Theodosius I the Great [for Theodosius II see theta 145]: 346 - January 17, 395 CE. Crowned Augustus on January 19, 378. See generally OCD(4) s.v. Theodosius(2); PLRE I, s.v. Flavius Theodosius 4; RE 10 and Suppl. 13.837-961; De Imperatoribus Romanis (David Woods) at web address 1.
As typical of entries on historical figures, the Suda presents a highly selective image of Theodosius’ life. This entry essentially consists of two passages from Zosimus’ Nova Historia (4.50-51 and 4.59) and an unrelated appendage on a homonym, Theodosius the Cenobiarch. The passages from Zosimus (zeta 169?) were probably derived from Eunapius’ Chronicle (349 – c.414 CE), which linked the disasters of the fourth and fifth centuries to the abandonment of traditional religious practices. Eunapius’ negative depiction of Theodosius, who to Eunapius completed the destruction of the empire begun by Constantine (Buck 1988, p. 41), undoubtedly influenced Zosimus’ characterization (Mendelssohn 1887, p. 266; Zosimus 1979, vol. 2, p. 447; cf. Jeep, op.cit. ibid.; Cameron 1969, p. 259). This entry follows Zosimus almost exactly, although a few sentences are simplified and some of Zosimus’ overtly anti-Christian rhetoric is suppressed.
[1] Theodosius initially recognized Magnus Maximus (De Imperatoribus Romanis, Walter E. Roberts, at web address 2) as Augustus after he had executed the western Emperor Gratian and occupied Gaul in 383. But when Maximus expelled Valentinian II in 387, Theodosius marched to the West and executed him at Aquila on August 27, 388.
[2] A contingent of Goths ('Scythians'), which may have included Alaric, defected from the Eastern army in 387 when Theodosius joined Valentinian II in the war against Maximus. They plundered the area of Salonica until Theodosius returned in 391 and drove them into Thrace. For the bizarre story of how Theodosius defeated the Goths, see Zosimus NH 4.48-49. The reference to Scythians here undoubtedly derives from the imprecise and confused ethnographic terminology used by the Suda’s sources. See Miteva 1988 for a full account (web address 3).
[3] It seems likely that the cryptic 'slaughter of Romans' refers to Theodosius’ infamous execution (in 390) of 7000 inhabitants of Thessalonica in retribution for the death of his general Butheric and several officers (Ambrose, Ep. 51; Theodoret, HE 5.17-18; Larson 1970). On strict chronological grounds, this notice cannot refer to the defeat of Arbogast (alpha 81) and Eugenius (De Imperatoribus Romanis, Walter E. Roberts, web address 4) at the Battle of Frigidus in 394, as Promotus fell from favor in 392. The 'slaughter of Romans', however, does not appear in Zosimus and it is possible that the Suda or its direct source has mistakenly included the battle of Frigidus at this point.
[4] pole/mois – katasta/s comes nearly verbatim from Zosimus NH 4.50-51; the entry omits Zosimus’ introduction, which implies that exhaustion from campaigning, rather than a venal spirit, contributed to Theodosius’ withdrawal. Promotus commanded Theodosius’ cavalry during the campaign against Maximus (RE VI A, pp. 1240f.; PLRE I, p. 914f.). He was removed from Court in 392 at the order of Theodosius (PLRE I, p. 750-751).
[5] Theodosius’ addiction to luxury was a common element of the portraits constructed by Eunapius and Zosimus: Eunapius frr. 48 and 49 (Exc. de Sent.); Zosimus NH 4.27.1; 4.33; 4.44.1, 4.50. Unsurprisingly, his panegyrist Pacatus praises him for frugality (Pacatus 13).
[6] cf. epsilon 498: e)kmelh\s r(a|qumi/a| te pa/sh| e)kkei/menos.
[7] cf. Zosimus NH 4.43.2.
[8] i.e. in 393 at Constantinople. Rufinus (rho 240) was a native of Aquitaine.
[9] Magister Officiorum: supervised all audiences with the emperor and had extensive authority over both civil and military officers (Cod. 1 tit.31; 12 tit.16; Cod. Theod. 1 tit.9; 6 tit.9; Amm. Marc. 15.5; 20.2, 22.3; Cassiod. Variar. 6.6). At this point the Suda breaks away from Zosimus’ account, which focused on political intrigues surrounding Rufinus’ rise to power and the war against Arbogast and Eugenius (NH 4.51-58).
[10] Honorius (omicron 405) was not elevated to Augustus in Rome, as this entry implies, but at Constantinople’s Hebdomon on January 23rd, 393, before Theodosius departed to the West to suppress Eugenius’ insurrection (Consul. Vind. Chron. I p. 298, 393, 521 and Seeck V p. 539). Honorius, however, had been proclaimed Caesar in Rome, with Theodosius in attendance, in 389 (Pacatus 47.3).
[11] The remainder of this entry’s discussion of Theodosius is derived from Zosimus NH 4.59.1-3. While Theodosius’ call on the senators to renounce pagan rites may have been historical (Ridley 1982, p. 204, n. 156), the story of Theodosius’ journey to Rome and his confrontation with a pagan senate in the fall of 394 is fiction (Zosimus 1986, vol. 2, pp. 470-473; Ensslin 1953; Döpp 1975; Buck 1988, p. 50-52; cf. Cameron 1969). It was not Theodosius but Gratian who first abolished state subsides for pagan rites in conjunction with the Altar of Victory controversy in 382. In fact, the subsidies had only been re-instituted by Eugenius and Nicomachus Flavianus in the months before the battle of Frigidus (Cameron 1969, p. 251).
[12] The anacoluthon at the start of this sentence is caused by the substitution of the neutral ta\ *xristianw=n for the anti-Christian a)/logon sugkata/qesin ('absurd submission') of Zosimus’ text.
[13] Theodosius the Cenobiarch: b. 423, Garissus; d. 529 CE; founded a large monastery at Cathismus and three churches before being appointed Cenobiarch – or supervisor - of all religious communities in Palestine; see Wikipedia entry at web address 5.
[14] cf. alpha 2077. Born c. 430 CE; selected by the Empress Ariadne as successor to her husband Zeno; acclaimed emperor on April 11, 491; d. July 9th, 518; nicknamed “Dicoros” (Two-Pupils) because of the color of his eyes: one black, one blue. He believed in Monophysitism, which held that Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian (orthodox) position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human. Anastasius attempted to bribe Saint Theodosius to gain support for Monophysitism but Theodosius distributed the money to the poor.