Final Dissertation 4178266

Session 2014/15
Q83DIS: Dissertation
Student I.D: 4178266
The Twilight of Paganism:
A Discussion of Theodosius I’s Campaign
Against the Traditional Religion of the
Empire, and the Changing Balance of
Religious Power in the Late Fourth and
Early Fifth Centuries
Supervisor: Dr. Nikki Rollason
Word Count: 10,987

StudentI.D:4178266
ii
Table of Contents
Page
Preface iii
Introduction 1
Chapter:
One- A Divided Empire: The Extent of Paganismin the
Fourth Century, and the Increasing Power of Christianity 4
Two- Theodosius’ Anti-Pagan Campaign, and the Reactions
Throughoutthe Empire 14
Three- The Twilight of the Old Gods, and the Victory
of Christianity 29
Conclusion 38
Bibliography 40

StudentI.D:4178266
iii
Preface
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank all the staff who have taught and assisted me over the years at the
University of Nottingham, and also my old A-Level Classical Civilisation teacher Nick
Braakenburg, for kindling my love for the Classical world. Special thanks also to my
wonderful parents, my close friends, and Victoria. All your support helped carry me through
this, for which I am truly grateful.
Note regarding the text:
All dates referred to in the text are A.D- this includes references to centuries and specific
years.
Abbreviations:
CTh. - Codex Theodosianus/ Theodosian Code
Ep. - Epistula/ Letter
Epp. - Epistulae/ Letters
HE. - Historia Ecclesiastica/ Ecclesiastical History
LRE. – The Later Roman Empire
NH. – New History
Or. – Oration
SC. – Sirmondian Constitution
VC. - Vita Constantini/ Life of Constantine

StudentI.D:4178266
1
Introduction
The following Dissertation will primarily assess the anti-pagan campaign of the
famously zealous Christian emperor, Theodosius I. He ruled from 379 to 392 as emperor of
the East, and from 392 until his death in 395 as emperor of the whole Roman Empire;
indeed, he was the final person to rule over both Eastern and Western halves of empire.
Each of the three chapters in this work will follow on chronologically from one another,
which should give a good overview of the changing balance of religious power from the late
fourth to the early fifth centuries. However, while this period is the primary focus of
discussion, there will be mentions of periods slightly earlier and later than this when
necessary.
It is important when tackling a discussion like this to establish exactly what one
means by ‘paganism’, as it is an extremely broad term; to properly define it could take up a
whole dissertation itself. An excellent debate of the term can be found in Cameron’s ‘The
Last Pagans of Rome’.1 It does not refer to simply one set-in-stone belief structure, and it
would be ‘quite wrong to think of paganismas if it were a coherent religious movement in
any way symmetrical with Christianity’.2 It was a ‘loosely-knit amalgamof cults, myths and
philosophical beliefs of varying origins and even more varying levels of culture’.3 In the
following work, the term ‘paganism’ will be used as an umbrella term to cover all the
various cults, from the traditional ‘Hellenic’ ones inspired by the Ancient Greeks, to the
1 Cameron (2011) pp. 14-33
2 Williams& Friell (1998) pp.124
3 Jones (1964) pp. 940

StudentI.D:4178266
2
imported ones from Egypt and the east, that were worshipped throughout the Roman
Empire. Furthermore, the Codex Theodosianus seems to deem anyone who was neither
orthodox Christian nor heretical Christian, or Jewish, a ‘pagan’; indeed, the term ‘pagus’,
from which the word ‘pagan’ finds its roots, means ‘rural’, and the term ‘pagan’ may well
have been a Christian invention to summarise this collection of traditional local cults.4
Cameron suggests that ‘anyone planning to treat the attitude of the Christian establishment
to non-Christian groups will find ‘pagan’ a simpler and more accurate term [than
‘polytheism’]’,5 so this is the line that will be taken.
In order to fully understand his campaign, one must be aware of the contemporary
balance of religious power before he embarked upon it; this is the purpose of Chapter One.
In this chapter, the increasing power of Christianity, and the clergy especially, will be
explored. Over the course of the fourth century since the adoption of Christianity as the
official state religion under Constantine I, the Church had begun to establish itself as a
powerful group within the Roman Empire. Their power increased to the point at which they
were capable by the late fourth century to put pressure on Theodosius to carry out acts of
aggression against paganism. They were a huge driving-force behind his anti-pagan
campaign, and this will be discussed.
Chapter Two will be dealing primarily with the various steps taken by Theodosius to
Christianise the empire, and both the Christian and pagan reaction. While his anti-pagan
measures far surpassed his predecessors’ in terms of their scope, he ensured to appear as
somewhat ‘moderate’, in the sense that he did not ban paganismoutright, but merely
4 Cameron (2001) pp. 26-27
5 Cameron (2001) pp. 27

StudentI.D:4178266
3
legislated against the practising of the faith. His intentions were not to emulate the failed
Christian persecution of Diocletian, but were instead to ensure the pagans of the empire
would be converted to the orthodox faith. Furthermore, he respected the cultural and
aesthetic value of pagan shrines and temples, and did not order their destruction without
any justifiable grounds for doing so. Furthermore, two events which severely discredited the
pagan religion will be discussed, as they both epitomise the Christian triumph.
The final chapter will explore the years after Theodosius’ death, and whether his
hope of an anti-pagan legacy came to be. Some failures of his laws will be discussed, but
overall it appears that he would not have been disappointed; while he certainly did not
convert the empire in his lifetime, he laid secure foundations for Christianisation to be built
upon and subsequent emperors took his lead of allowing pagans to still have distinguished
public careers despite their faith. Finally, the balance of religious power had by now
completely tipped in favour of the Christians, and this will be discussed.

StudentI.D:4178266
4
Chapter One
A Divided Empire:
The Extent of Paganism in the Fourth Century, and the
Increasing Power of Christianity
While it has been suggested that the victory of Christianity over paganismcame with
the Emperor Constantine6 following his ban on sacrifice in 324 AD,7 the Roman Empire was
still very pagan throughout the fourth century; indeed, if Constantine had definitively
caused the Christianisation of the empire, there would have been little need for the harsh
laws of Theodosius in the 390s. In this chapter, the extent of pagan worship in the Christian
empire will be explored, not just in a geographic context but a social one, too. Furthermore,
the rising power and influence of the Church will be discussed, with special focus on the
Bishop of Milan, Ambrose. The Christian clergy throughout the fourth century soon gained
such influence that they managed to put pressure on not just government officials, but the
Emperor Theodosius himself, to act in ways that could be suggested to undermine imperial
authority; soon enough, the bishops had a role to play in both public and political affairs.8
Finally, some laws and legislation issued by emperors before Theodosius against paganism
will also be briefly discussed. It is essential to look at the religious situation in the empire
6 Saradi-Mendelovici (1990) pp.47
7 Bradbury (1994) pp. 120
8 Cameron (1993) pp. 76

StudentI.D:4178266
5
when considering Theodosius’ anti-pagan campaign and its aftermath, as it will help in
understanding the impact he made regarding its Christianisation.
Paganismwas still very much present in all corners of the empire, but Salzman
suggests that it was much more powerful in the western half in the early fourth century;9
the Christians of the east were much more actively hostile towards pagans, as will be shown
later in this chapter. There were very many ‘oriental’ cults in the east, thanks to influences
from Persia, Egypt and beyond, which possibly led to groups of pagans not feeling a strong
sense of brotherhood with one another. It could be suggested that the introduction of
eastern cults, such as those worshipping Mithra and Baal, into the city of Rome caused a
decline in the worship of the more traditional gods after the first half of the third century,
yet their power was still considerable for at least two more centuries, as processions
venerating Isis were still carried out in the Eternal City at the beginning of the fifth
century.10
The traditionally pagan centres of Rome and Athens remained as such throughout
the fourth century; even up to the 450s especially the Christians did not have the strength
to enforce religious legislation upon the pagan population of Rome,11 which will be
discussed further in Chapter Three. This outnumbering of pagans to Christians also
penetrates the Roman senate itself, as it is generally believed that the majority of it was still
pagan by the beginning of the rule of Gratian,12 or even up to the early fifth century.13
Furthermore, the senators themselves often held multiple priesthoods, enjoying them as
9 Salzman (1987) pp. 176
10 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 48
11 Salzman (1993) pp.172
12 Moore (1919) pp. 128
13 Jones (1964) pp. 940

