Notizen zu dieser Person
Much like the later empress Theodora, Eudoxia has been the subject ofa largely negative press. Zosimus (Historia nova 5.18.8), writingalmost a century after her death, records that it was widely claimedthat her fourth child, the only son and heir, Theodosius II, had beenfathered by one of her husband's courtiers, John; and himself goes onto describe her as "abnormally willful", stating that she ultimatelyserved the insatiable desires of the palace eunuchs and the women whosurrounded her, by whom, he alleges, she was controlled (5.24.2). In acontinuation of the use of excessively emotive terms he describes herattitude towards the bishop of Constantinople at that time, JohnChrysostom, as one of "hatred" (5.23.2). Philostorgius, who lived inConstantinople throughout Arcadius' reign, is slightly more positivein that he states that "the woman was not a dullard like her husband"and that "she possessed no small degree of barbarian arrogance" (HE11.6).[[1]] Ps-Martyrius, also a direct contemporary, in his funeraloration on John Chrysostom alludes to her as a second Jezebel, acaptive of the devil "clothed in the insatiable power of greed andconsiderable wickedness" (P 478a-b).[[2]] The overwhelming image ofthe empress as, at best, emotionally volatile is not helped bySocrates' allegation that, on hearing that Eudoxia was machinating toconvoke a second synod against him, John Chrysostom preached anotorious sermon which began: "Again Herodias rages?again she dances,again she seeks to have the head of John on a plate" (HE6.18.4-5).[[3]] From such tenuous roots, a variety of negative portrayals of Eudoxiahave grown. At the very least, Eudoxia is usually said to have movedwith fellow conspirators to take over power on the death ofEutropius.[[4]] At the extreme she has been characterized as "cruel,full of hatred, greedy for money and honors, hot-tempered, of acorrupt nature, with a warped conscience", totally subject to herpassions, "employing in turns subterfuge and violence in order tosatisfy her ambitions" - in short, all of the worst excesses that onewould expect of a woman of barbarian lineage.[[5]] Most views fallsomewhere in between, but the majority include elements of "barbarian"volatility and of the notion of a power- and glory-hungryindividual.[[6]] The few moderating views have been those of GeoffreyNathan, who argues that Eudoxia is more notorious than her realinfluence upon the eastern principate warrants,[[7]] and KennethHolum, who reviews and presents the details of Eudoxia's life asempress with a dispassionate eye.[[8]] When attempting to recover the historical Eudoxia it takes a greatdeal of care to sift fact from fiction. In particular, the sourceswhich 'document' her relationship with John Chrysostom and with otherbishops who visited Constantinople during her short life,[[9]] reveala side to her role as empress which has been either underestimated oroverlooked. Attention to the way in which Eudoxia involved herself inecclesiastical affairs not only restores some much-needed balance toour picture of her, but also helps to bring to light some of themotives behind the more negative of the reactions to her in thesources. Eudoxia's Early Life Little is known about Eudoxia's early life, other than that she wasthe daughter of Bauto (Philostorgius, HE 11.6), a Frank of someprominence in the western court, since he was magister militum in theearly 380s under Gratian and a consul in 385.[[10]] Holum claims thather mother was Roman and that she was therefore only a semibarbara,but it is not clear from what source he derives thatinformation.[[11]] Whatever the case, it is evident from the way sheis portrayed in the sources that her "barbarian" ancestry wassufficient for the label to be used to effect against her. We nexthear of her at Constantinople in the context of the household ofPromotus (Zos., 5.3.2), which gives rise to the assumption that shehad somehow made her way to the eastern capital after her father'sdeath in 388.[[12]] Since Promotus was magister militum in the east in386-91, with a common link with Bauto in the person ofArbogastes,[[13]] who succeeded Bauto as magister militum in the west,it is possible that the transition of Eudoxia from her father'shousehold to that of Promotus may have occurred before Bauto's deathand have had something to do with Promotus' elevated status in theeastern court at that time and her father's ambitions. Whatever thecase, as Holum has noted,[[14]] Zosimus asserts that after Promotus'death in 392, his two sons either lived with or moved in the ambit ofthe sons (Honorius and Aracadius) of the emperor, Theodosius, and thatone of Promotus' sons had Eudoxia with him. If this is the case, thenEudoxia was raised in close proximity to the eastern court, under thetutelage of first Promotus and then his widow, Marsa, and was wellknown to Arcadius before their marriage. In support of a privilegedupbringing and perhaps also the possibility that she was being groomedas a vehicle for her father's or foster-father's ambitions, is theinformation that Eudoxia had access to education, since we are toldthat her former tutor Pansophius was consecrated bishop of Nicomediain 402 (Soz., HE 8.6.6). Why Eudoxia was Arcadius' bride of choice, and why the wedding wasconducted on 27 April 395, scarcely three months after the death ofhis father on 17 January of that year and well before Theodosius' bodyhad arrived back in Constantinople for burial, are open to debate, butbest explained by either the desire of the grand chamberlain Eutropiusto wrest control of the young emperor away from Rufinus, thepraetorian prefect of the east and appointed guardian, or the desireof the young emperor himself to take control of his own life.