II. Transition (A.D. 395-402):
Retum Home and Journey to Constantinople
We must now follow our convert as he leaves the comfort of his school and takes up an active role in a world where profound changes were taking place. Sooner or later the hard facts of life of the Theodosian age would force Synesius to see that paganism was no longer viable as an alternative to Christianity for the Roman Empire as a whole. In addition to his experiences at school, we shall see that his good relations with orthodox Christians at Constantinople caused him to choose the role of collaborator with the new religion, rather than that of member of a small aristocratic circle of devoted opponents to Christianity. Synesius was not sufficiently attached to the pagan cult per se, and too involved with the fate of the Roman world, to take the path followed by Iamblichus, Julian, Proclus, and the school of Athens.
After his schooling, Synesius returned home for about four years (395-399), a period in which he established his reputation as a leading local aristocrat; subsequently he got'into political difficulties and found it expedient to take a brief holiday which included visits to Antioch and Athens. Synesius’ visit to the latter resulted in his famous criticism of the school of Athens. Upon his return, his political prestige at home became so great that he became the political representative of Cyrene at the Court of Constantinople. [1]
When he first returned home (c. 395), Synesius was content to lead the life of a country gentleman whose principal interests were literature and hunting. [2] But soon he was pressed into service in the municipal council of Cyrene. He took his political responsibilities seriously and demonstrated a capacity for thought and action that impressed the population
1. For Synesius’ activity as a curialis see Coster, 145-182 (= Byzantion 15 [1940- 1941] 10-38); for Synesius as a member of the boule and his political program see Ep. 95; for his quick departure for Attica, Ep. 54; on his anti-Athenian sentiment, Ep. 136, 1524C; first barbarian war, Epp. 104, 113, and 124.
2. Ep. 103.
41
42
but involved him in political enmities. [3] Synesius also displayed considerable civic and military talent during the destructive barbarian raids through Cyrenaica in 395. [4] Because of his outstanding ability, the local citizens chose Synesius to appeal to the emperor at Constantinople personally for financial relief on behalf of Cyrene.
The emperor Constantine, sole Augustus by A.D. 324, had founded the city of Constantinople on the site of the ancient Megarian colony of Byzantium. Strategically located on the European shore of the Bosporus, the new Eastern imperial capital stood at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. It was near both the Danube frontier and the Sassanid Persian empire: the emperor could thus use the city as a headquarters and staging base against enemies of the Empire on two fronts.
The location of Constantines city was also commercially advantageous. The Bosporus is a more accessible passage between the continents than the Hellespont, whether one is traveling from Asia or Europe. The large and protected harbor of the Golden Horn was a logical port for ships sailing the heavily traveled trade lanes between the Black Sea, the Aegean, and the western Mediterranean. [5] The city, set on the heights between the Golden Horn and the sea of Marmora, also could provide a safe harbor for a great fleet. The town itself was protected by sea on three sides and by land on one.
The balance of power in the Roman Empire had been shifting eastward for some time. Diocletian had realized that a new imperial center was necessary near the Danubian and Sassanian frontiers. [6] He chose the city of Nicomedia near the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus. But after his victory over Licinius, Constantine recognized the advantageous position of Byzantium. [7] His policy was a logical continuation of his predecessors’. The third- and fourth-century emperors, with their military backgrounds, their courts of new men, and their new strategic capitals, often found Roman senatorial tradition hostile and alien. Thus their ties with old Rome on the Tiber were not always strong. The need for a new center of administration had been felt by the emperor for some time.
3. For departure to Athens see also Coster, 218-268 (CJ 55.290-312), esp. 235 and n. 34.
4. Concerning barbarian raids see n. 1 above; with the death of Theodosius in A.D. 395 the Eastern Empire entered a difficult period. In the following year Alaric sacked Eleusis; on the event and its connection with the prophesied end of the mysteries cf. Kerenyi, 32-34; cf. also Zosimus, V.6.
5. Runciman, 9-10.
6. OCD, art. “Constantine” 280.
7. For different perceptions of the strategic importance of Byzantium, from Periclean Athens to late Rome, see Runciman, 10-11.
43
Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, a religion that affronted the pagan senators at Rome, may have intensified this felt need but did not create it. [8]
Construction of the new city was inaugurated in the autumn of A.D. 324. The consecratio of the site was observed in 328, and the dedicatio on 11 May 330. [9] Traditional pagan rites and Christian ceremonies were performed. The city was officially named “New Rome,” slightly lower in rank than the old. The citizens called it Constantinople.
The new urban center was to become a new synthesis of Greco-Roman and Christian civilization. Works of Greek art were imported from pagan temples to grace the streets of the new capital. Libraries were built that preserved the tradition of nearly a millennium of Greek thought and learning. Teachers of rhetoric and philosophy were attracted to the new capital, and by the fifth century several chairs had been endowed for these disciplines. The emperor recognized a Tyche of the city; he also erected a column of Apollo, with his own face replacing that of the god. [10] But according to Eusebius the new city never had pagan worship. Apparently, the old temples of Byzantium became “classical museums.” Thus the city was a new center of Hellenism. [11]
But it was also a Roman city. New institutions were created on the model of Rome on the Tiber. A great palace was built, imperial fora were constructed, the Hippodrome, with its two obelisks, was inspired by the design of the Circus Maximus. The emperor Valens built an aqueduct and other imposing public works. The tradition of bread and circuses for the plebs was continued when a free grain dole for 80,000 persons was inaugurated on 18 May 332. Latin remained the official language of government and law; the citizens were called Rhomaioi (“Romans”) until the end of the Byzantine empire. The administration was modelled on that of Rome with a praefectus annonae, praefectus vigilum, magister census, and other municipal offices of the old capital. In 340 Constantius II created a new Senate comprised largely of distinguished immigrant citizens of the East, including Latin speakers from the Balkans; imperial adlectio during a successful official career continued to be a frequent way into the Senate of Constantinople, as into that of Rome.
In addition to this continuity with the classical past, Constantinople was founded by a Christian emperor.
