THE MAKING OF A CHRISTIAN ARISTOCRACY Michele Renee Salzman The Making of a Christian Aristocracy Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England Copyright © 2002 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America First Harvard University Press paperback edition, 2004 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Salzman, Michele Renee. The making of a Christian aristocracy : social and religious change in the western Roman Empire / Michele Renee Salzman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-674-00641-0 (cloth) ISBN 0-674-01603-3 (pbk.) 1. Christian converts—Rome. 2. Aristocracy (Social class)—Religious life—Rome. 3. Sociology, Christian—History—Early church, ca. 30–600. I. Title. BR195.C6 S35 2002 270.2Ј086Ј21—dc21 2001047075 To my husband, Steven, and my children, Juliana and Ben Contents Preface ix 1. Approaches to a Paradox 1 2. Defining the Senatorial Aristocracy 19 3. Aristocratic Men: Social Origins 69 4. Aristocratic Men: Career Paths 107 5. Aristocratic Women 138 6. The Emperor’s Influence on Aristocratic Conversion 178 7. The Aristocrats’ Influence on Christianity 200 Tables 221 Appendix 1: Sources, Criteria, and Variables for the Database 231 Appendix 2: Names and Religious Affiliation of Aristocrats in the Study 243 Appendix 3: Sources for the Database—Addenda and Corrigenda to PLRE 254 Appendix 4: High Office Holders 258 Abbreviations and Frequently Cited Works 265 Notes 269 Index 342 Preface Every student of the later Roman empire will, at one time or other, confront the subject of this book: What did it take to make the Roman aristocracy in the later western empire change its ancient religious traditions, turning from paganism to Christianity, in the century of Constantine? My answer to this question would not have been possible without the work of generations of scholars, whose advances and missteps have chal- lenged and taught me. Although, in the end, dissatisfaction with their solu- tions and approaches led me to write this book, I have learned much from my predecessors and the frameworks they used. Hence it seems only fitting to outline in brief the approaches and advances that led me to write this book as I did.1 Many scholars in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century studied Christianization by interpreting the experiences of individuals. The classic study of conversion by Arthur Darby Nock is emblematic of this approach. Nock sees the process as “the reorientation of the soul of the individual, his deliberate turning from indifference or from an earlier form of piety to an- other, a turning which implies a consciousness that a great change is in- volved, that the old was wrong and the new is right.” Nock emphasized the individual’s decision and the appeal of the message of Christianity to the in- dividual.2 Implicit in the work of many who, following in Nock’s footsteps, study the lives of individual converts is the notion that conversion is a response to a felt need. For a time, scholars were much influenced by the modern concept of cognitive dissonance, a theory that assumes that people who are attracted to a different religion feel in some measure conflict in their present state and gravitate naturally toward a “message” of some sort that soothes that inner turmoil.3 This focus on the personal side of conversion fits easily with mod- ix x Preface ern notions of individualism, and it is reinforced by the nature of the extant evidence, for what survives most strikingly are texts by and about the con- versions of individuals.4 However, such studies rely on a convert’s reinterpretation of his own past in terms of his present perspective and goals.5 Moreover, the story of any particular individual might be more idiosyncratic than typical. While ap- proaching Christianization through the mindset of the individual aristocrat may tell us much about the way in which that individual wishes to be per- ceived, this approach will not allow historians to assess the transformation of the aristocracy as a class—which is precisely what is necessary for analyz- ing a religious change like the Christianization of the Roman aristocracy. Similar problems arise from an approach that would explain the spread of Christianity on the basis of its ideological or theological message. Some scholars believed that Christianity’s doctrine was simply superior; this implicit theological understanding explains why the influential religious scholar Adolf Harnack and his circle used the term “expansion” as a virtual synonym for the “triumph of the gospel message over its environment.”6 Thus some historians and theologians isolated aspects of fourth-century Christianity that were notably distinctive and hence, in their view, led to its triumph over paganism. Some have seen its promise of salvation as espe- cially appealing in troubled times.7 Others have focused on the radical con- ceptualization of Christian love with its concomitant ideas of mercy and compassion, which developed into a notion of social welfare new to the