StudentI.D:4178266
6
badges of social prestige,14 which shows that pagan traditionalism was still very much a part
of civic life in Rome. Many of both the rich and poor citizens were devout pagans
throughout the fourth century, although it may have been for differing reasons. While the
poor may have clung to paganismpurely for reasons of tradition,15 the wealthy may have
kept the faith thanks to their exposure since childhood to classical works of literature and
philosophy, that they would have studied as a part of their education; ‘the teaching
profession in particular long remained predominantly pagan’.16 The education at this time
was a pagan one, and much-esteemed churchmen such as John Chrysostom and Gregory of
Nazianus were educated by pagan teachers.17 The fact a Christian school was founded in
Alexandria in the late second century18 should not be surprising though, as ‘Alexandria had
taken the place of Athens as the world’s centre for science and literature’,19 and its
population was regarded as being ‘much less aggressively pagan’,20 at least before the reign
of Theodosius as will be demonstrated in Chapter Two.
The city of Alexandria was a significant hotbed of violence throughout the fourth and
early fifth centuries. This should not be surprising, as there were a huge number of both
‘Christian and pagan philosophers [rubbing] shoulders with each other’ in the city.21 George
of Cappadocia, ‘one of [Alexandria’s] most anti-pagan bishops’,22 attempted to convert the
city’s temples into churches, and paraded plundered sacred pagan objects through the
14 Testa (2009) pp. 253
15 Moore (1919) pp. 124
16 Jones (1964) pp. 940
19 Hanrahan (1962 pp. 56
20 Fowden (1982) pp. 38
21 Smith (1989) pp. 35
22 Athanassiadi (1993) pp.13

StudentI.D:4178266
7
streets.23 He even entered the Serapeum, the greatest temple of the east, with the backing
of an ‘army’, and plundered it of its statues, ornaments and offerings.24 This temple was to
be the stage of a hugely important event which would show the changing balance of
religious power, and will be discussed in Chapter Two. The pagans of the city at this stage
were in a powerful enough position to exact their revenge upon George, though. Once
Julian was sole Augustus of the empire they had little to fear as far as imperial punishment
goes25, and set about torturing him, tearing him limb from limb, burning his remains and
casting them into the sea;26 Julian merely reprimanded them for this in a letter to the city.27
The destruction and desecration of pagan temples was nothing new by this stage, as
Eusebius records a number28 that were destroyed during the reign of Constantine I, showing
that Christians were in a powerful enough position, on occasion, to be able to exert
themselves over the pagans relatively early in the fourth century. Their motivation for this
seems to transcend mere religious fanaticism, as Bradbury notes that of the four temples
Eusebius writes about, three were temples of Venus. One was located at the sight of the
Holy Sepulchre, a Christian holy site, and prostitution was practiced on the grounds of the
other two. It therefore seems that these temples at least were attacked ‘to recover a
Christian site or to suppress indecent sexuality’.29 The balance of religious power and
influence at this time between paganismand Christianity is a stark contrast to the situation
during and after the reign of Theodosius, as will be shown in Chapters Two and Three.
23 Socrates HE 3.2, Sozomen HE 5.7
24 Julian Ep. 21,Sozomen HE. 4.30
26 Socrates HE 3.2
27 Julian EP. 21
28 Eusebius VC. 3.26-7,3.55, 3.56
29 Bradbury (1994) pp. 123

StudentI.D:4178266
8
Christians were beginning to gain the upper hand, but the pagans could still offer a decent
resistance.
The rising power of the Church is demonstrated excellently by the relationship of the
Emperor Theodosius and the Bishop of Milan, Ambrose. The conflict between the two is also
important when considering Theodosius’ motivations for why he championed Nicene
Christianity so strongly, and ‘declared open war on paganism’.30 Two incidents are especially
important in regard to showing how Ambrose asserted himself well above his post, and
could even be said to have surpassed the power of the emperor himself. In 388 a band of
Christians led by the local bishop31 at Callinicumin Syria set light to the city’s synagogue.
Theodosius’ response, which must have satisfied the wants of the Jews, was to order the
bishop to rebuild it, using funds from the Church itself,32 which would have been reasonable
as it has been suggested that the wealth of the Church at this time surpassed even the
imperial bureaucracy.33 However, the emperor was soon ‘bullied by Ambrose into rescinding
the order’.34 He did so by using his powers as a bishop to refuse Theodosius communion35,
and by threatening to publicly scold him in a sermon.36 The divine, and reputation-
damaging, consequences of this was enough to convince the emperor to change his mind,
and he instead ordered a compromise which required the city itself to finance the rebuilding
project. This was however not to Ambrose’s satisfaction, and he held true his threat and
publicly denounced the emperor’s actions.37 While the Bishop of Milan acted boldly,
30 Jones (1964) pp.168
31 Bloch (1945) pp. 221
32 Bowersock (1986) pp. 306
33 Brown (1967) pp. 330
34 Jones (1964) pp. 168
36 Ambrose Ep. 15.33
37 Bloch (1945) pp. 221

StudentI.D:4178266
9
Theodosius demonstrated that he could still act somewhat independently38 of Ambrose’s
wishes and still accommodate his own. However, this was soon to change.
The second, more significant occasion in which Ambrose undermined the authority
of the emperor came amidst general tensions in the city of Thessalonica. The general in
charge of the garrison there ordered the arrest of one of the city’s most popular chariot
racers on charges of pederasty39 in 390. After refusing to grant his release, a mob formed
and murdered the general. ‘In a fit of violent rage’40 Theodosius wanted to send an empire-
wide message, and ordered that the people responsible should be slaughtered; a massacre
of around seven thousand, probably innocent, spectators ensued in the hippodrome.41 The
carnage was widely condemned, but Ambrose took it a step further and insisted that
Theodosius publicly do penance to him, refusing to perform mass in his presence until then.
After some time, Theodosius accepted, and ‘prostrated himself in public before the Bishop
of Milan’42 without bearing the imperial insignia;43 he completely submitted himself. An
emperor so publicly humbling himself to anyone, especially a bishop, was unprecedented
and shows how, with the power of threats of divine retribution behind them, they had the
capacity to surpass the imperium of the emperor.
The power of Ambrose, although exceptional, did represent a shift in power in the
Roman Empire that happened in just 75 years. While Constantine could summon a council
of bishops, as he did at Nicaea in 325, it was a mere bishop who could command the
emperor to submit before him in full view of his clergy in 390. Bowersock writes that ‘in the
38 Bloch (1945) pp. 223
40 Bloch (1945) pp. 222
42 Ferrari (1972) pp. 199
43 Bloch (1945) pp. 222

StudentI.D:4178266
10
period between these two momentous events the imperial cult gradually died’44, and that
‘after Ambrose, no emperor would have dared to describe himself, as Constantine once did,
as a bishop among bishops’45. The Church had by the end of the fourth century established
itself as a very powerful, and independent, body within the Roman Empire.
Another motivation, aside from the pressures of the Church itself, for Theodosius’
campaign against the pagans, comes from his own religious fears. Contrary to popular
practice at the time, Theodosius was not baptised at the end of his life. It was believed that
to completely absolve one of sin and ensure entry into heaven, baptism should be
performed as close to the moment of death as possible to eradicate any chance of further
sins being committed before being subject to divine judgement. In the first year of his reign
he was baptised by the Nicene bishop46 of Thessalonica, Acholi, as he fell seriously ill in the
city. However, he obviously survived this illness, and Jones suggests that this would have
enhanced his religious conviction, as he would have a new ‘fear of the dread consequences
of sin’.47 Also notable is the conclusion of the incident at Thessalonica, in the sense that
Ambrose exercised his powers as bishop and granted divine forgiveness upon the guilt-
ridden emperor. Bloch notes that in doing so, Theodosius now essentially found himself to
be ‘spiritually submissive’48 to the Bishop of Milan.
The imperial campaign against paganism, as mentioned earlier, seems to have begun
from the reign of Constantine and his championing of Christianity. Generally speaking, the
emperors between Constantine and Theodosius, with the exception of the pagan Julian,
47 Jones (1964) pp. 165
48 Bloch (1945) pp. 223

