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.