.
Accession
The emperor’s father, also named Theodosius, was a general during the reign of Valentinian who fought in Britain, Gaul, and Africa. Ammianus provides us with many details of the elder Theodosius’ campaigns, stressing the general’s excellence and courage (27.8, 28.3, 28.5.15, 29.5). Because Ammianus writes during Theodosius’ reign, he undoubtedly felt compelled to praise the emperor’s father, whom he refers to as the “general with a famous name” (28.3.1). A close reading of Ammianus, however, reveals unflattering details in the accounts of some of the campaigns which Theodosius the elder led, as well as great emphasis on the harshness of his military discipline. This suggests that Ammianus was not a supporter of the general or his son, despite the fulsome praise which the requirements of contemporary politics demanded (Thompson 1947a: 89–91).
Theodosius the Elder was executed in 375 after Valentinian’s death, under circumstances which remain unclear (Errington 1996). Orosius tells us that “envy” was responsible for his demise, and that he accepted his death in a manly and Christian manner after being baptized (7.33). Ammianus does not discuss the execution. His history stretches to 378 in his discussion of the eastern empire, but only to 374 in the west. While there may have been good structural reasons for arranging the history in this way (Matthews 1989: 382; Blockley 1975: 95–6), Ammianus may also have wished to avoid treating an event that must have been politically delicate (Thompson 1947a: 92–5). Ammianus subtly refers to the general’s fate when he likens his bravery to that of “Domitius Corbulo and Lusius” [Quietus], both of whom died as a result of court intrigues (29.5.4).
Ammianus gives us a glimpse of the young Theodosius at age 27, “afterwards a most outstanding emperor” (29.6.15), but his narrative does not describe his forced retirement back to his estates in Spain around the time of his father’s execution, nor his recall to power after Adrianople. While in Spain, Theodosius married Aelia Flaccilla and had two children, including the future emperor Arcadius. After Valens’ death in 378, Gratian summoned Theodosius to the east, and he was proclaimed emperor on 19 January 379 in Sirmium in northern Italy. Ammianus refers obliquely to Theodosius’ accession in his account of the trial of Patricius and Hilarius, who sought by magic to determine who would succeed Valens. They stopped after learning the first letters of the next emperor’s name – Theod – which they saw as clearly referring to one Theodorus (29.1.28–33; cf. Soc. 4.19; Soz. 6.35). The story emphasizes the obscurity of Theodosius to contemporaries and the perceived unlikelihood of his rise to power.
Socrates and Sozomen present a favorable view of Theodosius’ accession, claiming that he was so renowned for his excellence in war that he was considered by all to be worthy (5.2; cf. Soz. 7.2.1). Orosius even deems Theodosius better than Trajan (7.34.2–4). In Theodoret’s detailed account, which has often been relied upon for modern reconstructions of the event, he claims that Theodosius was an obvious choice because of his aristocratic birth and military skill (5.5). The inconsistencies in Theodoret’s account, however, make it clear that he has invented much of it. In particular, he credits Theodosius with a non-existent victory over the Goths, which so impresses Gratian that he is promoted to emperor. Theodoret, working with a few facts, in this case the existence of a military victory and Theodosius’ retirement in Spain, has constructed a credible though inaccurate narrative (Errington 1996). Before Theodosius’ accession but after his recall, Theodoret adds, the general dreamed that he had been granted imperial robes and a crown by Meletius, the bishop of Antioch (5.6.1–2). In this way Theodoret presents the emperor as having received his position from God and from an Antiochene bishop, before it was granted by Gratian’s secular power.
Against heresy
The attitudes of historians toward Theodosius and his reign are closely correlated with their attitudes toward Christianity. Shortly after Theodosius’ accession he became gravely ill and received baptism. After his recovery, his already strong Christian faith may well have become stronger. In his first wave of Christianizing laws in 380 and 381, Theodosius moved to make the Nicene Creed official and purged homoiousians and other unorthodox Christians from bishoprics and churches.
Rufinus portrays Theodosius as a second Constantine, who was completing the work of the first Christian emperor. Thus “the worship of idols, which according to the policy of Constantine had begun to be neglected and destroyed, collapsed while he ruled” (11.19). Rufinus emphasizes that Theodosius was moderate and peaceful in his transfer of churches from Arian to Catholic control, and he praises his piety and his lack of pretension in his relationships with the clergy (11.19).