StudentI.D:4178266
11
issued many laws against all faiths that were not the officially approved ‘orthodox’ version
of Christianity.49 In the early to middle parts of the fourth century, the sides of Christianity
and paganismwere vying for dominance, but Christianity began to triumph thanks in no
small part to the support that was granted to them through imperial legislation,50 despite
the number of followers on either side. One way in which imperial legislation dealt with
paganismwas in very specific wording of the laws; in declaring the traditional religion a
‘superstitio’ in a number of edicts, it left citizens of the empire to interpret it in many ways.
The word itself could refer to ‘divination (outside the framework of Roman religion), magic,
excessive religious fear, paganismor Christianity’.51 This ambiguity of the word could either
make it be interpreted as a direct insult to paganism, or simply specific aspects of religious
practices.
The emperors Constans and Constantius II jointly issued a law in 34152 which
reaffirms Constantine’s ban on sacrifice that was mentioned earlier; interestingly, the fact
another law needed to be issued shows that the problem was not solved. This idea of
imperial legislation not necessarily encouraging as much change as was intended will be
touched upon in Chapters Two and Three. In fact, Moore notices that between 356 and 381,
no laws are present in the Codex Theodosianus which are against Paganism;53 it has even
been suggested that following Julian’s so-called ‘pagan revival’, the new emperors
Valentinian and Valens ushered in a period of religious toleration54 to some extent, as their
interests lay elsewhere. It was during the reign of Gratian though where the situation
49 Harries & Wood (1993) pp. 143
50 Cameron (1993) pp. 76
51 Salzman (1987) pp. 172
52 CTh 16.9.3
53 Moore (1919) pp. 127
54 Bloch (1945) pp. 203

StudentI.D:4178266
12
started to get significantly worse for the pagan cause. Upon his ascendance to the throne,
he refused the traditional title of Pontifex Maximus, despite the fact that all emperors since
Constantine had accepted it. While the practical significance of this is minimal (as the title,
meaning ‘chief priest’, was little more than a badge of honour at this time), what the
rejection itself represented was very important; it was an embarrassing blow to the pagan
cause, as it was a very public proclamation of rejection for their once honoured customs.55
Gratian did not stop there though. In 382 he ceased the funds which helped support
and maintain the public cults of the state,56 and even stopped ‘the stipends paid to the
Vestal Virgins’.57 Stripped of ‘imperial patronage and of access to public funds, the long
dominant pagan cults were reduced to fighting for mere survival’.58 Furthermore, Gratian
once again removed the Altar of Victory from the Senate House in Rome, which had been
restored by Julian after its initial removal by Constantius II in 357. It would be safe to
assume, too, that he enacted all these anti-pagan measures under the influence of
Ambrose,59 at least to some extent. The pagan population by this stage, especially in Rome
itself, must have felt greatly dejected at this, particularly in light of the sense of optimism
that would have no doubt arisen following Julian’s promotion of paganism.
It can be seen that the empire, over the course of the fourth century and despite
Julian’s attempted pagan revival and the moderation of Valentinian and Valens, was
gradually becoming more and more Christianised. If anything, the beginning and middle
parts of the fourth century was a phase of religious transition,60 thanks in no small part to
55 Ferrari (1972) pp. 199
56 Bloch (1945) pp. 203
57 Lee (2013) pp. 111
58 Ferrari (1972) pp. 199
59 Bloch (1945) pp. 213-214
60 Salzman (1987) pp. 176

StudentI.D:4178266
13
the increasing power of the clergy itself, which was personified in the Bishop of Milan,
Ambrose, who ‘was masterminding the imperial execution of paganism’.61 The support
given by the emperors in favour of the orthodox version of Christianity, and the lack of
support for paganism, would have sent out a powerful message to followers of the faith,
and one must think that they identified that this was a time of crisis for them. Few probably
expected what was to come next though. The unprecedented laws of Theodosius62 brought
the traditional religion of the empire to its knees, and this will be covered in Chapter Two.
61 Ferrari (1972) pp. 202
62 Bradbury (1994) pp. 122

StudentI.D:4178266
14
Chapter Two
Theodosius’ Anti-Pagan Campaign, and the Reactions
Throughout the Empire
Following the incidents of Callinicumand Thessalonica, Theodosius’ religious policy
seemed to come to the forefront of his concerns, following a somewhat ambivalent attitude
before then;63 he has even been described as a ‘tolerant, urbane ruler’64 up until these
incidents. While he issued a number of laws against the traditional religion of the empire, it
would not seemfair to label it a full-scale violent persecution, as some would have
described Diocletian’s campaign against the Christians around a century before. In some
ways, Theodosius’ laws against paganismcould be regarded as somewhat moderate,
especially when one considers what he had the power to do as emperor. The fact pagans
still had a role to play in public life, and that he did not officially order the destruction of
pagan shrines and temples without pretext, supports this. His laws against paganismdid get
stricter though, culminating in the edict of 8th November 39265 which surpassed any anti-
pagan legislation before it in terms of its extremity. It seems as though his religious policy in
general was designed to provoke reaction among his subjects, essentially making others the
primary scapegoats for his anti-pagan campaign; violence did break out, especially in
Alexandria, led primarily by the bishop and monks of the city. This will all be discussed in the
following chapter, as well as the religious implications of the usurper Eugenius, under whom
63 Jones (1964) pp. 167
65 CTh 16.10.12

StudentI.D:4178266
15
the pagans found a sense of renewed hope until Theodosius triumphed against him at the
Battle of the Frigidus in 394. Theodosius’ anti-pagan campaign, and the reactions to it, are
key when considering the Christianisation of the Roman Empire and the death of paganism;
they show very plainly how the religious balance had tipped in favour of Christianity.
Harries and Wood note that Theodosius’ legislation against paganismin the early
390s66 was ‘directed at the behaviour of public figures, and not at the population at large’,67
which is not wholly true as a law issued late in 39268 makes no distinction between the rich
and poor. However, the fact that his religious legislation in general did not exclude the
wealthier members of society is telling, as it showed that Theodosius was not intimidated by
the ‘strongly pagan’69 aristocracy. This was a wise move by the emperor. By legislating
against the upper class, who would have helped fund pagan practice and would ultimately
be able to help it survive for longer, he would be weakening the religion in the long-term;
when considering the Roman senate specifically, they would have had a huge impact on the
religious future of the Western Empire70 especially. If the wealthier members of society
were converted, they would be a further influence on the poorer pagans to do the same,
and a snowball effect may occur. Additionally, there may also have been a hope that the
aristocracy’s wealth would be channelled instead to the Church. This is evidenced somewhat
by the fact that hefty fines, of between four and fifteen pounds of gold, were issued in 391 if
66 CTh 16.10.10-12
68 CTh 16.10.12
70 Brown (1961) pp. 1

StudentI.D:4178266
16
judges or provincial governors carried out pagan ‘rites and [entered] temples for the
purpose of worship’;71 a punishment ‘appropriate to men of high office and high status’.72
A further, ‘drastic’73 edict issued on 8th November 392,74 mentioned briefly earlier,
made no distinction based on wealth, and ‘attempted to go further in forbidding pagan
cult’.75 It demanded a fine of twenty-five pounds of gold to be paid by anyone caught
dedicating any kind of offering to the gods; this included animal sacrifice, the burning of
lights or of incense, and the hanging up of garlands. More significant than the fine though,
was the fact that they would be deprived of the right to make a will, which would have been
a very76 strong punishment for a whole aristocratic or poor family alike, and would have
long-lasting implications for their future financial security. Furthermore, if the place in which
these forbidden acts were carried out was a private residence, it would be confiscated; once
again, this could financially ruin a family. In enacting this law, pagans were treated akin, to
an extent, to a much-hated heretical sect, the Manichaeans.77 The extremity of this law was
such that Williams and Friell compare it to ‘as if today an authoritarian atheist regime were
to criminalise Easter eggs, holly, Christmas cards, Halloween pumpkins, first-footings, and
even such universal gestures as the drinking of toasts’.78 Also notable is the fact that the law
called for the punishment of local judges, curiales and defensores who did not ensure its
bans were carried out, demanding a fine of thirty pounds of gold for negligence. The
effective policing of the anti-pagan laws was understandably very difficult, given the size of
71 CTh 16.10.10
72 Salzman (1993) pp. 372
73 Jones (1964) pp. 168
74 CTh 16.10.12
75 Cameron (1993) pp. 75
76 Salzman (1993) pp. 372
77 Jones (1964) pp. 166

