| |
|
Carney & Wehofer Family
Genealogy Pages
|
 |
|
 377 - 404 (27 years)
-
| Name |
Ælia Eudoxia Of The Eastern Roman Empire |
| Born |
377 |
Frankish Gaul  |
| Gender |
Female |
| _UID |
26511234167644778E790F1730FE8C695477 |
| Died |
6 Oct 404 |
| Person ID |
I4109 |
Carney Wehofer 2024 Genealogy |
| Last Modified |
5 Feb 2012 |
| Family |
Arcadius I (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 395-408), b. 377-378, Cauca (Coca), Gallaecia, Spain , d. May 408, Rome, Italy (Age 30 years) |
| Married |
27 Apr 395 |
| Children |
| | 1. Flaccilla, b. 17 Jun 397, d. Yes, date unknown |
| | 2. Pulcheria, b. 19 Jan 398-399, d. 453 (Age 53 years) |
| | 3. Arcadia, b. 3 Apr 400, d. Yes, date unknown |
| | 4. Theodosius II (Emperor Of The Eastern Roman Empire - 408-450), b. 10 Apr 401, Constantinople, Turkey , d. 28 Jul 450, Constantinople, Turkey (Age 49 years) |
| | 5. Marina, b. 10 Feb 403, d. Yes, date unknown |
|
| Last Modified |
29 Aug 2016 |
| Family ID |
F2055 |
Group Sheet | Family Chart |
-
| Notes |
- Eudoxia (d. 6 Oct 404), wife of, and a powerful influence over, theEastern Roman emperor Arcadius (reigned 383-408).
Her father was a Frankish chieftain and one-term Roman consul (385) namedBauto. The marriage (27 April 395) of Arcadius to Eudoxia was arranged byArcadius' corrupt minister, the eunuch Eutropius, who had supported thematch in order to undercut the position of a political rival. But Eudoxiacame to resent being dominated by Eutropius, and in 399 she helped tobring about his downfall. The period of Eudoxia's most decisive influenceover her ineffectual husband dates from her designation as augusta on 9Jan 400.
Although an earnest Christian, she quarreled bitterly with JohnChrysostom, partriarch of Constantinople, who attacked her and thefrivolity of her court in outspoken terms. In 404 she expelled him fromhis see and sent him into exile. Shortly afterward Eudoxia died from amiscarriage. But she had borne Arcadius four daughters and a son, whobecame the emperor Theodosius II (reigned 408-450). One of the daughters,Pulcheria, was regent for Theodosius II for several years.[Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1995]
From Wendy Mayer, Australian Catholic University:
Much like the later empress Theodora, Eudoxia has been the subject of alargely negative press. Zosimus (Historia nova 5.18.8), writing almost acentury after her death, records that it was widely claimed that herfourth child, the only son and heir, Theodosius II, had been fathered byone of her husband's courtiers, John; and himself goes on to describe heras "abnormally willful", stating that she ultimately served theinsatiable desires of the palace eunuchs and the women who surroundedher, by whom, he alleges, she was controlled (5.24.2). In a continuationof the use of excessively emotive terms he describes her attitude towardsthe bishop of Constantinople at that time, John Chrysostom, as one of"hatred" (5.23.2). Philostorgius, who lived in Constantinople throughoutArcadius' reign, is slightly more positive in that he states that "thewoman was not a dullard like her husband" and that "she possessed nosmall degree of barbarian arrogance" (HE 11.6). Ps-Martyrius, also adirect contemporary, in his funeral oration on John Chrysostom alludes toher as a second Jezebel, a captive of the devil "clothed in theinsatiable power of greed and considerable wickedness" (P 478a-b).The overwhelming image of the empress as, at best, emotionally volatileis not helped by Socrates' allegation that, on hearing that Eudoxia wasmachinating to convoke a second synod against him, John Chrysostompreached a notorious sermon which began: "Again Herodias rages…again shedances, again she seeks to have the head of John on a plate" (HE6.18.4-5).
