ROME IN THE 4TH CENTURY
INTRO:
The fourth
century A.D. is a kind of no-man's land in history. Almost nobody
seems to spend a lot of time discussing this era, partly because it
doesn't really fit easily with our conventional specializations.
For the ancient historian, the reign of Constantine (337) marks the
limit of his expertise. The Christianized Roman empire that
emerged from the ruins of pagan Rome doesn't really seem a part of the
ancient world. It's not surprising that so many histories
of ancient Rome and so many course on Roman history end with the reign
of Constantine. Medievalists too tend to be uncomfortable with
the 4th century. The Roman empire is still around, and most
elements of classical civilization are still in place. Even the
Byzantine historians often aren't terribly comfortable dealing with the
4th century. The western empire is still around, and the east
isn't distinctively "Byzantine" just yet. As a result of all
this, the 4th century gets neglected. I've never heard anyone
else lecture on this period in Roman history.
Nevertheless,
the 4th century is a fascinating period in history. It was a
splendid age for philosophy and theology, producing writers like the
Neo-Platonist Porphyry, historians like Eusebius of Caesarea and
Ammianus Marcellinus, and theologians like Lactantius, Jerome,
Chrysostom, and, the second greatest of all theologians, St. Augustine.
But to me, the
most fascinating aspect of the 4th century--and the two centuries that
followed--is to watch the Romans struggle with an issue that still
confronts us today, the proper relationship between church and state.
The Roman
emperors of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries desparately wanted to get
this one right. Each believed proper church-state relationships
the key to Roman unity, and they believed that unity was absolutely
essential to Rome's future. Now they were probably right in
this. Unity was essential to the success and perhaps even the
survival of Rome. Ironically, however, the attempts of these
emperors to create unity ofen created as many problems as they
solved.
Exam
question: The Roman emperors of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries were
probably right in seeing unity as essential to the success and perhaps
even the survival of Rome. Ironically, however, their attempts to
create unity often created as many problems as they solved.
Comment.
II. Constantine
Constantine went
a long way toward creating both political and religious unity.
Ended civil war, and made Rome's borders secure. Not only that,
what seemed to be an ideal religious solution. Paganism tolerated
in public (though not private), Christian unity provided by simply
aranging for council of bishops to come to a consensus on issues that
threatened to divide the church. Nicaea (325) no hint of problems
to come. 218 of 220 bishops agreed. A unified church, and a
unified state. This promised a bright future indeed.
Problems began
during reign of Constantine's sons. Constantine had intended a
tetrarchy (three sons and nephew). Surely this was ideal.
Empire to vast for single person, but one wanted some unity. What
better way to arrange things than to let brothers and cousins control
various parts of empire? Didn't work. Soldiers
massacre nephew (and a bunch of other relatives who might have had some
claim to throne). Constantine II (d. 340) squeezed out, Constans
(d. 350), left in control--
III. Constantius (337-361)
Cruel and
suspicious (understandably!). Not nearly as capable as his
father. Yet he did his best to create the unity he thought would
hold empire together. In particular, Constantius wanted religious
unity.
341--no heathen
sacrifices
346--temples
closed
356--death
penalty for sacrifices
Now this
probably would have worked out o.k.--increasing Constantius popularity
with Christians without much political cost. Not too many cared
about pagan sacrifices anyway. But Constantius went a bit too far
in his attempts to create unity. He was what is called a
semi-Arian.
Council of
Nicaea, unwisely in my view, had inserted in creed line that Christ was
"of same essence as God." Used term "homoousias." Many were
uncomfortable, and proposed saying instead that Christ was
"homoiousias" of like essence. What's difference? One
iota. Not much. But important enough for Contantius to make
an issue of it: deprived "orthodox" of seats as bishops, and replaced
them with semi-arians. Now notice what is at stake here.
Not just doctrine, but jobs--and good jobs at that. And anybody
who knows the religion business (or the academic business for that
matter) knows what will happen next. All of a sudden, trivial
philosophical/theological issues loom might large.
Constantius
attempt at unity, then, going to have a tendency to backfire and
actually increase tension. Even more of a problem for
Constantius, the choice of a successor. Ideal, of course, a
relative--somebody who could trade off the Constantine name. This
wasn't going to work too well. No kids. Killed all his
relatives! Except two--two sons of Constantine's half-brother:
Gallus and Julian. Gallus first designated as heir. But the
always suspicious Constantius worried that Gallus might be plotting
against him had him killed. And that left Julian.
IV. Julian (361-363)
Julian had an
exceedingly rough time of it growing up. His parents slaughterd
by soldiers when he was 5. Julian himself was watched closely all
his life, and sometimes even kept in a virtual prison. He was
allowed few friends and associates, and many time the friends he was
permitted to have were Constantius' spies.
Nevertheless,
Julian turned out to be a remarkable able young man. He was
first-rate scholar, the kind of kid who just devours books. He
knew thouroughly the OT and NT, all of the classical writers (Homer,
Sophocles, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle). He was especially
well-read in the Neo-Platonist philosophy fashionable among both
Christians and non-Christians in the 4th century.
Julian was also
a first-class leader. He was put in charge of Gaul when
Constantius took off for east. This was supposed to be a kind of
figurehead position, but Julian took charge, and turned out to be
remarkably adept. He thwarted invasion attempts by the
Franks/Allemani, then decided to launch a punitive expedition across
the Rhine. Here, too, he continued to win. Not only that,
Julian turned out to be an excellent administrator. But, you see,
with a ruler like Constantius on the throne, this can get you into
trouble. Julian's very successes brought him unders
suspicion. Constantius orders him to send troops to east.