StudentI.D:4178266
17
the empire and the widespread pockets of pagan practice, and it would have been especially
tough in obscure rural settlements.
Ensuring that legislation against the pagans was being carried out was much easier in
places with a large clerical presence, as ‘missionary bishops, fanatical monks and pious
individuals’79 would obviously have wanted to make certain that Christianization occurred as
effectively as possible. They would no doubt have been able to put pressure on local leaders
to make sure they enforced the appropriate punishments to offenders as laid out by the
law; it has been suggested that in some cities the monks and bishops in particular were in a
strong enough position to ‘defy the troops and orders of the local prefect’.80 A slightly later
(398) example of this is when bishop Porphyry of Gaza took it upon himself to carry out the
enforcement in his diocese of the earlier law regarding the closure of temples. He secured
official imperial approval from the Emperor Arcadius81 to do so, purely on his own initiative,
without going through the typical means of requesting the local governor to ask the
emperor.82 Such pressures were no-doubt needed though, as a number of local prefects and
magistrates were still pagan, and would have understandably been ‘lukewarm’ in enforcing
religious law.83 It could be argued that the clergy were the primary ‘religious police’ in the
empire, even if it was not in an official capacity, and they would have been able to
pressurise local leaders into upholding the word of the law.
While punishments for breaking religious laws were strict, they were not needlessly
over-excessive. This is important, as the aristocracy especially, despite their religious
81 Harl (1990) pp. 15
82 Bradbury (1994) pp. 137

StudentI.D:4178266
18
inclinations, had to be respected as they occupied many posts, especially in the ‘lower
echelons, of the central administration’,84 as noted in the previous paragraph. During
Theodosius’ reign, pagans were still appreciated for their talents, and were not immediately
discredited from public life based solely on their religion. A great example of this is seen
when considering the pagan ‘orator, teacher and philosopher’85 Themistius, whom
Theodosius named urban prefect of Constantinople86 in 384, and who he trusted with his
son and future emperor Arcadius’ education;87 indeed even Socrates Scholasticus writes of
him not unfavourably in his Historia Ecclesiastica.88 Themistius may have remained in the
public sphere for so long under Christian emperors because he refrained from giving
speeches ‘[attacking] Christianity directly’,89 and he even openly criticised Julian’s religious
policy in speeches to Jovian, Valens and Valentinian, and Theodosius.90 This is similar to the
reason Harl gives for why ‘the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis, the philosopher
Isocasius [and] the physician Asclepiodotus of Alexandria’ were able to retain their
professions despite their paganism; it was essential that pagans ‘exercised discretion in
offering sacrifices to the gods’,91 and were not militant in their faith. Furthermore, rhetors
and philosophers were still being regarded as suitable ambassadors to bring requests from
the community to the emperor; Themistius was one such man, but in later years even the
vehemently pagan Neoplatonists, who will be discussed further in the next chapter, served
in this way.92 The implication of all this is that as long as distinguished pagans were
84 Harl (1990) pp. 15
85 Downey (1957) pp. 259
86 Sterz (1976) pp. 354
87 Sterz (1976) pp. 356,Downey (1957) pp. 261
88 Socrates HE 3.26, 4.32
89 Downey (1957) pp. 261
90 Jones (2010) pp. 506
91 Harl (1990) pp. 15
92 Fowden (1982) pp. 50

StudentI.D:4178266
19
respectful of Christianity, and did not practice their pagan faith openly, they were allowed
to continue in their professional lives as usual. The old religion was still very much a force
within the social life of the empire during Theodosius’ reign.93
Returning briefly to the law issued in 391 mentioned previously, the specific phrase
‘for the purpose of worship94’ is important to single out, as it suggests that temples could be
entered for other reasons; the fact there was no general imperial edict95 calling for the
destruction of temples is also telling. While there was little respect from the emperor
toward the pagan religion itself, there remained a sense of appreciation for what the shrines
and temples meant in regard to Roman cultural heritage96 and their general artistic value.97
A law issued in 38298 regarding a temple in Osrhoene99 allowed it to remain open, so long as
no pagan practice occurred there; Lee notes that it is as if the temple has been turned into
some sort of ‘art museum’.100 Obviously the full force of the law found it difficult to
penetrate into rural communities, especially where the more militant members of the clergy
had not yet reached; this meant that some shrines and temples did remain open for the
purpose of pagan religious practice, and new ones were even being built in Britain in the
380s.101 This was not just exclusive to Theodosius though; further laws issued in 399102
‘[continued] to assert the protection of temple buildings’.103
94 CTh 16.10.10
96 Harl (1990) pp. 15
97 Saradi-Mendelovici (1990) pp.47, 50
98 CTh 16.10.8
100 Lee (2013) pp. 112-113
102 CTh 16.10.15, 16.10.18
103 Harries & Wood (1993) pp. 157

StudentI.D:4178266
20
While he never explicitly ordered the destruction of pagan temples out of the blue,
he did positively receive petitions calling for the demolition or conversion of specific
temples throughout the empire,104 though. Furthermore, he tended to turn a blind eye
towards violence against the pagans, or even used the reaction of the pagans as a pretext to
legislate further against them. If he pursued a reactionary policy in this way, he would
release himself from the full force of the discontent of the pagans; in this sense, Theodosius
appears quite moderate. An excellent example of this can be found in the incident of the
Serapeum in the early to mid-390s; the exact year is not completely clear, but best guesses
put it somewhere in the summer of 391, after the edict of 16th June105 was issued.106 The
problem began when Theodosius approved the requests from the Bishop of Alexandria,
Theophilus, to destroy or convert several pagan temples into churches.107 With one temple
in particular (which specific temple it was is debatable, if it was just one at all108), the bishop
looted it and paraded its sacred objects around the city in a ‘feast of derision’109 in much the
same way as George of Cappadocia did as noted in the previous chapter, much to the
discontent of the sizeable pagan population of the city. This caused a wave of pagan rioting
which culminated in a number of them, led by the philosopher Olympius,110 to convert the
temple of Serapis, the Serapeum, into a makeshift fortress.111 The pagans held off the
Christian assailants for some time, and even managed to conduct some raids upon their
104 Jones (1964) pp. 167
105 CTh 16.10.11
106 Hahn (2008) pp. 340
108 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 64 suggests itwas a temple of Osiris, Socrates HE 5.16 says itwas a temple of Mithras,
and Sozomen HE 7.15 says itwas a temple of Dionysus,which Jones (1964) pp. 168 believes.Athanassiadi
(1993) is much more ambiguous in her account(pp. 14- 15), and merely states that ‘several temples’ were
subjectto such desecration.
110 Jones (1964) pp. 943
111 Athanassiadi (1993) pp.14,Hanrahan (1962) pp. 64

StudentI.D:4178266
21
enemies themselves,112 even going as far as to seize Christians as hostages, many of whom
were butchered within the temple113, almost like some kind of perversion on ancient pagan
sacrificial practices; their bodies are said to have been thrown into the old blood and offal
pits.114 This pagan resistance could only last so long though.
Theophilus did not act alone in this incident; the vehemently anti-pagan praetorian
prefect of the East, Cynegius, also had a part to play. His violent115 hatred of the traditional
religion was so strong that it prompted Libanius to write his famous speech, Pro Templis,116
in response to his ‘temple-wrecking campaign in the east’;117 indeed, Saradi-Mendelovici
considers his attacks against pagan temples among the most important118 around this time.
Backed up by imperial troops119 and armies of120 ‘violent monks who served as
henchmen’121 from the Wadi-el-Natrun valley in Egypt,122 the Catholics forced their way into
the temple and began a systematic destruction of it, going many steps further than George
had done. The huge statue of Serapis was hacked to pieces and paraded through the city123
just as was done before to the other sacked temples in Alexandria.
Theodosius saw this event as the perfect excuse to enact a reactionary edict against
the pagans of the city. He allowed a number of the most important of the pagans, including
Olympius himself, to be spared and allowed to flee, who in turn spread word of the events
112 Jones (1964) pp. 168
114 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 64
115 Cameron (1993) pp. 75
116 Libanius.Or.30
117 Bradbury (1994) pp. 128
119 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 65
121 Bradbury (1994) pp. 128
122 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 59
123 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 65