From such tenuous roots, a variety of negative portrayals of Eudoxia havegrown. At the very least, Eudoxia is usually said to have moved withfellow conspirators to take over power on the death of Eutropius. Atthe extreme she has been characterized as "cruel, full of hatred, greedyfor money and honors, hot-tempered, of a corrupt nature, with a warpedconscience", totally subject to her passions, "employing in turnssubterfuge and violence in order to satisfy her ambitions" - in short,all of the worst excesses that one would expect of a woman of barbarianlineage. Most views fall somewhere in between, but the majorityinclude elements of "barbarian" volatility and of the notion of a power-and glory-hungry individual. The few moderating views have beenthose of Geoffrey Nathan, who argues that Eudoxia is more notorious thanher real influence upon the eastern principate warrants, and KennethHolum, who reviews and presents the details of Eudoxia's life as empresswith a dispassionate eye.
When attempting to recover the historical Eudoxia it takes a great dealof care to sift fact from fiction. In particular, the sources which'document' her relationship with John Chrysostom and with other bishopswho visited Constantinople during her short life, reveal a side toher role as empress which has been either underestimated or overlooked.Attention to the way in which Eudoxia involved herself in ecclesiasticalaffairs not only restores some much-needed balance to our picture of her,but also helps to bring to light some of the motives behind the morenegative of the reactions to her in the sources.
Eudoxia's Early Life - Little is known about Eudoxia's early life, otherthan that she was the daughter of Bauto (Philostorgius, HE 11.6), a Frankof some prominence in the western court, since he was magister militum inthe early 380s under Gratian and a consul in 385. Holum claims thather mother was Roman and that she was therefore only a semibarbara, butit is not clear from what source he derives that information.Whatever the case, it is evident from the way she is portrayed in thesources that her "barbarian" ancestry was sufficient for the label to beused to effect against her. We next hear of her at Constantinople in thecontext of the household of Promotus (Zos., 5.3.2), which gives rise tothe assumption that she had somehow made her way to the eastern capitalafter her father's death in 388. Since Promotus was magistermilitum in the east in 386-91, with a common link with Bauto in theperson of Arbogastes, who succeeded Bauto as magister militum inthe west, it is possible that the transition of Eudoxia from her father'shousehold to that of Promotus may have occurred before Bauto's death andhave had something to do with Promotus' elevated status in the easterncourt at that time and her father's ambitions. Whatever the case, asHolum has noted, Zosimus asserts that after Promotus' death in 392,his two sons either lived with or moved in the ambit of the sons(Honorius and Aracadius) of the emperor, Theodosius, and that one ofPromotus' sons had Eudoxia with him. If this is the case, then Eudoxiawas raised in close proximity to the eastern court, under the tutelage offirst Promotus and then his widow, Marsa, and was well known to Arcadiusbefore their marriage. In support of a privileged upbringing and perhapsalso the possibility that she was being groomed as a vehicle for herfather's or foster-father's ambitions, is the information that Eudoxiahad access to education, since we are told that her former tutorPansophius was consecrated bishop of Nicomedia in 402 (Soz., HE 8.6.6).
Why Eudoxia was Arcadius' bride of choice, and why the wedding wasconducted on 27 April 395, scarcely three months after the death of hisfather on 17 January of that year and well before Theodosius' body hadarrived back in Constantinople for burial, are open to debate, but bestexplained by either the desire of the grand chamberlain Eutropius towrest control of the young emperor away from Rufinus, the praetorianprefect of the east and appointed guardian, or the desire of the youngemperor himself to take control of his own life. Several factorslead to this conclusion. Rufinus was distracted on the death ofTheodosius by Stilicho's attempt to take control of both east and west;Promotus and Rufinus had been bitter enemies and it had been Rufinus whohad engineered Promotus' downfall (Zos., 4.51); and Rufinus had adaughter of marriageable age through whom he intended to secure hiscontrol over Arcadius. Under these conditions, whatever the motivation,Arcadius' selection of and swift marriage to a wife from the household ofPromotus would have been a slap in the face to the ambitions of Rufinus.To soften the story and to account for Arcardius' choice of Eudoxia as abride over the daughter of Rufinus, it is alleged that Eudoxia was ofextraordinary beauty and that Eutropius manipulated Arcadius intofavoring her by showing him a portrait (Zos. 5.3), but it is unlikelythat this is more than a convenient fiction, especially so when weconsider that they had known each other for some six or seven years.