Julian, knowing that to do so would allow barbarian invasion, simply
refused. Constantius then decides he'll use his army against
Julian--but on the way, he dies. And now in charge of Rome?
Julian.
The philosopher/administrator/general/writer. Perhaps another
Gaius Julius Caesar, only better. Julian one of the most moral
men ever to rise to such a position, far more moral than Gaius Julis
Caesar. Julian's marriage was forced on him as a political
expedient. Yet there is no record that he was ever unfaithful to
his wife, or that he engaged in any irregular unions either before or
after marriage.
If you wanted
somewone to finally complete the job of restoring the greatness of
Rome, Julian was your man. Except for one small default.
Julian had a secret. A most surprising secret. You see
Julian, although he never told anyone this, was a pagan.
Now how could this be? Julian was raised in a Christian
home. He had nothing but Christian tutors. He was in church
all the time. But Julian had no use for Christianity at all, and
longed for the return of paganism.
Now when I call
Julian a pagan, I need to make it clear that his paganism was not the
ordinary superstitious kind. His was the kind of paganism
advocated by the neo-Platonist philsophers. In the thinking of
these men, the gods were not supermen, but the personifications of
philosophical priniciples. Aphrodite and Eros principle of love,
Saturn principle of truth, etc. and it was the worship of these
principles that Julian wanted to restore--and a restoration of the
classical culture Julian believed the Christians had destroyed.
Julian no
fool. He realized that he wasn't going to get rid of Christianity
through persecution--and he had no taste for persecuation anyway.
Julian decided that a more effective tool in destroying the church
would be toleration.
Julian called
back the various Christians whose beliefs had earlier been deemed
heretical. Julian made sure they could teach openly, hoping
in that way to weaken the church. Likewise, Julian favored the
Jews, believing that this too would weaken the church's hold on the
minds and hearts of Romans. Julian weeded the Christians out of
the educational system, forbidding them to teach the classics.
But Julian's big
hope was a restored paganism. Opened pagan temples again.
Recruited and organized a pagan clergy, a clergy in some ways modeled
after Christian clurgy. Julian brought in elaborate and splendid
pagan sacrifices and ceremonies.
And the result
of all this in terms of religious change? Nothing. No
rallying of pagan sentiment, no temples filled with worshippers.
Pagans didn't really care. Julian's ascetic, moral paganism had
no appeal to the masses. If you're going to have a moral
religion, you might as well be a Christian.
But Julian
hardly got a fair chance. Only 2 years into his reign, Julian set
out to deal with the Persian threat on the eastern borders. He
got all the way to Ctesiphon, but was unable to bring Persian troops to
battle. During a minor skirmish, he was fatally wounded, perhaps
by one of his own soldiers, a disgruntled Christian. As he died,
flung his blood into air: "Gallilean, thou hast counquered." or
"Be satisfied." He was only 32. A real tragedy, for no man
as capable was to follow for a long time. "Had Julian only
lived..." Why knows what would have happened?
Julian was
proably the last man who had a chance of preserving theempire of
Constantine and Diocletian intact. After his death, no emperor
had the combination of military ability, administrative expertise,
popularity and luck necessary to hold empire together. Same old
story: usurpations, mutinies, barbarian invasions. There was only
one other emperor even close to bringing stability.
V. Theodosius the Great (379-395)
Despite the
title, Theodosius not really so great. His reign a period of
population declien, deurbanization, diminished wealth. he did
solve temperorarily the Gothic problem, but only by settling them on
Roman territory. But what else could he do? well, he could
turn to God, and so he did.
Attempted to
secure unity by making Rome entirely Christian. Sacrifice again a
capital offense. No record that anyone ever executed: no pagans
willing to be martyrs. Small wonder.
Temples
converted to churches, many destroyed. A real shame the loss of
great art and architeture that occured as temples were cleansed or
destroyed. Theodosius not responsible: tried to preserve art
treasures. But he didn't do a whole lot to stop destruction of
the temples, and many of his officials actually aided the
vandals. But one can understand why the destruction went as far
as it did, and why no pagans stood up for what was being
destroyed. When the temples were opened up, all sorts of sordid
secrets came out. Hollow statues/speaking tubes which gave
worshippers answers. Fake "gods" that had affairs with or
deceived female worshippers. Jim Bakers and Jimmy Swaggerts all
over the place.
When the Nile
river floods provided ideal conditions even after the destruction of
the Serapeum in Alexandria, it was clear to everyone that the pagan
gods were nothing at all. The relative peace, prosperity, and
unity of the empire let Christians boast that the switch of religions
had done Rome good, that their religion had done exactly what people
always want their religion to do, it had made them prosperous in this
world.
But peace,
prosperity, and unity didn't last. Theodosius at his death split
the empire between his sons. Arcadius takes over in east,
Honorius in the west. And then the fun begins--a series of
invasions which eventually destroys the western empire and brings the
east to its knees: Visigoths/Ostrogoths/Vandals/Huns/Herulians.
And for the few
remaining pagans, it was easy enough to see why these disasters had hit
the Roman people. The Romans had abandoned the gods, and now the
gods were abandoning them. The remedy? "Give me that old
time religion, give me that...."
For Christian
theologians, it was a difficult task to explain why the Romans
shouldn't have simply gone back to the "old time religion" of
paganism. A difficult task--but one they were more than able to
see through. St. Augustine particularly immensely successful both
in explaining the disasters that had fallen on the Roman people and in
explain the relationship between religion and political success.
Next
time--exciting final episode.