Ro- man empire.8 Still others have theorized that Christianity offered a new and broader form of community in which all were “equal in Christ,” stripping its adherents of ethnicity and other social distinctions.9 Relatively few scholars, however, have attempted to explain the spread of Christianity among the senatorial aristocracy on ideological grounds alone. This may well be the result of a view that aristocrats were among the least likely people to be sympathetic to the ideas of Christianity. Only a hand- ful of scholars have focused on the inherent attraction Christian ideology held for aristocrats, and then mostly in terms of the individual’s intellectual growth.10 This motive appears, too, in the work of those who see Christian- ity as uniquely offering elite women the freedom to pursue the study of bib- lical texts. Some idea-based explanations have clearly fallen out of favor. The notion that the doctrine of Christianity is somehow better than all others is at odds with what comparative religionists tell us about the ways that very diver- Preface xi gent religious doctrines can satisfy spiritual needs. There is no good way of proving or disproving such claims other than to point to the success of Chris- tianity, a tautology out of which we cannot progress. In any case, explanations grounded in Christian ideas suffer by presuppos- ing that people act primarily on the basis of belief. Beliefs matter, but to have broader historical impact they need to interact with wider social and politi- cal forces and institutions. A strictly theological or idea-based approach can- not answer why some groups of aristocrats found Christianity intellectually and emotionally compelling while others did not, nor why some groups were more likely to convert earlier than others. Historians of the last fifty years who have emphasized the political and so- cial forces surrounding this change have taken a more fruitful approach. Those examining the political forces involved in the religious transformation of the aristocracy have focused on the role of the emperor.11 Constantine and the pro-Christian policies that he and his successors advanced are viewed as having been the direct cause of the conversion of the aristocracy and the population at large.12 Historians who share this assumption differ on how the emperors Christianized the aristocracy. In the aftermath of World War II some scholars emphasized the conflictual aspects of this process, see- ing the struggle between emperor and aristocracy as a power play between two opposing religious camps.13 A generation of scholars in the 1950s and 1960s, perhaps influenced by Cold War politics, emphasized more subtle methods. They focused on the impact of imperial appointments to high of- fice or changes in the duties of certain magistracies as more indirect avenues for affecting religious change.14 The dominant political interpretive model by and large sees religion spreading from “top to bottom,” with an aristocracy following the religious lead of powerful Christian emperors. Some have diligently examined the number of pagan or Christian appointees by individual emperors as a dem- onstration of this influence. Since assessing the religiosity of one or another individual can depend on differing analyses of the evidence, this approach has led to differing conclusions. R. von Haehling analyzed imperial appoint- ments in the East and West and found a gradual change, with an emphasis on the reign of Gratian as a pivotal time. But when T. D. Barnes reanalyzed von Haehling’s evidence, he came up with different statistics, which he then used to argue that the Christianization of the aristocracy was fast and gener- ally noncontroversial, reflecting a rapid adjustment of aristocratic behavior to fit imperial policy.15 xii Preface I do not reject the notion that emperors had an impact, yet emperors had to work against an entrenched and considerably autonomous aristocratic culture. Hence imperial influence was more diffuse and, as this study will show, the conversion of its aristocracy slower than Barnes and certain schol- ars have argued. The fourth-century Christian emperors who developed Constantine’s initial policies are of importance in this process. Indeed, con- sidering only imperial appointments provides too limited a gauge of late Roman political life. Politics also worked outside of the formal channels of appointment, through the building of patronage obligations, friendships, family ties, and the like. Recognition of the numerous avenues of late antique politics has led some to widen their study of imperial influence. John Matthews showed the im- portance not only of the emperor but of the imperial court and its courtiers in setting policy after 364.16 Others have traced the imperial laws that privi- leged Christians (particularly bishops) and penalized pagans or the role of emperor as patron.17 Yet such political analyses have not gone far enough, for Christianization is still construed essentially in terms of the emperor’s influence on the aris- tocracy.