Eudoxia's role at court - It is only after her rise to the position ofempress, namely in the nine and a half years between 27 April, 395 andher premature death on 6 October, 404 that we have an opportunity toobserve Eudoxia at work, and then only in a very piecemeal way. From thepoint of view of her role as a Roman matron and as the vehicle forsecuring the Theodosian dynasty, Eudoxia was a model consort. Once shefell pregnant in late 396, she produced children with increasingrapidity. Out of seven pregnancies, five children survived infancy(Flaccilla b. 17 June, 397; Pulcheria b. 19 January, 399; Arcadia b. 3April, 400; Theodosius II b. 10 April, 401; and Marina b. 10 February,403). If ps-Martyrius is to be believed, two pregnancies (due latein 403 and late in 404, respectively) ended not in miscarriages, aspreviously supposed, but stillbirths, the second leading to the death ofthe empress from hemorrhaging and infection.
The precise nature of Eudoxia's role in political affairs is moredifficult to assess. It is probable that her fecundity gave herconsiderable standing at court. It is also clear that in the progress ofevents the rise to dominance of the Gothic general Gainas, the dismissalof Eutropius from office in late July or early August 399, the latter'sexecution in mid-September or later in 399, and the subsequentproclamation of Eudoxia as Augusta on 9 January, 400 are connected andwere defining points in the lives of both Eudoxia and her husband. Whowas behind the move to have the honorific title bestowed on her, however,and what it meant in effect, are matters of dispute. In terms ofher standing within the eastern capital and provinces her elevation toAugusta did result in a real and documentable change in status. Eudoxiawas now permitted to wear the paludamentum of purple and the imperialdiadem. From the time of her elevation until her death coins were struckin gold, silver and bronze by the eastern mints. These bore images of herclothed as an Augusta, with the cognomen Aelia, and on the obverse apicture of a disembodied hand reaching down to crown her with a wreath.As Holum has pointed out, the cognomen and the image of the hand of Godwere all carefully selected iconographic tools designed to cement herplace in the Theodosian succession and to promote the divine origins ofher coronation. In addition to the minting of coins, not long afterthe proclamation official images of Eudoxia (laureatae), requiring apublic reception similar to those of a male Augustus, were circulatedthroughout the provinces and within a few years had reached Italy and thewestern court, leading to a letter of criticism to Arcadius fromHonorius. The silver statue of Eudoxia erected on a porphyry columnand marble base in the Forum Augusteum of Constantinople by the urbanprefect Simplicius in late 403, is an example of support in atleast inner eastern imperial circles for the public promotion of theempress as Augusta.
The image of Eudoxia as the symbolic partner in a divinely institutedimperium, that was so carefully and widely cultivated at a public level,however, can not be thought to reflect the workings of the easternprincipate in practice. Whatever the speculation at the time about herprivate role in court intrigue and in the twin exiles of John Chrysostom,Eudoxia had no legislative capacity, no imperium in any concrete sense,and there are no grounds for thinking that within the political sphere ofthe palace she ever overtly moved beyond the constraints imposed uponher. In line with Nathan's argument regarding Arcadius' activities duringthe years 400-404, it would be a mistake to see her as a partner inpower. On the other hand, the sources do suggest that it is valid to viewher as nonetheless powerful by virtue of her role as a conduit to theemperor's favors. Whether Eudoxia was manipulated by others in thisregard, as Zosimus alleges, or whether she used her position tomanipulate for her own ends those who sought her assistance, is difficultto determine.