StudentI.D:4178266
22
to all corners of the Roman world,124 ensuring that the implications of this incident would
truly be felt all across the empire. Furthermore, he saw it unfit to explicitly punish any of the
pagans of Alexandria, staying true to his policy of not strongly legislating against the non-
wealthy pagans. This was well within his interests, as he may have seen these citizens as
‘prospective converts’.125 One must also think that he was well aware of the influence that
martyrs had on the rise of Christianity, and he identified that making any out of the pagans
would have put a significant dent in his attempts to dissolve their faith; ‘paganismwas not a
heroic faith, and could boast few martyrs’,126 and the Emperor no doubt wanted to keep it
that way.
He did however use this incident as a chance to enact a measure to cripple the old
faith, as he ordered the destruction and plundering of all the temples of the city, and
demanded the procured wealth to be donated to the poor,127 which must have included
pagan citizens too. While the act of the destruction of the temples itself can be regarded as
somewhat excessive, he only did it as punishment, which meant that in the eyes of the law,
his acts were more justified than if he merely destroyed the temples under no pretext. He
showed a degree of mercy, and his punishment affected only the religious life of the
offenders, ensuring it was a campaign against the religion, not a persecution of its followers.
In this way, he can be described as moderate in his actions; this sense would be increased if
the pagans received a share of the wealth that was doled out. In any case, it would deter the
pagan citizens from rising up in arms against the Christians again in Alexandria, which will be
demonstrated in Chapter Three.
126 Jones (1964) pp. 943
127 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 65, Socrates HE. 5.16

StudentI.D:4178266
23
This event was hugely significant in the demise of the old religion; indeed, it has
been said that following it, ‘the world believed that Christianity had finally triumphed over
paganism’.128 This assessment is valid to an extent; the Serapeum ‘was generally recognised
as one of the architectural wonders of the world’,129 and Ammianus writes that it was
second in magnificence only to the Temple of Jupiter in Rome.130 The destruction of ‘one of
the most sacred shrines of the east’131 sent a shockwave through the minds of all pagans of
the empire; they must have wondered how their gods could have allowed such destruction
to occur to such a ‘potent symbol of their belief’.132 In fact, the destruction of the Serapeum
was significant to the Christians too. There were genuine fears among them that the river
Nile would cease to rise and fall as it had always done as Serapis was the god deemed
responsible for this phenomenon, and that famine would occur as a result. ‘The pagans
were dejected and the Christians were jubilant’133 though when the river continued to act as
was hoped; there was to be no divine retribution from the disrespected Serapis, and the
pagan faith in general was heavily discredited not just in Alexandria, but all over the empire.
This incident was one of two in which the pagan gods were significantly discredited;
the second one occurred through the victory of Theodosius over the usurper Eugenius, who
laid claimthe Western Empire between 392 and 394. His usurpation is extremely important
when considering the campaign against the traditional religion of the empire, as it
represented a potential pagan revival. The usurpation took place in Rome itself, meaning
that Eugenius had to work closely with the senate who still had pagan interests, especially
128 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 38
130 Ammianus Marcellinus LRE. 22.16.12
131 Jones (1964) pp. 168

StudentI.D:4178266
24
Nichomachus Flavianus, whom he had reappointed Praetorian Prefect of Italy in 393. It has
been argued though that Eugenius never really intended to be a potential champion of the
pagan cause. However, the influence of the general Arbogast who essentially elevated him
to Augustus, and the need to secure the loyalty of his new Praetorian Prefect, both of whom
have been described as ‘zealous pagans’,134 caused him to get swept away from an attitude
of cautious toleration into a ‘full-blooded pagan revival’.135
Significantly, he was convinced to restore the Altar of Victory to the senate house,
which was a blatant attack on Christian interests, as evidenced by the strongly worded
letters of Ambrose136 to the young Valentinian II in response to Symmachus’ appeals to
him137 asking for its restoration (interestingly, Symmachus was one of the only notable
pagans of the time to actually distance himself from the usurpation, having already
experienced defeat in supporting an earlier rebel, Magnus Maximus)138. Flavianus was not
content with just this though, as he attempted to restore the pagan cults of the city139 and
went about the restoration of temples and traditional festivals; for example, he went as far
as to hold the silver reigns and drive the chariot bearing the effigy of Cybele into the city as
was custom.140 This would no doubt have been a marvellous spectacle, and one which
would have bluntly demonstrated his conviction to the religion’s revival. All this is very
significant when bearing in mind that this was done after the ‘extreme’ edict of November
134 Jones (1964) pp. 169
136 Ambrose Epp 17 and 18
137 Symmachus The Memorial
139 Bloch (1945) pp. 240

StudentI.D:4178266
25
392 which was discussed earlier on in this chapter; the pagans in Rome especially could now
practice their faith without facing the punishments laid out by the law.
The pagans’ hopes of a revival were soon dashed though. It became clear to
Eugenius relatively early on in his usurpation that Theodosius would not accept him as a co-
Augustus. As a demonstration of solidarity, Eugenius named himself and Theodosius as the
consuls of 393, which the legitimate Emperor disregarded, instead naming his magister
utriusque militiae, Abundantius, consul alongside himself.141 The fate of the usurper, and
arguably the pagan religion, was to be decided on the battlefield, and on September the 5th
394 the armies of Theodosius and of Eugenius, under the military leadership of the very
capable Arbogast, met by the river Frigidus to do battle. Theodosius saw this as a holy war,
which was reflected by the fact that he ‘[enlisted] the full armoury of fasting, prayer and
ceremonies of supplication’.142 The pagan side treated it very much the same, with Flavianus
erecting statues of Jupiter behind the usurper’s army, who bore standards depicting
Hercules.143 Bloch goes on to highlight the curious coincidence that these were the same
gods whom Diocletian and Maximian bore as titles at the time of their campaign against
Christianity in the late third century144 (they took the titles Iovius and Herculius
respectively145). Flavianus had also acted as haruspex and inspected the entrails of sacrificed
animals, which supposedly yielded favourable omens.146
141 Bloch (1945) pp. 227
143 Bloch (1945) pp. 236
144 Bloch (1945) pp. 236
145 Bowman (2005) pp. 70
146 Williams & Friell (1998) pp.132

StudentI.D:4178266
26
At the end of the first day of battle, Theodosius lost ten-thousand troops,147 and the
pagans seemed to have had the upper hand. The tide swiftly turned though when the
legendary general who initially sided with the pagans, Arbitio, went against his orders to
ambush the emperor’s force, instead choosing to abandon the usurper and defect to
Theodosius’ side.148 On the next day of battle, now supported by Arbitio’s troops, the
Emperor is said by Christian sources to have offered a prayer in view of both armies, asking
God for victory. His wishes were granted according to Sozomen and Rufinus, as a great wind
was said to have swept across the battlefield, knocking dust into the pagans’ eyes, and also
causing their own projectiles to fly back at them;149 they clearly wanted to depict the battle
as the defeat of Eugenius by Theodosius as the defeat of paganismby their God.150 The
battle was over and Theodosius achieved victory, which resulted in the ‘violent death’ of
Eugenius151 and the escape and subsequent suicides of Flavianus and Arbogast.152 The
defeat of the usurper was regarded throughout the empire as the defeat of paganismitself,
and ‘vindicated in the eyes of many the power of the Christian God’;153 it was portrayed by
both sides as a holy war, and was widely regarded as such. In one stroke, the most
promising pagan revival since Julian was no more, and no such threat to Christian
dominance was to arise again in the empire, although there were faint hopes it would under
a later usurper, Attalus, which will be discussed in Chapter Three. This defeat of the old
religion, much like the incident of the Serapaeum, would have sent a powerful message to
147 Bloch (1945) pp. 238
148 Burns (1994) pp. 105
149 Rufinus HE 11.33, Sozomen HE 7.24
150 Cameron (1993) pp. 76
151 Ferrari (1972) pp. 200
152 Cameron (1993) pp. 76
153 Harl (1990) pp. 13