Socrates provides more details than does Rufinus about Theodosius’ religious policies, although the piety and moderation of the emperor remain the primary themes. His piety was apparent early on. While on his sickbed, Socrates writes, the emperor first ascertained that the bishop Ascholius was a firm adherent to the Nicene Creed before he allowed the baptism to proceed (5.6). Since Theodosius had lived in Ascholius’ see for a year and a half before his baptism, he must certainly have known his religious beliefs, but the anecdote serves to underline Theodosius’ orthodox commitment. Theodosius’ greatest achievement, for Socrates, was the imposition of unity upon a fractured church. Socrates argues that this unity was achieved through persuasion rather than force. He claims, for example, that with the exception of exiling Eunomius, Theodosius allowed all heretics to meet and preach in churches which were outside of the city walls (5.20). The emperor gave Demophilus, the homoiousian bishop of Constantinople, the opportunity to accept the Nicene Creed and thereby “to welcome peace and unity.” Demophilus’ refusal and the ensuing general expulsion of Arians were the consequence of Arian rejection of harmony and peace (5.7). Socrates’ Theodosius consistently argues for unanimity and reason in the face of bishops who trust solely in clever arguments (5.10).
Sozomen, in comparison with Socrates, does not put as much stress on celebrating the emperor’s restraint toward heretics. In Sozomen’s version, for example, Theodosius’ dismissal of the Arian Demophilus from the bishopric is less apologetic (7.5.5–7). Sozomen is also more inclined to favor clerical power over imperial power, as the following anecdote demonstrates. An old priest treated the emperor with reverence, but then patted the emperor’s son on the head in a familiar way, causing the emperor to become enraged at this lack of respect toward his heir. The priest, however, explained that his actions had a theological point. How much more enraged ought the emperor be toward Arians, said the priest, who show disrespect to the Son of God as unequal to the Father. Not only did Theodosius apologize to the priest for his anger, Sozomen tells us, but he also became less willing to meet with heretics. He also passed a law forbidding the public discussion of the nature of God, which Sozomen portrays in a positive light (7.6.4–7; cf. Theod. 5.16.5). In general the lawyer Sozomen, unlike any other of the ecclesiastical historians, demonstrates a familiarity with Theodosius’ laws which survive for us in the compilation of the Theodosian Code (Errington 1997). On seven occasions he refers to such laws, which he sometimes relies upon to correct or augment claims by Socrates. Sozomen corrects Socrates’ claim, for example, that the only unorthodox Christian to be exiled was Eunomius. Instead, he writes that “some” were exiled and “others” were deprived of privileges. The punishments meted out against heretics according to the law, says Sozomen, were great, but they were tempered by the emperor’s mercy, since “he was not eager to persecute” (7.12.12).
Theodoret, like Socrates, sees concord as an important virtue in the church, and after Theodosius is appointed emperor he is said to have immediately moved to restore harmony among the clergy (5.6.3). Like Sozomen, Theodoret favors the power of the church over the power of the state, and in several elaborate set pieces Theodoret demonstrates what he sees as Theodo
sius’ admirable submission to bishops and his awareness of the superior power of the church. This is symbolically revealed when Theodosius kisses the bishop Meletius like a pious son would approach his father (5.7.3).
Against pagans
Early in Theodosius’ reign, he did not legislate overtly against paganism, except to reiterate the bans on blood sacrifice which had been standard since Constantine. But despite the tolerant approach from above, local mobs and monks sometimes took matters into their own hands, killing pagans or destroying temples. These attacks often went unpunished by the emperor, and they increased in frequency with the support of the zealous Maternus Cynegius, whom Theodosius appointed as prefect of the East in 384 (Williams and Friell 1994: 47–60; Matthews 1975: 139–44; King 1960: 76–7). Despite the increase in violent acts by Christians, Theodosius maintained the status quo with regard to paganism throughout the 380s and even appointed pagans to high offices, including two historians who had previously served under Julian. Eutropius was prefect of Illyricum in 380 and 381, and was consul in 387, sharing the honor with the emperor Valentinian II. Aurelius Victor was appointed prefect of Rome in late 388.
The Historians of Late Antiquity Page 36