A game of power Courtly influence on the decision-making of emperor Theodosius II (r. 408-450) Research Master Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Dr. L.V. Rutgers Consulting reader: Dr. R. Strootman RMA Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Studies Utrecht University 16-06-2013 Emma Groeneveld [email protected] 3337707 1 Index Preface ................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4 1. Court studies ..................................................................................................... 8 2. Theodosius ......................................................................................................20 3. High officials ....................................................................................................25 4. Eunuchs ..........................................................................................................40 5. Royal women ...................................................................................................57 6. Analysis ...........................................................................................................69 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................83 Bibliography.........................................................................................................86 Appendix I. ..........................................................................................................92 Amount of words of the whole document including footnotes: 39.835 Amount of words of the chapters, preface, introduction and conclusion, without footnotes: 36.099 2 Preface Political history has always intrigued me. For some years already the books I tend to read in my spare time are predominantly concerned with ancient or medieval kingdoms, rulers and courts. It was thus hardly surprising when, fairly soon into my research master programme on ancient history, my focus shifted from diplomacy – a topic that had busied me since my bachelor thesis – to the ancient courts. The first essay I wrote with this perspective was for the course Late Antiquity, taught by prof. Dr. Leonard Rutgers at Utrecht University, and it was an instant hit both with the professor and myself. From then on my mind was made up to explore the phenomenon of the court more extensively, resulting in a few other essays written for different courses, and, eventually, in this thesis. I have had the pleasure of lifting some of the shadows present at the court that obscured the closed doors, council- and private chambers and narrow corridors that were from time to time rife with schemes and intrigue. This is a process I have greatly enjoyed going through, but nonetheless I could not have gone through it entirely by myself; credit is due where it is deserved. Thanks must go first of all to my supervisor Leonard Rutgers, who has provided me with useful feedback and allowed me the space to do my own thing with this topic. Secondly, Rolf Strootman, who functioned as consulting reader for this thesis, helped me delve into the broader world of court studies in a useful tutorial I followed from September 2012 until January 2013. Thirdly, my fellow student K. M. Lahcen has given his opinion on some specific parts of this thesis, thus aiding me in applying the finishing touches. Fourthly, my dear friend Louise Vink has turned my messy first version of Figure 1 into a neat and professional looking chart, which is naturally the version I have chosen to use in this thesis. Finally my mother, Joke Groeneveld, who is an English teacher, has my eternal gratitude for freeing up time in her busy schedule to read and correct my use of English in this entire thesis. Emma Groeneveld Utrecht, June 2013 3 Introduction Often when describing the reign of a monarch at some point in history, historians refer to ‘the king’s policy’ or describe how ‘the emperor decided’ on the outcome of a matter of political importance. This is usually done for convenience’s sake - to create a general overview of the period in question - but the truth, as those historians are surely aware of, is that policy-making and decision-making were processes that did not take place in a void. Instead, the ruler often consulted with advisors or advisory bodies, as well as perhaps hearing the opinions of those who were close to him – family and friends – who could potentially have an influence on the ruler’s decision. The role played by high officials or by a broader section of the nobility (where one existed) in this process could vary greatly depending on the time and place in history one investigates. See, for example, the contrast between the English king Henry III (r. 1216-72), who became increasingly subjected to the power and will of the barons and ended up with nothing much to say at all, and the French powerhouse Louis XIV, the Sun King (r. 1643-1715), who consulted with his advisors but clearly had the final word and was determined not to let any favourites influence his decision-making. The ruler’s decision-making was thus not a straightforward matter. Yet, the creation of policy, which usually took place at the court, stood at the heart of an empire- or kingdom’s exploitations, making it a highly interesting topic of study. Indeed, studies of the court certainly exist, especially concerning the lavish early modern courts of which that of Louis XIV is the most splendid example, but a focus on the process of decision-making is as of yet absent.1 What is more, the further one goes back in time, the less attention is awarded to the court. This can be explained by the fact that far fewer sources are extant, but that is no reason for not attempting such a specific investigation of an earlier court at all. The Roman Empire presents a hugely interesting period in which to investigate the machinations of the court, but so far the focus has mostly been on the reigns of emperors in general instead of dealing specifically with the court, and the influence that could be exercised on the emperor’s decision-making is still a scarcely illuminated topic.2 This is thus a field in which much can still be gained, and that is precisely what I aim to do. 1 See for instance studies such as A. G. Dickens (ed.), The courts of Europe: politics, patronage and royalty, 1400-1800 (1977); Asch and Birke (eds.), Princes, Patronage and the Nobility: the court at the beginning of the modern age c. 1450-1650 (London, Oxford 1991); T. Artan, J. Duindam, and M. Kunt (eds.), Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires: A Global Perspective. Rulers and Elites 1 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011); and see chapter one of this study. 2 Studies on the ancient court will be given attention in chapter one. Examples of such court studies are A.J.S. Spawforth (ed.), The Court and Court Society in Ancient Monarchies (Cambridge 2007); A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘The Imperial Court’ in: A. Bowman, E. Champlin, A. Lintott (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History vol. 10 (Cambridge 1996) 283-308; R. Strootman , ‘Eunuchs, concubines and renegades: The "paradox of power" and the promotion of favorites in the Hellenistic empires.’ In A. Erskine and L. Llewellyn-Jones (eds.), The Hellenistic Royal Court (Edinburgh, forthcoming); R. Strootman, ‘Hellenistic court society: The Seleukid imperial court under Antiochos the Great, 223-187 BCE.’ In J. Duindam, M. Kunt, T. Artan (eds.), Royal Courts in Dynastic 4 However, influence on decision-making is not the easiest subject of investigation, primarily because a large part of it often took place behind closed doors, inside the corridors and chambers of the court. Especially where it concerns informal influence – for example by the wife of an emperor who could give her opinion or discuss matters privately with her husband – the process often took place in the shadows. Thus, in order to have a chance at uncovering information about how policy was made, an as large amount of sources as possible is needed – something which the early Roman empire cannot sufficiently provide. More suited is the Roman Empire in late antiquity, particularly the fifth century, seeing that there are both a fair amount of written sources contemporary to that period and descriptions by later authors to be found, as well as an interesting emperor whose court to investigate. The emperor who will be the centre of my attention – just as he was the centre of his realm’s attention – is Theodosius II (r. 408-450). First off, some background about this figure is required. When the eastern Roman emperor Theodosius II died on the 28th of July, 450 after a fall from his horse, it brought to an end the longest reign of a Roman emperor since that of Augustus. He had ascended the throne in 408 when he was a mere eight years old following the death of his father Arcadius, and according to Gibbon his subsequent reign was characterised by him being dominated by women and eunuchs.3 Still, he is credited with overseeing the creation of one of the two great law codices of Late Antiquity – the Codex Theodosianus, the other being the Codex Justinianus – as well as battling the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches respectively, all while the empire’s borders were intermittently threatened by Persia or by ‘barbarian’ tribes such as the Vandals and the Huns. Theodosius II is thus a highly suitable subject for an investigation regarding influence on the ruler’s