[[15]]Several factors lead to this conclusion. Rufinus was distracted on thedeath of Theodosius by Stilicho's attempt to take control of both eastand west; Promotus and Rufinus had been bitter enemies and it had beenRufinus who had engineered Promotus' downfall (Zos., 4.51); andRufinus had a daughter of marriageable age through whom he intended tosecure his control over Arcadius. Under these conditions, whatever themotivation, Arcadius' selection of and swift marriage to a wife fromthe household of Promotus would have been a slap in the face to theambitions of Rufinus. To soften the story and to account forArcardius' choice of Eudoxia as a bride over the daughter of Rufinus,it is alleged that Eudoxia was of extraordinary beauty and thatEutropius manipulated Arcadius into favoring her by showing him aportrait (Zos. 5.3), but it is unlikely that this is more than aconvenient fiction, especially so when we consider that they had knowneach other for some six or seven years. Eudoxia's role at court It is only after her rise to the position of empress, namely in thenine and a half years between 27 April, 395 and her premature death on6 October, 404 that we have an opportunity to observe Eudoxia at work,and then only in a very piecemeal way. From the point of view of herrole as a Roman matron and as the vehicle for securing the Theodosiandynasty, Eudoxia was a model consort. Once she fell pregnant in late396, she produced children with increasing rapidity. Out of sevenpregnancies, five children survived infancy (Flaccilla b. 17 June,397; Pulcheria b. 19 January, 399; Arcadia b. 3 April, 400; TheodosiusII b. 10 April, 401; and Marina b. 10 February, 403).[[16]] Ifps-Martyrius is to be believed, two pregnancies (due late in 403 andlate in 404, respectively) ended not in miscarriages, as previouslysupposed, but stillbirths, the second leading to the death of theempress from hemorrhaging and infection.[[17]] The precise nature of Eudoxia's role in political affairs is moredifficult to assess. It is probable that her fecundity gave herconsiderable standing at court. It is also clear that in the progressof events the rise to dominance of the Gothic general Gainas, thedismissal of Eutropius from office in late July or early August 399,the latter's execution in mid-September or later in 399,[[18]] and thesubsequent proclamation of Eudoxia as Augusta on 9 January, 400 areconnected and were defining points in the lives of both Eudoxia andher husband. Who was behind the move to have the honorific titlebestowed on her, however, and what it meant in effect, are matters ofdispute.[[19]] In terms of her standing within the eastern capital andprovinces her elevation to Augusta did result in a real anddocumentable change in status. Eudoxia was now permitted to wear thepaludamentum of purple and the imperial diadem. From the time of herelevation until her death coins were struck in gold, silver and bronzeby the eastern mints. These bore images of her clothed as an Augusta,with the cognomen Aelia, and on the obverse a picture of a disembodiedhand reaching down to crown her with a wreath. As Holum has pointedout, the cognomen and the image of the hand of God were all carefullyselected iconographic tools designed to cement her place in theTheodosian succession and to promote the divine origins of hercoronation.[[20]] In addition to the minting of coins, not long afterthe proclamation official images of Eudoxia (laureatae), requiring apublic reception similar to those of a male Augustus, were circulatedthroughout the provinces and within a few years had reached Italy andthe western court, leading to a letter of criticism to Arcadius fromHonorius.[[21]] The silver statue of Eudoxia erected on a porphyrycolumn and marble base in the Forum Augusteum of Constantinople by theurban prefect Simplicius in late 403,[[22]] is an example of supportin at least inner eastern imperial circles for the public promotion ofthe empress as Augusta. The image of Eudoxia as the symbolic partner in a divinely institutedimperium, that was so carefully and widely cultivated at a publiclevel, however, can not be thought to reflect the workings of theeastern principate in practice. Whatever the speculation at the timeabout her private role in court intrigue and in the twin exiles ofJohn Chrysostom, Eudoxia had no legislative capacity, no imperium inany concrete sense, and there are no grounds for thinking that withinthe political sphere of the palace she ever overtly moved beyond theconstraints imposed upon her. In line with Nathan's argument regardingArcadius' activities during the years 400-404, it would be a mistaketo see her as a partner in power. On the other hand, the sources dosuggest that it is valid to view her as nonetheless powerful by virtueof her role as a conduit to the emperor's favors.