8. Runciman, 11.
9. OCD, art. “Constantinople,” 281.
10. Constantine was a former solar worshipper; this face on the column brings to mind his vision of himself as Apollo in 310. On this see Brown, Late Antiquity 69. For a general discussion of the genius or “guardian angel” as one’s spiritual double, see ibid. 68-72.
11. OCD 281.
44
It had no ancient pagan roots: the old cults and temples of Rome were conspicuously absent. [12] The state religion of Rome on the Tiber was paganism; the state religion of Constantinople would be Christianity. The city itself was dedicated to the Holy Trinity and the Mother of God. Constantine built the Church of the Holy Apostles where he and his successors were buried. The bishop acquired great prestige: in 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that he should “have the primacy of honor after the Bishop of Rome, because it was the ‘New Rome’” [13] Constantine himself had stated that he “bestowed upon it an eternal name by the commandment of God” [14].
All of this was to have important consequences for the Christianization of the aristocracies of the East. Without this upstart melting-pot Asia Minor might very well have remained pagan much longer. Living in ancient Greek towns that had long recognized the world power of Rome as a counterpoise to Hellenic cultural autonomy, urban philosophers and rhetoricians perceived themselves as still belonging to the old classical world. But Constantinople changed this. Classically educated Christians such as John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus could live in the city as serious Christians, but Christians who still maintained some of the bearing and outlook of Greek gentlemen. After all, they had studied rhetoric (and even philosophy) under the same teachers as Julian and his pagan friends.
Most of the classical teachers of the Greek East were pagans, although a few were Christians, e.g., Prohaeresius of Athens. The celebrated rhetorician Libanius of Antioch, a man of the old-time religion, numbered Christians as well as pagans among his pupils. [15] At Constantinople common background and social standing were often more important than religious differences. Pagans, such as Themistius, who advocated religious tolerance could support and be favored by Christian emperors. As long as the new imperial policies were accepted, a pagan could fit into the society of Constantinople. One could be “converted” to the new city which, in the fourth century, developed an imperial ideology different from that of old Romans and Hellenes. Thus a “new” pagan such as Themistius could fit in, and so also could classically educated Christians.
Themistius himself remained a pagan who was tolerant of Christianity. He justified his attitude intellectually by mental gymnastics: he seems to have associated Christianity with the ancient religion of the Syrians; thus, in Roman law, it could be considered an ancient religio licita,
12. Ibid. 280. 13. Ibid. 281. 14. Ibid. 281.
15. On Libanius as a teacher see Petit, passim.
45
and in philosophical terms one of those ancient cults ordained by the summus deus. [16] Gilbert Dagron, in a brilliant monograph on Themistius and Constantinople, has compared him to a tolerant philosophe, a religious skeptic like Montaigne. [17] Yet the events of the second half of the fourth century were such that a generation later, an old-fashioned pagan such as Synesius could not only follow in the footsteps of Themistius, but even go him one further by joining the Christian camp.
Important changes in the political climate during Synesius’ youth and early manhood occurred for several reasons. These included the problems created by Jovian’s disgraceful Persian peace, the disaster of Adrianople in 378, and the limited success of Theodosius’ policy of peace and assimilation of the Arian Goths into the empire during the 380s. With the reestablishment of orthodoxy in 381 and the formation of a “nationalist’’ faction under the Praetorian Prefect Aurelian, the political conditions emerged for Synesius’ pagan accommodation to orthodox Christianity. For the primarily orthodox leaders of the city had changed their position. By the 390s the pagan threat was on the decline, while the Goths were no longer seen as barbarians who could evolve and be assimilated as good Greco-Romans or Christians, as Themistius had hoped. They were now regarded as heretics—heretics, moreover, with powerful support in a city dreading an imminent coup d’état.
Thus, by the time of Synesius’ mission to the court at Constantinople, the idea of a Christian empire with an ecumenical outlook was no longer feasible. Julian and the pagans had advocated the old policy: Rome on the Tiber in league with the old Hellenes would defend the Empire against barbarism from without and Christianity from within. For the pagans this was the only salvation possible for the Roman Empire; Constantinople and the innovations of “Constantinianism” had seemed to them dangerous anomalies. [18]
16. See Themistius, Or. V.69C-70A: the different religions of the empire are like different legions. They are all necessary. God wills the plurality of religions. The “Syrians” (i.e. Christians) worship in one way; the Hellenes in another; the Egyptians in yet another, etc. (The name “Christians” was first used at Antioch: Acts 11:9.)
17. L’empire romain 189; for the agreement of important elements of Hellenic thought with Scripture, pp. 150-152; for legitimacy of Christianity see especially pp. 155 and 182; for Themistius’ ideas on civilizing the barbarians and an ecumenical empire see pp. 112—114 and 117; also n. 197 on p. 118; Themistius appeals to a list of precedents which begins with the integration of the Gauls in the first century and includes many precedents from the days of Marcus Aurelius to the present: different cultures can be assimilated into the Roman world, p. 163; frontier wars negate universality, p. 93; thus Romes civilizing mission might include peace with Persia and inclusion of the barbarians, p. 85-89.
This work is the best study of how members of the Greek elites adjusted to the fact of Constantinople; see also Dagron, Revue historique 241.23-56.
46
Their cause lost. But by the 390s the orthodox Christians of Constantinople had perceived the threat to Christian Greco-Roman civilization in a manner not altogether different from the old pagan viewpoint: the barbarian heretics had to be stopped if the Roman world was to be saved. Synesius had similar ideas. He too had come to realize that the pagan cause had lost; Romanitas would set him on the only path possible for a man of his class and concerns. Rather than hope against hope for the demise of Christianity, he would rally to the defense of the Empire and support the new religion.
Synesius’ career may be compared in this sense to that of Themistius. The latter was a “new” pagan who became a spokesman for the policies of the emperors and élites of the new Rome. Synesius, an old pagan, arrived on the scene when the new policy had failed. Christians were now proposing ideas somewhat akin to traditional policy. Synesius supported them, even to the extent of accepting an episcopate.