StudentI.D:4178266
27
the pagans, which must have shaken their faith as well as their morale to deter Christianity,
and may have produced a number of converts to the orthodox faith.
Regarding conversion, Theodosius was sure to legislate a number of times against
apostates from orthodox Christianity to paganism;154 he was in fact the first emperor to do
so.155 They were stripped of the right to make wills,156 and once again, they were treated
much the same as the hated heretical sect, the Manichaeans. It makes great sense for
Theodosius to legislate so strongly against apostates, as they would have turned their backs
on the orthodox faith and joined up with the ‘enemy’, going against what he was trying to
ultimately achieve. It seems as though the emperor’s aim was to use the law as his principle
tool of conversion. The overall character of his laws involved punishing those who held on to
the old religion (and indeed heretical ones), whereas at the same time offering ‘positive
incentives’157 to entice them into conversion; depriving or granting the right to make a will is
an excellent example of this.
Theodosius certainly approached the Christianization of the empire in a very
calculated way, notably by ensuring that he used the law as his primary means of converting
the empire.158 He identified that the pagan aristocracy, despite the fact they had a part to
play in public and governmental life, needed to be actively legislated against in regard to
their occasionally very open practising of the traditional religion. They were essentially the
patrons of paganism, and had to be stopped to ensure the religion would weaken at an
exponential rate. The all-encompassing law of November 392 was a great step in
154 CTh 16.7.1, 16.7.2, 16.7.5
155 Jones (1964) pp. 166
156 CTh 16.5.9, 16.5.7, 16.5.18
157 Salzman (1987) pp. 363
158 Salzman (1987) pp. 378

StudentI.D:4178266
28
Christianisation, and it made clear that Nicene Christianity was to be the official religion of
the empire.159 By this stage, the religious situation of a century before had been turned
completely on its head, and it was now the pagans who were forced to secretly practice
their faith in the privacy of their homes, not the Christians.160 The clergy took it upon
themselves to be the primary enforcers of the religious law, when their numbers and
influence permitted it. Their intentions tended to side in favour of the destruction of pagan
temples and shrines, although Theodosius took the example of his forebears161 and ensured
that some were preserved purely for their aesthetic value. The Serapaeum incident in the
east and the pagan-tinged usurpation of Eugenius in the west were hugely notable incidents
where the old religion was severely discredited, with the former being described as the
‘death in agony of the pagan gods’.162 The failed revival under Eugenius crushed the morale
of the pagans by demonstrating the power of the Christian God over the old ones, and some
followers will have seen little choice but to convert to Christianity, which was what
Theodosius will have wanted. Paganismfound itself in its twilight years after the death of
the emperor in 395, and the aftermath of his anti-pagan campaign is the subject of the
following chapter.
159 Harl (1990) pp. 7
162 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 65

StudentI.D:4178266
29
Chapter Three
The Twilight of the Old Gods, and the Victory of Christianity
The anti-pagan campaign of Theodosius and the events regarding Eugenius and
Alexandria had dealt significant damage to paganism, but it would not be fair to say that it
was a ‘killing blow’; rather, the old religion was gravely wounded, and would take some time
to completely die. This chapter will explore the ways in which pagan cult and practice
survived into the early fifth and even sixth centuries. This does not mean that imperial
pressure was lifted on the old religion though;163 further laws were issued by the emperors
following the death of Theodosius, and these, as well as their significance, will also be
discussed. Even after the emperor’s death, pagans still had a role to play in public and
governmental life, although by this stage they were much harder for Christians to tolerate if
they were actively hostile to their religion164 or were too open with carrying out forbidden
practices; one famous case of this was another episode in Alexandria involving the murder
of the Neoplatonist philosopher, Hypatia. The importance of the Neoplatonists in regard to
the survival of paganism, and the significance of the murder of Hypatia, will also be explored
in this chapter. This incident reflected the religious tensions in the Eastern Empire after
Theodosius, and elements surrounding the sack of Rome in 410 caused tensions to raise in
the Western Empire, offering a parallel to the incidents of the Serapeum and Eugenius’
163 Jones (1964) pp. 208
164 Fowden (1982) pp. 53

StudentI.D:4178266
30
usurpation which were discussed in the previous chapter. Overall, this chapter will explore
the extent to which the empire was Christianised immediately after Theodosius’ death,
which will help assess the successes and failures of his anti-pagan campaign and the ways
which the empire changed after it.
It should not be surprising that pagan worship still continued after the death of
Theodosius, as the number of followers was still very significant. Indeed, it has been
estimated that by the time of his death, pagans made up over half of the total population of
the empire,165 and were still a large proportion of it in 438.166 Furthermore, Jones notes that
‘overt pagan cult survived into the sixth and seventh centuries’,167 and Testa believes that
‘the principle traditional priesthoods continued to function for at least another half-century
after 382’;168 neither of which is what Theodosius would have envisaged. Additionally,
Church-building only properly began in the pagan centre of Athens in the sixth century,169
suggesting that it took a while to be Christianised to a significant level. There is also
evidence that priests of the imperial cult continued to practice in parts of Roman Africa
during the fifth century, which may also suggest that other types of pagan practice
continued there too.170 The issues in Africa were deemed serious enough to merit mention
in laws of 399,171 which banned sacrifice there, and of 415,172 regarding the practice of
imperial cult specifically.
165 Harl (1990) pp. 15
166 Salzman (1993) pp. 364
167 Jones (1964) pp. 939
168 Testa (2009) pp. 264
169 Fowden (1982) pp. 43
170 Testa (2009) pp. 271
171 CTh. 16.10.17-18
172 CTh 16.10.20

StudentI.D:4178266
31
Clearly this represents a failure, to an extent, of Theodosius’ religious policy. If the
laws were successful in their aims, there would have been no need for subsequent
emperors to reissue time and time again;173 indeed, all succeeding emperors up to Justinian
I (527-565) reissued the ban on pagan sacrifice.174 This failure, and the fact that pagan
practice still continued long after the death of Theodosius, can be blamed on the lack of
impact of Theodosius’ measures to try counter the problem of ineffective policing,175 as
mentioned in Chapter Two. There was always a big difference between the emperor issuing
laws from his court, and them actually being carried out, especially in predominantly pagan,
rural settlements around the Empire.176 While it is true that zealous Christian monks and
bishops could help enforce religious law, it could only be done in areas where they held
significant influence, where they could rely on the backing of an equally fanatic population,
and the local governor or the emperor himself, such as in Alexandria during the Serapeum
incident.
It seems as though in many rural communities, the people had greater concerns than
religious conflicts, and pagan cults were allowed to continue ‘either in isolation from
Christianity or alongside it’.177 This prompted the emperors Arcadius, Honorius and
Theodosius II to issue a law in 407178 which officially granted bishops and the agentes in
rebus (government agents who also acted as imperial couriers) the power to enforce the
religious laws179 against pagans and heretics. This would have been significant, as bishops
could now carry out the imperial edicts in areas occupied predominantly by pagans or
173 Harl (1990) pp. 14-15
174 Harl (1990) pp. 7
175 CTh. 16.10.12
176 Harries & Wood (1993) pp. 144
177 Cameron (1993) pp. 75
178 SC. 12
179 Harries & Wood (1993) pp. 151

StudentI.D:4178266
32
moderate Christians. Furthermore, the agentes in rebus travelled a lot around the empire,
and would have been able to police rural communities where pagans would have previously
not worried about getting caught and punished for performing forbidden rites.
Pagans still did not have to be secretive about their religious inclination itself though
as mentioned in the previous chapter, which meant that, just as during Theodosius’ reign,
they could still have distinguished public careers; indeed, the Emperor of the West between
467 and 472 was Anthemius, who ‘appeared to be a devout and militant pagan’.180
Athanassiadi’s assessment of him here might be slightly exaggerated, especially in light of
Harl’s mention of the fact that all Emperors up to Justinian I reissued the ban on sacrifice.
However, even if he was not ‘militant’ with his beliefs, the fact that an emperor of this time
may have been pagan in any capacity is unexpected. Additionally, Zosimus, a valuable
although problematic historian who lived at the beginning of the sixth century, was very
openly pagan, and also served as ‘treasury advocate’.181 Developing on a fact noted in
Chapter One, many teachers in the empire remained pagan, even throughout the fifth
century; some pagan educators were still so respected that they even taught at the
university in Constantinople which was opened in 425.182
Another significant overt pagan group at this time, especially in the Eastern Empire,
were the Neoplatonists. Hanrahan sums up their beliefs as ‘a syncretismof the teachings of
all the great Greek philosophers from Pythagoras to Aristotle, borrowing also from Philo and
the Oriental ideas of the Gnostics’.183 Going by this, it is clear to see their belief systemwas
very complex, which would no doubt have left the average pagan feeling disconnected from
181 Goffart (1971) pp. 412
182 Harl (1990) pp. 15
183 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 52