[[23]] WhetherEudoxia was manipulated by others in this regard, as Zosimus alleges,or whether she used her position to manipulate for her own ends thosewho sought her assistance, is difficult to determine. Eudoxia as patron of the Nicene church Where we do see Eudoxia exercising independent authority is not in thepolitical realm but the ecclesiastical. Holum has noted her patronageof the nighttime anti-Arian processions instigated in Constantinopleby the Nicene bishop, to which she contributed at her own expensesilver crosses with candles and the services of one of her eunuchs,Brison, as choirmaster.[[24]] Her role in the spectacular publicevents surrounding the importation of new martyrs' remains toConstantinople is also significant.[[25]] On at least one occasion shepersuaded Arcadius to stay home on the initial day of thecelebrations, instead drawing all eyes to herself by solemnlyfollowing the coffin throughout the night, divested of her Augustalclothing and bodyguards, and participating prominently in the vigil atthe martyrium.[[26]] We see the same focus on the empress as the halfof the imperial couple concerned with religious affairs in the eventssurrounding John Chrysostom's return to Constantinople after his firstbrief exile. Eudoxia is the sole imperial representative in the publicadventus ceremony played out on the Bosporus, where again she is seenexhibiting her piety (eusebeia) prominently in the midst of thepopulace.[[27]] The impression that Eudoxia seized the model of the emperor as patronof the church that had been established by Constantine and then, onher elevation to Augusta, moved to detach the role from Arcadius andto appropriate it for herself, creating an identity which allowed herto operate by divine mandate at her husband's side, yet on her owncognizance, is reinforced by other events. Palladius (Dial. 8) andSozomen (HE 8.8) are both clear that, when the "Origenist" monks fromEgypt appeal directly to Eudoxia for assistance, it is she who decreesthat a synod be convoked and Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, becalled to answer his case before it. Palladius adds that she was wellinformed as to the circumstances of the monks' case before theyapproached her. Neither expresses any surprise at the authority of heractions. Again, at the time of the dispute between John Chrysostom andSeverian of Gabala, it is Eudoxia who appeals to John to reconcilehimself with Severian and who then forces his hand by recallingSeverian to Constantinople from Chalcedon (Socr., HE 6.11; Soz., HE8.10). It is also telling that in the months prior to John's secondand final exile, when bishops who supported his cause were attemptingto sway imperial opinion, it is to Eudoxia that appeals wereaddressed, not her husband (Palladius, Dial. 9). Assessment When the sources present an empress, on the one hand, as totallymanipulated, and, on the other, as the machinator in various plots,while at the same time playing on conventional stereotypes of thebarbarian woman, it sends up a flag of warning. Eudoxia exhibits manyof the same qualities (piety, humility, fecundity) as her predecessorFlaccilla, who like her was a barbara, was honored with the titleAugusta, and saw her imperial image disseminated on coins and othermedia throughout the provinces.[[28]] Yet the two have received amarkedly different reception. This requires some explanation. Eudoxiabecame exposed as a target on two fronts. The first was herproclamation as Augusta only six months into her third pregnancy,before she had borne a male heir for the principate. It is possiblethat the subsequent birth of a daughter led people to question theappropriateness of the move and contributed to the rumor, when shefinally bore a son in her fourth pregnancy, that he had been fatheredelsewhere. The second front was her adoption of the role of patron ofthe imperially favored (i.e. Nicene) church. While her guiding hand onthis front enabled her to help direct the development of the dynasticreligion for her husband and children, it left her dangerously exposedto criticism by those who objected to the directions in which shebestowed her largesse and to the content of her decisions. It is inthis light that we should view the charges that she was "arrogant",that she "hated" the bishop of Constantinople and actively sought hisdownfall, and that she had embarked upon a "war against the church".Her contribution to ecclesiastical affairs at Constantinople, andthroughout the eastern provinces via the bishops who sought herpatronage when visiting the capital, needs acknowledgment. It is alsoprobable that, through establishing a model for the engagement ofimperial women of the east at a high level in the ecclesiasticalsphere, she paved the way for her daughter, Pulcheria.
Karl-Heinz
Böttcher