Themistius was born about A.D. 317 of a family of pagan Paphlagonian landowners. He was educated in the East and began teaching at Constantinople about 345. Imperial recognition soon followed: he was appointed to an official chair of philosophy and to the new Senate by adlectio (1 Sept. 355). He became an important proponent of the ideology of monarchy and served under Christian emperors from Constantius II to Theodosius I, crowning his public career as City Prefect in 384. He was also given the responsibility of educating the future emperor Arcadius and acted as protector for the young prince when Theodosius left the city on an important mission. [19] His philosophical commentaries on Aristotle were studied as a model for exegesis during the Middle Ages. Thus, in the late antique tradition, he was both rhetor and philosopher.
Dagron, viewing the career of Themistius as an example of the new Hellenism that developed at Constantinople, believes that by exaggerating the importance of the conflict between Hellenism and Christianity, historians have distorted the reality of the fourth century. He regards the infra-religious conflicts as more important: orthodox Christians against heretics; old Hellenes against dissident Hellenes such as Themistius. The social milieu of Constantinople allowed men to be Hellene and Christian almost simultaneously. This is of great importance for the social historian:
18. Julian became the symbol of the old Hellenism, Constantine of the new. But the policies of “Constantinianism” were actually practiced by Christian emperors from Constantius II to Theodosius I: Dagron, L’Empire romain 61-93 and 199.
19. For a good outline of the career of Themistius see Jones et al., Prosopography i.893-894, from which the details of his career that follow are drawn.
47
a new Hellenism emerged completely secular in its pagan element. This novel synthesis was to become the essence of Byzantine culture. [20]
Dagron’s view has some importance for the case of Synesius. It certainly is useful in describing social changes that took place in the fourth century: religious values were being adjusted to new cultural and political values. [21] The incubator of these changes was Constantinople. But in his enthusiasm for the “progressive” Hellene Themistius, Dagron fails to do justice to Julian and his followers. The reason is simple: his intellectual model for the old paganism is Libanius of Antioch. Undoubtedly, the great rhetorician believed in Julian’s political policies of regeneration of the cities and cooperation between Roman and Hellene to save civilization. But, although Libanius had a sentimental attachment to the old cults and stood for the old cultural values, he failed to understand the theurgic Neoplatonism of Iamblichus and Julian. The same may be said of Dagron. Thus, the social historian will find Dagron’s work most useful, but the historian of religion must beware of his reductionism. Theurgy implied a real religious commitment, which included a mystical notion that Greco- Roman civilization would collapse if the old gods, cults, and mysteries were abandoned. The fact that Synesius was not a theurgist had as much influence on his actions as the circumstances in which he found himself. As a serious Neoplatonist and late antique homo religiosus, he accorded to religious ideas the value of ultimate reality. Thus scholars should study them in the context of a given world of “transcendent meanings’’ as they are meant. The historian accordingly must focus his attention on the noetic reality as well as the social reality of the fourth century. For this reason Dagron himself distorts fourth-century reality when he simply states that “Synésios, chrétien, reste un hellène un peu démodé; Thémistios, païen, préfigure aussi bien qu’Eusèbe de Césarée l’hellénisme byzantin. ’ [22] It might be added that the above also ignores the important effect the politics of the 390s had on the decisions of Synesius.
However, there can be little doubt that Dagron is right to consider Themistius the champion of a new Hellenism. Traditionally, a Greek philosopher could be influential in his home town, on special missions to Rome, and on embassies to governors or to the imperial court. But he was not to be a courtier in the permanent retinue of the emperor: Constantinople had changed things drastically. The old order had been upset. A new Greek Rome had appeared in the East. Now imperial power was close to home—too close. And it was the power of Christian emperors.
20. Dagron, L’Empire romain 2.
48
Conservative Hellenes were disturbed by their innovations. The position of Themistius was sensitive. He was a pagan philosopher who advocated imperial policy and a Senator with real influence: he might well appear to be the “house pagan” of the Christian emperors of Constantinople. It is not surprising that Julian avoided giving him honors. Nor is it surprising that Christians of the period praised him: his tolerance extended to protesting Arian persecution of the orthodox. [23]
Yet in fairness to Themistius, it must be said that he did his best to preserve Hellenic letters and thought in the new environment of imperial Christianity and, though a propagandist for the Constantinopolitan regime, he continued to enjoy the friendship of Libanius. [24] Indeed, Peter Brown has suggested that his role was to “rally the educated classes of Asia Minor and the Near East to the upstart capital.” Although his position was sensitive, he was seriously challenged only when he accepted the office of City Prefect. At that point he appeared to be living in unphilo- sophical luxury. [25]
Themistius received many honors in his lifetime. In 357 he was envoy to Rome for the Senate of Constantinople; there he presented Constantine with a golden crown on his vicennalia. He was Proconsul of Constantinople (358-359), in charge of the enrollment of new senators and the grain supply. A law of 361 gives him special status as a member of the quorum necessary for the election of praetors; it recognized him as a philosopher who increases his dignitas through knowledge: Themistius quoque philosophus, cuius auget scientia dignitatem (Cod. Theod. VI.4.12). In 376 he traveled again to Rome with the emperor Gratian. During his career he went on ten embassies for the Senate and was twice honored by emperors who presented him with bronze statues. He made many court speeches celebrating important occasions, in which he represented the position of the new order as a tolerant and moderate “progressive.”
The scandal caused when this pagan confidant of Christian emperors accepted the office of City Prefect under Theodosius (384) symbolizes the clash between old and newly emerging cultural values. He rode in a newly designed silver-rimmed carriage that went with the office. The philosopher, upholder of the values of simplicity, contemplation, and avoidance (when possible) of the limelight could now be caricatured as the corrupt courtier. The poet Palladas mocked him (Anth. Gr. XI. 292) and accused him of shameful behavior:
23. Brown, “The Philosopher and Society” 7-8; Socrates, HE 4.32.
24. See Downey, HTS 50.259-274. [Libanius considered Themistius a great professor and a gentleman: e.g. Ep. 793 (A.D. 362)].
