Review of "A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450)" by Fergus Millar (2006) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Imperial Politics at the Court of Theodosius II
Cain, A. and Lenski, N., eds., The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2009), , 2009
An incident at the imperial court in Constantinople in 433 allows us to examine the complexity of imperial government in the mid-fifth century. The delegates to the Council of Ephesus in 431 had divided into pro-and anti-Nestorian groups, led by the patriarchs John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria respectively. The dispute was only resolved after Theodosius II negotiated an agreement between the two patriarchs via the Formula of Reunion in 433. However, some bishops remained recalcitrant, in particular those in the provinces of Cilicia. Theodosius now tried to use secular power to restore church unity by ordering the Cilician bishops to recognize John, or be exiled. This order was protested by the eastern praetorian prefect, Taurus, who warned that it would affect the flow of taxes from the region. Taurus' challenge to the emperor prompts questions about how Theodosius II made decisions, how government worked in Constantinople, and the interrelationship of civil, military, and religious leaders. All of this activity in Constantinople was driven by and had an impact on events in the provinces. Some of these themes have been examined recently by Millar in A Greek Roman Empire, a work focusing more on the machinery of government than on the practicalities of politics. Kelly's Ruling the Later Roman Empire offers other ways to consider many of these themes, though with a similar focus on machinery and bureaucracy. And there is the approach of Brown in Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity, with a focus on personal connections. 1 My approach to this incident concentrates on the mechanics of decision-making at the court of Theodosius. Although some attention has been paid to the court, much remains to be said. 2
Theodosius I: The conscious and consequential government.
Theodosius I, un empereur hispanique qui a renforcé l'Empire romain dans une période critique et convulsée, au milieu des invasions barbares et de nombreuses défaites. Ce n'était pas un obstacle à l'élaboration d'une politique consciente et cohérente. Homme de son temps, il nous laisse aussi un travail législatif et religieux à un moment où le christianisme est cimenté.
Law, Heresy and Judges under the Thedosian Dinasty
Klio, Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte 98, 2016, 241-262, 2016
Religious legislation against heretics was an innovation in the Late Roman Empire and its enforcement involved great difficulties. The provincial governors who, except in the period of the persecution of Christians, had tole rated religious diversity, were to implement exclusion laws against pagans and heretical groups. This paper analyzes the form of interaction between bishops, emperors and judges in the issuing and enforcement of the laws against heretics, as well as casting light on the relevance of episcopal intervention as a method of informing and shaping the imperial will. The sixty laws under the inscriptio of the emperors of the Theodosian domus included by the compilers of the Codex Theodosianus in title 5 of book 16 demonstrates that Theodosius and his successors diligently heeded the requests of the bishops and the officials regarding legislation against heretical groups. This figure is only a portion of the antiheretical legislation emanating from the Theodosian chancery, since the compilation commissioned by Theodosius II followed a selective criterion, inspired by the wish to compile only imperial laws which were unquestionably authentic, and not all of them were available to the commissioners.1 Yet, if we look into consti-tutio Cod. Theod. 16.5.65, issued by Theodosius II in May 428 to suppress the insania haereticorum, where 23 heretical groups are mentioned by their name, amongst them, Arians, Eunomians, Novatians and Manicheans, it can only be concluded that antiheretical laws were ineffective as a method of removing any groups which did not share the Nicean orthodoxy after 380. In the time of John Chrysostom, the
T E VIVIDNESS with which the reign of Justinian I and his empress Theodora holds our imagination emerges no less from the coloring given the period in the writings of contemporary figures than from the events themselves, however momentous they were. We are fortunate in possessing a substantial volume of such writings, writings which moreover are products of a variety of cultural and political points of view. Especially striking is the manner in which Justinian's regime succeeded simultaneously in evoking the triumphalism of the high Roman empire while taking irretrievable steps toward the consolidation of a theocratic state grounded upon an authoritative interpretation of Christian orthodoxy.1 Accordingly, the reign marked a time of increasing polarization and ideological rigidity, which exposed tensions subsisting in configurations of power among and within elite groups of individuals.