StudentI.D:4178266
33
them. They did find common ground though, especially in a mutual ‘outrage’ at Christianity
for its ‘alleged opposition to the tradition of Greek culture’,184 which was a primary
motivation for the acts of the Neoplatonists. Appreciation for the cultural and spiritual
tradition of paganismwas certainly rooted deep within followers of the old religion, and the
Neoplatonists seemto epitomise this. They became the new patrons of paganism, spending
money on the maintenance and restoration of holy places185, thus mimicking the traditional
aristocracy. Furthermore, they actively promoted the practising of ‘ancestral religious
customs’ by acting as ‘spiritual tourists’ who travelled around the empire;186 by encouraging
pagan worship in this way, they would certainly be difficult to stop, even with the renewed
enforcement laws of 407 discussed earlier. Despite their attempts to ‘foster a pagan
religious revival’,187 Neoplatonists still had a role to play in public life; as noted in Chapter
Two, they were sometimes entrusted by communities to act as official ambassadors to
make requests to the emperor on their behalf.188
Most public figures were not penalised for their religion probably because they
exercised it with a degree of caution and moderation, much like Themistius as outlined in
the previous chapter. However, by this stage, Christians were becoming more inclined to act
upon their anger when they deemed a notable pagan to be crossing this fine line of
moderation- a line which many Neoplatonists balanced upon, and some fell the wrong side
of. A key example of this is the events surrounding the murder in 415 of the female
Neoplatonist philosopher Hypatia, in Alexandria. Following the incident of the Serapeum,
Alexandria entered a period of relentless hostility in which the pagan population became
184 Smith (1989) pp. 27
185 Athanassiadi (1993) pp.8-9
187 Smith (1989) pp. 25
188 Fowden (1982) pp. 50

StudentI.D:4178266
34
‘more arrogant and often unnecessarily provocative’.189 Hypatia’s age when she died is not
known with any great certainty,190 but Socrates records her as being surpassing all
contemporary philosophers in terms of attainment.191 This could have been a main reason
for her downfall. ‘Female philosophers were a comparative rarity in antiquity’,192 which
meant she may have been looked down upon as an outsider by the Christians of the city.
This feeling would have been amplified by the fact that she was accomplished in the science
of astronomy, which may have looked like the forbidden magical art of astrology to the
naïve.193
Whatever the true reason, the Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril, ordered ‘his monkish
followers’194 to murder her, which they duly did; she was offered no protection despite the
fact that a number of her students were Christians.195 She was said to have been murdered
by a Christian mob, then torn apart and had her remains burned to ash.196 This is extremely
reminiscent197 of the murder of George of Cappadocia, the Bishop of Alexandria in 361, as
detailed in Chapter One. This very clearly shows a shift in the balance of religious power in
Alexandria which favoured the Christians, in what was once a very pagan city; if it managed
to occur there, then it must have happened in other places throughout the empire too.
Furthermore, as was noted at the end of the previous chapter, it was now pagan, not
Christian, worship that was confined to secret, private practice.198 This supports the
190 Penella (1984) pp. 126-128
191 Socrates HE. 7.15
192 Rist(1965) pp. 220
193 Rist(1965) pp. 216
194 Hanrahan (1962) pp. 60
195 Rist(1965) pp. 218,224
196 Socrates HE 7.15

StudentI.D:4178266
35
assertion that Theodosius’ anti-pagan legislation was successful in Christianising the empire,
or was at the very least extremely influential as it set up the framework for complete
Christianisation to occur.
A series of notable incidents that occurred in the Western Empire which had a
religious dimension were the events surrounding, and including, sack of Rome in 410 by the
Visigoths led by Alaric. Before the invaders marched on Rome in arms the final time, Attalus,
a senator in Rome who was prefect of the city as this time,199 was proclaimed Augustus
under the support of Alaric. Under this usurpation, pagans were said to have been free to
practice their faith,200 and there was even a hope that the temples, festivals and altars in
Rome would be fully restored under his reign, but they were left disappointed when this did
not come to pass.201 The Sack of Rome itself also created significant divisions between the
pagans and Christians202 throughout the empire. Pagans, especially of the educated
classes,203 believed that the Eternal City was sacked as a result of the old gods revoking their
protection of the city because of the ‘neglect of sacrificial rites’.204 Anger felt by pagans
towards Christians was amplified by the fact that Alaric was one himself; the fact he was
Arian was irrelevant as pagans saw orthodox and heretical faiths as one and the same.205
Christian discontent towards paganismwas increased as they blamed the sack on the
continued practising of heretical faiths; some even compared the sack to the prophesised
‘last judgement’.206 After the events of 410, imperial power in Italy waned thanks to the
199 Sozomen HE 9.8
200 Brown (1961) pp. 4
201 Sozomen HE 9.9
202 Brown (1961) pp. 8
203 Heather (2005) pp. 230
204 Harl (1990) pp. 18, Zosimus speaks of the importance of upholdingthe rites in NH. 2.6-7, 4.18 and 37-38,
5.5-6
205 Ferrari (1972) pp. 206
206 Pelagius Letter to Demitrias 30.1

StudentI.D:4178266
36
invasion of the barbarians to the point that religious life in Rome was left to the control of
the popes,207 which is a factor as to why paganismsurvived there for so long, to the extent
that senators who held ‘priestly offices’ could still ‘fulfil the various demands of their
priesthoods’.208
It should not be surprising that pagan practice continued after the death of
Theodosius; it would be unreasonable to expect the full Christianisation of the empire to
occur in just a few years. The lack of effective enforcement may have been a chief
explanation for the slow death of paganism, but Arcadius and his co-emperors ensured to
legislate against this in an effective way which would even help address the problem of rural
cults. When considering the aftermath of Theodosius’ campaign, it seems as though he laid
down a strong foundation for the total Christianisation of the empire to be built upon. The
reissuing of religious laws showed that old ones were failing to an extent, but the fact that
the balance of religious power did change, as shown in particular by the murder of Hypatia,
suggests that they were successful overall. Theodosius was also mimicked by his successors
in the sense that only the religion of paganismitself was legislated against, not its followers,
as shown by the fact that overt pagans could still have distinguished careers. If pagans were
persecuted as Christians were under Diocletian, martyrs would have been made which may
have inspired the rise a united pagan resistance. As things were though, only the
Neoplatonists and some members of the aristocracy in Rome were the only significant
pagan groups who actively pushed for the resurrection of the old religion, and neither was
successful in any notable way. Soon the religion was to die out, continuing on only through
the remaining temples, shrines and statues that were appreciated solely for their aesthetic
207 Brown (1967) pp. 11
208 Testa (2009) pp. 271

StudentI.D:4178266
37
and cultural209 significance. This is not to say that these were now completely devoid of all
religious meaning though; ’in later Byzantine periods pagan statues were accorded magical
powers, and were believed capable of causing calamities and disasters’.210 Although their
grasp over the Roman Empire soon totally faded, the old gods were still feared in the
superstitions of the Byzantine people for many generations afterwards, even if it was merely
under a Christianised guise of devils and demons.211
209 Harl (1990) pp. 15
211 Jones (1964) pp. 958

StudentI.D:4178266
38
Conclusion
The power of the Church was growing at an exponential rate throughout the fourth
century, and it is clear based on the evidence discussed that Theodosius was the catalyst in
firmly establishing a Christian Empire. The three events discussed in this Dissertation
regarding events in Alexandria sum up the gradual change well, and really epitomise the
shift in religious power from paganismto Christianity. The pagans of the city under the reign
of Julian were free to take revenge against the bishop who disrespected their religion,
whereas under the reign of Theodosius they could only put up a futile resistance. The
balance tipped even further after his death, as it was now a Christian mob who could kill a
notable member of the ‘enemy faith’, in this case Hypatia, without facing any consequences.
Theodosius at the time of his death had set up a strong framework for Christianising
the Roman Empire, and his successors developed upon his laws to ensure it happened, for
example the law issued in 407 to combat the problem of ineffectual enforcement. Any kind
of pagan resistance, such as the usurpations of Eugenius and Attalus, or even the pressures
exerted by the Neoplatonists and the senate in Rome, were put down and proved ultimately
ineffectual. There was to be no revival of the old religion, and indeed, the failed usurpation
of Eugenius especially seemed to do more damage than good in regarding the future of
paganism. Theodosius approached his anti-pagan campaign in a very smart way, as he
recognised that converts to Christianity were much more valuable than pagan martyrs,
which was maybe why Diocletian’s persecution of Christianity a century before was a
failure. It was the religion, not its followers, that Theodosius was legislating against, and his
successors followed his example; some pagans could have successful public careers without