25. Brown, “The Philosopher and Society” 8.
49
having ascended the heights, he had in reality descended to the depths. [26] Philosophy had been given a bad name. The Greek sage had become a wealthy high official, a functionary of East Roman imperial power.
Themistius was not unaware that he was in danger of seriously alienating conservative Hellenes. After he left office he defended himself in an oration (Or. 34) in which he maintained that philosophers must not denigrate the art of government: Plato prefers to contemplate the things above (anō); Epicurus indulges in pleasures. He asserts that he himself follows the mean between these extremes: when “above” he contemplates, when involved in worldly affairs he participates in them, always cognizant of the philosophical virtues that guide his conduct.
In his rhetoric on monarchy Themistius often claims that the emperor should display the qualities of a philosopher-king: he must be both a perpetually conquering Alexander and a wise Socrates or Cato. [27] These were by now traditional Greco-Roman ideas on kingship, but the context was new: the pagan philosopher was now an official in the new Rome. There, Christians in religion were Greeks in culture and Rhomaioi. [28] For better or for worse Constantinople had Romanized the East: the Christian Roman Empire was a reality. [29] Themistius had established a new role for the philosopher, one of central importance at the imperial court. [30] In this sense he paved the way for Synesius. Emperors and the educated had become used to an important public figure who was a philosopher. The city that was still Hellenic but no longer pagan was prepared for the embassy of an old Hellene and philosopher. Themistius had done his best to preserve the old culture in a new setting. Thus, paradoxically, Synesius received a welcome that must have surprised him. Moreover, the political changes of the 390s allowed him to advocate a policy more conservative than that of Themistius. As we shall see, he too would preserve the old culture in a new setting, but not in the same way as Themistius. He would have to forge an individual path in a world that respected Hellenism, but was no longer pagan. His continued commitment to Neoplatonic philosophy would make that path unique and significant.
Synesius’ sojourn at Constantinople lasted three years (399-402). [31] They were difficult years of absence from his native land,
26. For a good discussion of Palladas’ poem and Themistius see Cameron, CQ 15.215-229, esp. 221-223. See also Dagron, L’Empire romain 46-53.
27. Dagron, L’Empire romain 35.
28. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 202. 30. Ibid. 199.
31. Seeck, Philologus 52.442-460, settled the chronology for the voyage (A.D. 399- 402); see also Gibbon, ed. Bury 3.506; A.D. 399: Synesius arrives at Constantinople with Aurelian as Praetorian Prefect in A.D. 400; Stilicho, manipulating from the West, brings pressure to bear on Arcadius to bring in Caesarius, Gaïnas, and the Goths in place of Aurelian in the same year; Aurelian returns in 401; Synesius’ description of earthquake follows in 402.
Arcadius was weak and did not know how to handle the barbarian problem. Cf. Zosimus, V. 12.
50
but of considerable importance in determining his future development. [32] At court he became acquainted with some of the most powerful and important figures of the period: Aurelian, Praetorian Prefect of the East; his brother, Cae- sarius; Gaïnas, the leader of the Goths, who was being instigated and manipulated from the West by Stilicho; and the emperor Arcadius, who was sweet, pious, dull, and at a loss over what to do about the barbarians. The evidence for Synesius' connection with events and personages at court is tenuous. None of the histories of the period mention him in this regard, and the only clues we have come from his own writings. His three letters to Aurelian demonstrate that Synesius considered him an excellent administrator whose actions imitated the divine. [33] Moreover, he did not hesitate to recommend to Aurelian one of his own relatives who was an official in the government with a legal problem. In Ep. 61 he alludes to Aurelian as “dear friend and consul.” Synesius’ other friendships, including his friendships with the soldier-scholar Paeonius and some local men of letters, were of the sort that a man in his position would ordinarily make. They do not throw much light on his specifically Christian connections, although it is safe to assume that most of these men were supporters of Aurelian for the same reasons as Synesius.
In On Kingship he outlines a policy of reform attractive to the anti-Gothic faction at court. In On Providence he allegorizes the political events of the turn of the fifth century—events in which the author himself seems to have participated. [34] Although there is little solid evidence of the details of this period in Synesius’ life, we can at least conclude that he established friendly ties with important orthodox Christians at Constantinople.
When Synesius arrived at the capital, the political situation was volatile. Many Arian barbarians were prominent at court and held influential positions. The violent events and reversals of fortune of the next few years provide evidence of serious infighting among the different cliques at court. [35]
32. For Synesius’ ambivalence over these “three unspeakable years” see De Ins. 1308D and Hymn III 1.431.
33. Epp. 31, 34, and 38.
34. De Prov., 1253A-1256B. In this passage the philosophical opponent of Typho (Caesarius) and friend of Osiris (Aurelian), who grants him exception from curial burdens, is surely Synesius himself.
51
For the moment (399) Aurelian and his orthodox Christian friends were in power. The Goth Gaïnas, who had risen from the ranks to a position of command in the army, was in Asia Minor ostensibly putting down the revolt of Tribigild. [36] In reality, he himself had instigated Tribigild in order to find a pretext to put an army into the field and thereby gain control over the Eastern Empire and the throne at Constantinople. As commander of the army he had already sent for many of his Gothic compatriots and had placed them in positions of power in the military. In this tense atmosphere it is likely that Synesius presented his speech On Kingship to Arcadius with some urgency. The emperor had to be warned of the impending danger and decisively won over to the right side.
The purposes of Gaïnas soon became apparent. In hope of appeasing the barbarian, Arcadius sent an embassy to him. Gaïnas demanded that his enemies, Saturninus and the consul Aurelian, [37] must be turned over to him. Having little choice in the matter, Arcadius complied with the request. Saturninus and Aurelian went to a place near Chalcedon, willing to accept whatever fate had in store for them. Traveling with them was one Joannes, a favorite of the emperor whom the Goth had also demanded. Gaïnas, however, after behaving in a threatening manner, decided to send them into exile unharmed.
Not satisfied with this concession, the barbarian moved into Constantinople itself. His ally Caesarius, who in 399 had been deposed as Praetorian Prefect in favor of his brother Aurelian, was in power again and ready to receive and encourage Gaïnas and his troops. [38]
35. For a necessarily tentative discussion of politics and political figures at the court of Arcadius vis-à-vis Synesius’ mission and speech see Lacombrade, Discours 5-30.
36. The account that follows is based on the original sources. With some variations all the histories of the period, pagan and Christian, tell the same basic story. Socrates, HE 6.6; Sozomen, HE 8.4; Philostr. HE 9.8; Eunap. frr. 75.6-82 (Dindorf); Zosimus, V.7-22. It is interesting to note that Christian historians attribute the exit of Gaïnas from the city to miracles: the auspicious appearance of a comet in the sky and the appearance of angels in the guise of Roman soldiers. Zosimus, a more than nominal pagan, does not report these occurrences, but says that Gaïnas feigned war-weariness so that he could retire from the city and direct the coup from a position of safety outside of the gates. But in another place (V.6) Zosimus says that Attica was spared when Alaric invaded Greece because the barbarian was frightened off when he saw an apparition of Athena Promachos patrolling the wall.
Synesius’ allegorical version of the events found in the De Prov. differs in certain details from contemporary histories. His role in the affair must be worked out through a comparison of his writings with sources that do not mention him. On Gaïnas’ campaign against Tribigild, see Coster, 159.
37. A.D. 400 was the year of Aurelian’s consulship.
38. The role of Caesarius, also ignored by historians of the period, has been reconstructed here from the account of Synesius in the De Prov.; Philostratus, HE 11.5, mentions Caesarius as the successor to Rufinus in the office of Praetorian Prefect.
52
The success of the coup seemed imminent. Gaïnas discharged many of the troops who had served under him, thereby greatly weakening the defenses of the city. At this point, either because of reports of armed resistance and the unsettled character of the situation in the city, or simply to direct the fighting from outside the walls and enter the city during the ensuing chaos, Gaïnas began to retreat to a suburb a few miles outside of town. [39] Soon afterward, the over-anxious Gaïnas got into a skirmish with the guards at the gates before his men inside the city were ready to initiate the coup. The alarm was raised and everybody in the city began to attack the Goths and repel Gaïnas at the walls. The usually indecisive Arcadius finally declared Gaïnas a public enemy and ordered the Goths who had remained within the walls killed. The imperial decree was carried out with the aid of an outraged populace. [40] Gaïnas himself did not attempt to return to Constantinople, but made his way to the Thracian Chersonese, where he was soon pursued and defeated by a Roman officer named Fravitta. He managed to elude the Roman troops, but was eventually killed by Uldes the Hun, who subsequently brought his head to Arcadius. A great threat to the East Roman Empire had finally been destroyed. Aurelian, who had gone into exile, was able to return in triumph several months after the Goths had been driven out of Constantinople. Orthodoxy triumphed over heresy, Greco-Roman civilization over barbarism.
These events formed the backdrop against which Synesius composed both On Kingship and On Providence. In them, Synesius gave voice to his conviction that the Goths represented a form of barbarism that threatened to destroy the ancient way of life. Aurelian, who stands for goodness and civilized values, is allegorically represented in On Providence by Osiris; his brother and ally of the Goths Caesarius, who stands for evil and barbarous values, is represented by Typho. The Arian Goths represented to Synesius what the Christians represented to Julian—outsiders hostile to the Greco-Roman way, and a threat to the good order of the world. Hence Synesius’ reference to the religion of the barbarians as a distorted and false caricature of religion. As Christianity had been a kind of anti-cult to Julian, so was the barbarized heresy of the Goths to Synesius.
On the cosmic level, Osiris in On Providence represents the good, orderly, and unifying element in things. Typho represents the bad, chaotic, and disorderly element.
39. See above, n. 36.
40. Caesarius, an instigator of the coup, managed to remain in office for a few more months, although his power and popularity rapidly declined. Aurelian returned late in 401 or early in 402; cf. Lacombrade, Synésios 104; Fitzgerald, Letters 19 n. 1.
53
In typical Neoplatonic fashion, Synesius connects the cosmic with the mundane by means of the principle of correspondence: events on earth reflect and imitate different aspects of the principles that underlie reality. Everything in the cosmos in some sense reflects everything else.
For Synesius, then, not the orthodox Christians, but rather the barbarian heretics, threatened the stability of the world. Julian had perceived Christianity as a new kind of spiritual barbarism—one that could neither be rationalized nor absorbed into the Greco-Roman order. Synesius did not perceive Christianity in this way, at least not as practiced by the orthodox Christians with whom he had come into contact; hence the importance of his experience at Constantinople for helping to make possible his accommodation with Christianity.
Given Synesius’ views as expressed in his writings, and given the background of contemporary events at court, it is distinctly possible that Synesius’ speech On Kingship became a rallying point for the anti-Gothic forces at court. Moreover, it is likely that it became “the anti-German manifesto of the party of Aurelian,” [41] at a time when, both from within and without, the Goths threatened to overwhelm the Eastern Empire. Thus we might think of the speech as the appeal of a “lobbyist” for the cause of Mediterranean ideals and civilization against the threat of northern barbarism.