StudentI.D:4178266
39
being subject to discrimination because of their faith. Furthermore, he only destroyed pagan
temples and shrines at the request of the clergy or local governors, or as a form of
punishment; the fact the encouraged the preservation of them due to their aesthetic and
cultural value would have helped minimize the discontent and a sense of alienation that
could have been felt by pagans.
The role of the clergy in the Christianisation of the empire must also not be
overlooked. They acted as a kind of unofficial ‘religious police’, ensuring that the laws of
Theodosius were being enforced in areas where they had power, and their position was
strengthened by the law of 407. Ambrose especially was able to transcend the imperium of
Theodosius, which can be said to be an embodiment of the power of the clergy, and
Christianity in general, at the time. The law of 392 issued by Theodosius was a blunt
proclamation that paganismno longer had a place in the Roman Empire, and the fact that
this remained true ever since then shows that he was successful in his anti-pagan campaign.
The gods of the old religion had now metamorphosed into Christian demons: even
they were Christianised just as the empire itself was. Despite its diversity, paganismwas
always a cornerstone of the historical tradition and culture of Roman Empire; it is somewhat
ironic therefore that with the fall of the traditional religion came the fall of the empire itself;
the two events are not necessarily directly linked to one another, but it is an interesting
parallel nonetheless.

StudentI.D:4178266
40
Bibliography
Ancient Sources:
Ambrose, Select Works and Letters, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church Series (vol. 10), ed. Schaff, P. and Wace, H., translated by De Romestin, E., De
Romestin, H. and Duckworth, H. T. F. accessed via
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.i.html (24/4/15)
Ammianus Marcellinus, The Later Roman Empire (AD-354-378), translated by Hamilton, W.
(1986)
Codex Theodosianus, in The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions,
translated by Davidson, T. S., Pharr, C., Pharr, M. B. (2001)
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
Series (vol.1), ed. and translated by Schaff, P. and Wace, H. accessed via
Julian, Letters, in Julian Volume III, translated by Wright, W. C. (1923)
Libanius, Selected Orations Volume II, translated by Norman, A. F. (1977)
Pelagius, The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers, in Pelagius: Life and Letters, translated
by Rees, P. R (1998)
Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, in Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books 10 and 11,
translated by Amidon, P. R. (1997)
Sirmondian Constitutions, in The Theodosian Code and Novels, and the Sirmondian
Constitutions, translated by Davidson, T. S., Pharr, C., Pharr, M. B. (2001)
Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church Series (vol.2), ed. and translated by Schaff, P. and Wace, H. accessed via
www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/TOC.htm (24/4/15)
Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
Series (vol.2), ed. and translated by Schaff, P. and Wace, H. accessed via
www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/TOC.htm (24/4/15)
Symmachus, The Memorial of Symmachus, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church Series (vol. 10), ed. Schaff, P. and Wace, H., translated by De Romestin, E.,
De Romestin, H. and Duckworth, H. T. F. accessed via
Zosimus, New History, translated by Ridley, R. T. (1982)

StudentI.D:4178266
41
Modern Sources:
Athanassiadi, P. (1993), ‘Persecution and Response in Late Paganism: The Evidence of
Damascius’, The Journal of Hellenic Studies vol. 113: pp. 1-29
Bloch, H. (1945), ‘A New Document of the Last Pagan Revival in the West, 393-394 A.D.’, The
Harvard Theological Review vol. 38, no.4: pp. 199-244
Bowersock, G. W. (1986), ‘From Emperor to Bishop: The Self-Conscious Transformation of
Political Power in the Fourth Century A.D’, Classical Philology vol. 81, no.4: pp. 298-307
Bowman, A. K. (2005), ‘Diocletian and the first tetrarchy, A.D. 284-305’, in Bowman, A. K.,
Cameron, A. and Garnsey, P., The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 12: The Crisis of
Empire, AD 193-337, Second edition (Cambridge): pp. 67-89
Bradbury, S. (1994), ‘Constantine and the Problem of Anti-pagan Legislation in the Fourth
Century’, Classical Philology vol. 89, no.2: pp. 120-139
Brown, P. R. L. (1961), ‘Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy’, The
Journal of Roman Studies vol. 51: pp. 1-11
Brown, P. R. L. (1967), ‘The Later Roman Empire’, The Economic History Review vol. 20, no.2:
pp. 327-343
Burns, T. S. (1994), Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome: A Study of Roman Military Policy
and the Barbarians, Ca. 375-425 A.D. (Bloomington)
Cameron, Al. (2001), The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford)
Cameron, Av. (1993), The Later Roman Empire (London)
Downey, G. (1957), ‘Themistius and the Defence of Hellenismin the Fourth Century’, The
Harvard Theological Review vol. 50, no.4: pp. 259-274
Ferrari, L. C. (1972), ‘Background to Augustine’s ‘City of God’’, The Classical Journal vol. 67,
no.3: pp. 198-208
Fowden, G. (1982), ‘The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antique Society’, The Journal of Hellenic
Studies vol. 102: pp. 33-59
Goffart, W. (1971), ‘Zosimus: The First Historian of Rome’s Fall’, The American Historical
Review vol. 76, no.2: pp. 412-441
Hahn, J. (2008), ‘The Conversion of the Cult Statues: The Destruction of the Serapeum 392
A.D and the Transformation of Alexandria into the ‘Christ-Loving’ City’, in Emmel, S., Gotter,
U. and Hahn, J., From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography
in Late Antiquity (Leiden): pp. 335-367

StudentI.D:4178266
42
Hanrahan, M. (1962), ‘Paganismand Christianity at Alexandria’, University Review vol. 2,
no.9: pp. 38-66
Harl, K. W. (1990), ‘Sacrifice and Pagan Belief in Fifth- and Sixth-Century Byzantium’, Past &
Present vol. 128: pp. 7-27
Harries, J. & Wood, I. (1993), The Theodosian Code (New York)
Heather, P. (2005), The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History (London)
Jones, A. H. M. (1964), The Later Roman Empire 284-602 Volumes I & 2 (Oxford)
Jones, C. (2010), ‘Themistius After the Death of Julian’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte
Geschichte vol. 59, no. 4: pp. 501-506
Lee, A. D. (2013), Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity: A Sourcebook (London)
Moore, C. H. (1919), ‘The Pagan Reaction in the Late Fourth Century’, Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association vol. 50: pp. 122-134
Penella, R. J. (1984), ‘When was Hypatia Born?’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte vol.
33, no. 1: pp. 126-128
Rist, J. M. (1965), ‘Hypatia’, Phoenix vol. 19, No 3: pp. 214-225
Salzman, M. R. (1987), ‘’Superstitio’ in the ‘Codex Theodosianus’ and the Persecution of
Pagans’, Vigiliae Christianae vol. 41, no. 2: pp. 172-188
Salzman, M. R. (1993), ‘The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity
in Book 16 of the ‘Theodosian Code’’, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte vol. 42, no. 3:
pp. 362-378
Saradi-Mendelovici, H. (1990), ‘Christian Attitudes Toward Pagan Monuments in Late
Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers vol. 44:
pp. 47-61
Smith, A. (1989), ‘The Pagan Neoplatonists’ Response to Christianity’, The Maynooth
Review/ Revieú Mhá Nuad vol. 14: pp. 25-41
Sterz, S. A. (1976), ‘Themistius: A Hellenistic Philosopher-Statesman in the Christian Roman
Empire’, The Classical Journal vol. 71, no. 4: pp. 349-358
Testa, R. L. (2009), ‘Augures et pontifices: Public Sacral Law in Late Antique Rome (Fourth-
Fifth Centuries AD)’, in: Cain, A. J. and Lenski, N. E., The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity
(Aldershot): pp. 251-279
Williams, S. and Friell, G. (1998) Theodosius: The Empire At Bay (London)

Final Dissertation 4178266

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Final Dissertation 4178266

Similar to Final Dissertation 4178266 (9)

Final Dissertation 4178266