We have seen that Synesius believed the philosopher should be an active citizen involved in the issues of his day. Consequently, in On Kingship, he applied his philosophical vision to political analysis in an effort to save the state from immediate danger, and to suggest a policy of general reform that might help to avoid a recurrence of similar dangers. He cleverly used Platonic themes to reinforce the arguments employed in his discussion of army reforms. He recommends that the army be made up of loyal citizens rather than hired foreign mercenaries: like Plato’s class of “auxiliaries” in the Republic, they will be fierce to external enemies, but kind and well disposed toward their fellow citizens. The foreigners, who have no reason to be loyal, are like a pack of wild animals who will turn on the citizens at the first opportunity. [42]
41. Lacombrade, Discours 5.
42. De Regno 23C-25A (pp. 46-49, Terzaghi ed.); Plato, Rep. 416A-D; cf. also De Regno, 1089C-D, where this image is applied to the contemporary situation. For a possible (partial) explanation of why Synesius would be willing to accept orthodoxy, and even allude unfavorably to the Arians, see Brown, Religion and Society 90f and 148. Orthodoxy was becoming the new way to romanization:
“for a bishop, Orthodoxy was the only bridge over which a barbarian could enter civilization; and in the eyes of John Chrysostom, a Goth who was fully identified with the Roman Order by pagan standards but who had remained an Arian, might just as well have stayed in his skins across the Danube” (see Theodoret HE 5.32 and Brown, ibid. 53f). Brown, ibid. 148, believes that whereas in the West the new Christians showed themselves only too ready to collaborate with other new rulers untainted by the classical-pagan past (i.e., the barbarians), in the East, orthodox Christians absorbed many old pagan ideals. In the West new Christians were less Roman about orthodoxy. Needless to say the pagan-influenced Senate at Rome was an exception.
54
Following this line of argument, Synesius adds that the barbarian should be excluded not only from the armies, but from both the high magistracies and the imperial council.
Couched within this appeal for his town, then, is a discourse on ideal kingship and imperial reform. [43] This medley is clearly in the tradition of local patriotism, which became very important to Greek cities under the Roman Empire. To compensate for lack of political autonomy these cities would compete with each other for imperial favor and generally try to outdo each other in architecture and other cultural endeavors. The local nobles competed in public benefaction. The prize was time (“honor,” or better yet, “social recognition and standing”).
Orations on kingship were common in the Roman Empire. Delivery of such orations before the emperor became a solid tradition at court between the second and fourth centuries. In the baroque atmosphere of the Late Empire they were often merely dazzling showpieces aimed only at enhancing the aura surrounding the throne. However, some of them, like Synesius’ On Kingship, were persuasive pieces meant as serious appeals to the emperor. This seems to be true of the speech of Synesius. One indication that On Kingship went beyond being a tissue of topoi presented to a Christian emperor showing traditional tolerance to a pagan orator is the fact that Synesius addresses specific recommendations to Arcadius himself, rather than to some hypothetical philosopher-king; these nearly always present the perfect ruler as one who rules wisely and justly because he imitates and tries as far as possible to assimilate himself to some metaphysical entity such as the Platonic Good or Stoic Logos.
Without involving ourselves in an extraneous analysis of the speech in its historical setting, let us briefly review some of its main themes.
43. De Regno 2D (ed. Terzaghi, p. 7):
Ἐμὲ σοὶ πέμπει Κυρήνη, σχεφανώσοντα χρυσῷ μὲν τὴν κεφαλήν, φιλοσοφία δὲ τὴν ψυχήν, πόλις Ἑλληνίς, παλαιὸν ὄνομα καὶ σεμνόν, καὶ ἐν ῷδῇ μυρία, τῶν πάλαι σοφῶν νῦν πένης καὶ κατηφὴς καὶ μέγα ἐρείπιον καὶ βασιλέως δεόμενον, εἰ μέλλοι τι πράξειν τῆς περὶ αὐτὴν ἀρχαιολογίας ἐπάξιον.
Cf. Lacombrade, Discours 7.
For the tradition of Platonic-Pythagorean theories of ideal kingship see Goodenough, YCS 1.55-102; Délatte, passim; cf. also Ladner, 113-132 and notes. If we confine ourselves to the Roman Empire, Synesius’ predecessors in this genre include among others Musonius Rufus, Plutarch, Dio of Prusa, perhaps the Neopythagorean writings on kingship, Corpus Hermeticum 18, Libanius, Themistius, and the many speeches collected in the Panegyrici Veteres. For the ancient rhetorical rules pertaining to court panegyric (egkomion Basileos) see Menandros Rhetor, peri epideiktikon, in Spengel, Rhetores Graeci 3.368f.
55
We must, says Synesius, return to the Platonic ideal of the philosopher-king: the emperor is the imitatio dei; as such he must attempt to organize his kingdom in the way God orders the universe, providentially. [44] The political plan is a critique of what the Roman Empire had become from what it had been and could be once again. Synesius adverts to the pomposity of the court, with its elaborate ceremonial and oriental luxury, its corruption and abuses, which is detrimental to the health of the Empire. The monarch must be as bright as his model, the Sun (here, of course, thought of as the epiphany of the Good in the visible cosmos). Living as simply as Agesilaus or Epaminondas, he is to come out of seclusion and be both a soldier among his troops and the leading citizen among his fellow citizens. [45] If the Empire is to survive, expensive court costs must be reduced, taxes reformed, the leading classes in the cities rehabilitated, so that urban life can be restored to its old vitality. [46] The monarch must choose able administrators to run the provinces; acting in the state as the deity does in the cosmos, he is to delegate powers for all needs without attending to every detail. [47]
Thus Synesius outlined a policy of reform that was conceptually Platonic and “nationalistic” in its main outlines, a policy, moreover, that could be applied to the immediate situation as well as to the general and abiding problems of the Empire. If Hellenism was to be saved, barbarous practices had to be curbed both internally (i.e., the luxury of the court) and externally (i.e., the use of Gothic armies). Such reductions in imperial expenditure were a normal remedy urged by conservatives in the fourth century. It is likely that some important members of Synesius’ audience agreed with him, for the policy was implemented and seems to
44. De Regno 1064B-1068C (pp. 11-13, Terzaghi ed.); cf. also Lacombrade, Synésios 84-87, who says that for Synesius in De Regno prayers, mysteries, etc. do not glorify power but adore the providence of the divine prince as the image of God.
45. De Regno 1077D-1081A, 1085B-1088C; see also Bidez, Julien 40-50, 213-219, and 236-241. But cf. Ladner, 118 no. 34:
“The ‘imperial’ ideology of Christian reform continued to a large extent pagan ideas about the ruler as savior, liberator, benefactor, reformer of mankind.
Synesius’ extensive quotes from the classics, however, his deference to Plato and Aristotle, and his concept of deity derived from the school of Hypatia, all indicate that his program had its roots in Greek philosophical ideas of reform, which were compatible with many Christian ideas of the same kind. Many of his statements on political reform can also be traced back to the political writings of earlier Greek philosophers, e.g., Aristotle, Politics 1273a23, Ἀριστίνδην αὖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ πλουτίνδην, ὥσπερ νῦν τῶν ἀρξόντων αἵρεσις γινέσθω; see PG 66.1104D.
46. De Regno 1100B.
47. Synesius seems quite pagan here if we think of the delegated powers as the different orders of gods who create, animate, harmonize and guard the cosmos; cf. Sallustius, De Diis et Mundo 6.
56
have lasted through the praetorian prefectures of Aurelian and Anthemius. [48] Orthodox Christians in the audience applauded and supported Synesius at the court in a policy that was—with the obvious exception of the idea of a sacerdotal pagan church—virtually identical with that of Julian and many other traditional Greco-Roman aristocrats throughout the Empire. Indeed, at this time they were much more frightened by the threat of an Arian empire than that of a revived pagan Rome. They saw his interests as their interests, probably approached him when he arrived at court, and formed a political alliance with him—both because of the immediate political situation, his social position and the nature of his conversion to philosophy. [49] Synesius was forced to play the role of the activist philosopher. Thus he adopted a role that unexpectedly brought him into the Christian camp.
Synesius, who had been educated in a school of Greek philosophy not actively hostile to Christianity, which had even attracted Christian students, now began to find positive reasons to favor Christianity: he could claim that, far from undermining the safety and health of the state (a perennial pagan criticism), orthodox Christians were perfectly in accord with the traditional ideology of the Greco-Roman world and would defend the traditional state. Not only would they fight the barbarians, but they would also adopt a program in accord with the highest principles of ancient wisdom. Julian, if he had been alive, might have considered Synesius a collaborator yet he could not have claimed with full justice that he was collaborating with those who would destroy the ancient way of life. Moreover, Synesius was not attached to cults in the mystical-ontological way of Julian’s followers; [50] that is, he did not believe that the order of society or the cosmos was endangered if certain mysteries were not celebrated, or if certain rites were neglected: if the survival of civilized mankind now required a single religion or cult, Christianity—which Synesius was beginning to think of as the wave of the future—could be accommodated to the Hellenic spirit.
48. Coster, 161, points out that with the exception of a few Armenian or Persian names, we know of no military officers in the Empire of the East during this period with barbarian names; cf. RE 11.1151; Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 1.362ff.
On reductions in expenditure: Julian thought that sophrosyne (meaning austerity) rather than increased taxes (phoroi) would reverse the decline; see the edict ascribed to him, P. Fayum 20 col. II in Juliani epistulae et leges 86 and 57; and Mazzarino, n. 63 on pp. 379-380. Fiscal discipline was a normal remedy urged by conservatives in the fourth century. It was about as far as their economic sense could reach.
49. Cf. De Regno 2B (ed. Terzaghi, p. 6); cf. also 26C-D (ed. Terzaghi, p. 52), where Synesius gives praise to philosophy—which he almost personifies in the manner of Boethius—as a religion to which conversion is possible.
50. For cosmic anxiety connected with the downfall of the mysteries, cf. Eunap. Vit. Soph. 471 (ed. Boissonade).
57
Thus, differing from exclusivists on both sides, Synesius embarked upon his unique synthesis.
In addition to his perception of common interests with Aurelian and the anti-Gothic party, Synesius was beginning to find common ideological ground with Christianity. Ladner has demonstrated that the “renovation of the empire, accompanied by age-old traditions of ruler worship and of the eternal rejuvenation of Rome, became one aspect of Christian reform ideology” in the Constantinian-Theodosian age. [51] The king as the living image of God imitating the hypercosmic-noetic realm also has parallels in Christian thought. [52] Besides Eusebius’ imperial ideology beginning in the second century, the school of Alexandria had made possible a type of Platonic Christianity potentially having much in common with the thought of Synesius. His Christian friends, both in the school of Hypatia and at court, could have made him cognizant of this fact—whether or not he was familiar with Patristic authors. Moreover, the issue was not only religious and philosophical, but also involved the concrete social concerns of a politically responsible gentleman.
Thus, whereas Julian outlined his policy as opposition to Christianity, Synesius was able to outline a similar policy with enthusiastic Christian support. Whereas Julian saw no possibility of reconciliation with Christianity, Synesius not only saw the possibility, but helped to make it a reality. Paganism was dying as the way of life of the Empire:
51. Ladner, 118.
“The return to the ancient state of affairs brought about through renewal of the kingship ἐς τὸ ἀρχαὶον πρᾶγμα is the political application of that ἀποκατάστασις εἰς τὸ ἀρχαὶον which one meets in a mystical and eschatological sense, for instance in Gregory of Nyssa”
(see also 123 n. 42 for further references).
52. Ibid. 122 n. 42; see also 144 n. 25:
“Why was the earthly Basileia of Constantine an imitation of the heavenly one? The divine Logos, who had fashioned man according to the image and likeness of God and had made him, alone among all earthly creatures, capable of ruling and of being ruled, had renewed (ἀνανεούμενος) this seed laid in creation through his Gospel of the heavenly Kingdom. Now Constantine has become a participant [it seems to me that the Platonic idea of ‘participation in Form’ is operative here] in the Kingdom of God already on earth, shaping through truly royal virtues a copy (μίμημα) of the Kingdom beyond in his soul. The βασιλεύς friend of God, who bears the image of the supernal βασιλεία can be said to govern the affairs of the world with and through the word of God in imitation of the Almighty. The emperor’s relationship to God is seen as an imitation of the relation between the divine Logos and the Father: just as the Logos rules together (συμβασιλεύων) with the Father from and in infinity, so Constantine rules over the earth for many years; just as the Saviour orders the supernal Kingdom for His Father, so the emperor makes his subjects on earth fit for it; just as the one opens the doors of the Father’s Kingdom to those who leave this world, so the other, after having purged his terrestrial kingdom of godless error, calls all pious men into the mansions of the empire (εἴσω βασιλικῶν οἴκνω). It would indeed be hard to imagine a closer representation of the heavenly in the terrestrial Basilica, of the Kingdom of God in the Roman Empire renewed by Christ and Constantine”;
see also ibid. 121f and nn. 39, 40, and 41.
58
Synesius had seen in his youth the destruction of the Serapeum, the severe anti-pagan legislation of Theodosius, and the final defeat of pagan political hopes in the battle of the Frigidus. Is it surprising that he was willing to ally himself with Christians who seemed interested in and responsive to his beloved Hellenism? Nor was this simply a matter of compromise on the part of Synesius. He criticized those aspects of Christianity that conflicted with his ideals, for instance, the desert ascetics whose ideal was in many ways opposed to that of the classic city- bourgeoisie: Synesius considered their way of life uncivil and uncivilized, too un-Hellenic to be acceptable. Rather than join the now rapidly forming pagan underground and involving himself in a movement like the Athenian, Synesius chose to stay with the mainstream and to attempt to influence the society of his time. The alternative was to nurture pagan hopes that Christianity was a passing phase and that the old religion would return in all its glory. This became a received principle among Neoplatonists at Athens from the late fourth to the early sixth century.
In dealing with pagan-Christian theological issues, Synesius was to continue in the spirit and pattern of the ideological and political entente he made with the Christians at Constantinople. The battle to save Hellenism from barbarism, to save Romania and its civilized institutions from the barbarization of its population, was more important to him than the battle between paganism and Christianity. If Christians were ready to take up this battle, in an era when paganism was on the wane, it could no longer legitimately be called collaboration for a true Hellene to ally himself with them. Moreover, in certain respects, the religious and philosophical distance between the two was not as wide as many had thought. Such must have been Synesius’ thoughts during his stay at court. If he left Constantinople not yet a baptized Christian, or even officially a catechumen, he certainly left as a strange kind of fellow-traveler: one who would adapt Christianity to Hellenism while, at the same time, moving close enough to Christianity to eventually accept the new religion on his own terms. [53]
Late Roman aristocrats such as Symmachus have often been characterized as noble but myopic conservatives in a dynamic age, who could not understand the significance of the changes taking place in their midst. If so, this judgment cannot be applied to Synesius.
53. Momigliano, Conflict 14, speaking of the differences of East and West on the issue of Paganism v. Christianity, says:
“The Greek Fathers never produced searching criticisms of the Roman State comparable with those of St. Augustine and Salvian. On the contrary, St. John Chrysostom supported the anti-German party in Constantinople, and Synesius became a convert and a bishop after having outlined the programme of that party”;
cf. above n. 42.
59
He was a traditional aristocrat who was flexible enough to try to adapt what he considered to be perennial values to the new age. He never attempted to make the type of transformation and new cultural synthesis that an Augustine or Gregory of Nyssa made. This was not his intention. Nor was such a viewpoint available to him, for Synesius identified with the values of the old nobility. After all, someone like Augustine was not rooted in the old Greco-Roman way of life as Synesius was: he was half a product of it and half something new. Synesius’ purpose was the opposite of that of Augustine or the Cappadocians: he wanted Christianity to be a new form of expression for Hellenism.
III. The Middle Years (A.D. 402-409):
From Constantinople to the Bishopric
Having successfully completed his mission, [1] Synesius departed from Constantinople in 402, apparently during an earthquake (Ep. 61), and returned home via Alexandria, where he married a Christian in 403. Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, presided at the wedding (Ep. 105, 1485A). The name and family of Synesius’ wife are unknown to us. She is thought to have belonged to a prominent Christian family because of Theophilus’ presence at the ceremony. [2] Synesius’ Christian marriage suggests the likely conjecture that he was or was about to become a catechumen, although the evidence is scanty and inconclusive. [3] But there is no evidence for the baptism of his children, and the Church historians indicate that his own baptism took place only upon his entry to the priesthood in A.D. 410. [4] The evidence is lacking on which to base a conclusion on Synesius’ confessional stance vis-à-vis the Church at this time; but we may note that he was now in close contact with prominent Christians close to home.
The alliance, which began when orthodox Christians turned to support the interests of Hellenism and Roman patriotism, was to be a lasting one.
1. De Prov. 1253C and 1256B, indicate that Synesius won fiscal benefits for the cities of his province; he was exempted from curial responsibilities by Aurelian as a result of his service (Ep. 100, 1468D).
2. This statement is based on Ep. 105, 1485A: Ἐμοὶ τοιγαροῦν ὅ τε θεὸς, ὅ τε νόμος ἤ τε ἱερὰ θεοφίλου χεὶρ γυναίκα ἐπιδέδωκε.
3. Lacombrade, Synésios 218 n. 16.
“Est-il besoin, après cela, d’insinuer davantage que, en ce qui concerne Synésios encore non baptisé, cette ‘raison d’État’ de la cité de Dieu dut peser davantage que la rectitude éprouvée de son sens moral et que ses sympathies manifestes à l’endroit de la cause chrétienne? Les témoignages des auteurs ecclésiastiques sont formels, cf. Evagr., H.E., I, 15; Nicéphor Call., H.E., XIV, 55; Phot., Bibl. can., 26. Synésios, du moins, devait être, depuis son mariage chrétien, catéchumène. Le concile de Chalcédoine n’autorisera par la suite (451) le mariage mixte que sous promesse de conversion du conjoint non chrétien.
But could not the political Theophilus have blessed a mixed marriage in this case because he felt the alliance was important enough to warrant such an act? We would do well not to be overly legalistic in our approach to this question.
4. Cf. Evagrius HE 1.15: πεόθουσι (the Christians) δ᾿ οὖν ἀυτὸν τῆς σωτηριώδους παλλιγγενεσίας ἀξιωθῆναι καὶ τὸν ζυγὸν τῆς ἱερωσύνης ὑπελθεῖν, οὔπω τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀναστάσεως παραδεχόμενον οὐδὲ δοξάζειν ἐθέλοντα, κτλ.
60