Eudoxia as patron of the Nicene church - Where we do see Eudoxiaexercising independent authority is not in the political realm but theecclesiastical. Holum has noted her patronage of the nighttime anti-Arianprocessions instigated in Constantinople by the Nicene bishop, to whichshe contributed at her own expense silver crosses with candles and theservices of one of her eunuchs, Brison, as choirmaster. Her role inthe spectacular public events surrounding the importation of new martyrs'remains to Constantinople is also significant. On at least oneoccasion she persuaded Arcadius to stay home on the initial day of thecelebrations, instead drawing all eyes to herself by solemnly followingthe coffin throughout the night, divested of her Augustal clothing andbodyguards, and participating prominently in the vigil at themartyrium. We see the same focus on the empress as the half of theimperial couple concerned with religious affairs in the eventssurrounding John Chrysostom's return to Constantinople after his firstbrief exile. Eudoxia is the sole imperial representative in the publicadventus ceremony played out on the Bosporus, where again she is seenexhibiting her piety (eusebeia) prominently in the midst of thepopulace.
The impression that Eudoxia seized the model of the emperor as patron ofthe church that had been established by Constantine and then, on herelevation to Augusta, moved to detach the role from Arcadius and toappropriate it for herself, creating an identity which allowed her tooperate by divine mandate at her husband's side, yet on her owncognizance, is reinforced by other events. Palladius (Dial. 8) andSozomen (HE 8.8) are both clear that, when the "Origenist" monks fromEgypt appeal directly to Eudoxia for assistance, it is she who decreesthat a synod be convoked and Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, becalled to answer his case before it. Palladius adds that she was wellinformed as to the circumstances of the monks' case before theyapproached her. Neither expresses any surprise at the authority of heractions. Again, at the time of the dispute between John Chrysostom andSeverian of Gabala, it is Eudoxia who appeals to John to reconcilehimself with Severian and who then forces his hand by recalling Severianto Constantinople from Chalcedon (Socr., HE 6.11; Soz., HE 8.10). It isalso telling that in the months prior to John's second and final exile,when bishops who supported his cause were attempting to sway imperialopinion, it is to Eudoxia that appeals were addressed, not her husband(Palladius, Dial. 9).
Assessment - When the sources present an empress, on the one hand, astotally manipulated, and, on the other, as the machinator in variousplots, while at the same time playing on conventional stereotypes of thebarbarian woman, it sends up a flag of warning. Eudoxia exhibits many ofthe same qualities (piety, humility, fecundity) as her predecessorFlaccilla, who like her was a barbara, was honored with the titleAugusta, and saw her imperial image disseminated on coins and other mediathroughout the provinces. Yet the two have received a markedlydifferent reception. This requires some explanation. Eudoxia becameexposed as a target on two fronts. The first was her proclamation asAugusta only six months into her third pregnancy, before she had borne amale heir for the principate. It is possible that the subsequent birth ofa daughter led people to question the appropriateness of the move andcontributed to the rumor, when she finally bore a son in her fourthpregnancy, that he had been fathered elsewhere. The second front was heradoption of the role of patron of the imperially favored (i.e. Nicene)church. While her guiding hand on this front enabled her to help directthe development of the dynastic religion for her husband and children, itleft her dangerously exposed to criticism by those who objected to thedirections in which she bestowed her largesse and to the content of herdecisions. It is in this light that we should view the charges that shewas "arrogant", that she "hated" the bishop of Constantinople andactively sought his downfall, and that she had embarked upon a "waragainst the church". Her contribution to ecclesiastical affairs atConstantinople, and throughout the eastern provinces via the bishops whosought her patronage when visiting the capital, needs acknowledgment. Itis also probable that, through establishing a model for the engagement ofimperial women of the east at a high level in the ecclesiastical sphere,she paved the way for her daughter, Pulcheria.
Bibliography -
For the sake of completeness a number of older works have been included.Those of von Hahn-Hahn, Seeck and Holum represent the few in whichEudoxia has been examined in her own right. More frequently she has beendepicted in terms of her "conflict" with the bishop John Chrysostom. Thechapter devoted to her by Holum remains the most complete study to date.
Dacier, H., Saint Jean Chrysostome et la femme chrétienne au IVe sièclede l'église grecque, Paris, 1907, 45-116.
Funk, F.X., "Johannes Chrysostomus und der Hof von Konstantinopel",Theologische Quartalschrift 57 (1875) 449-80
Hahn-Hahn, I. von, Eudoxia die Kaiserin. Ein Zeitgemälde aus dem 5.Jahrhundert, Mainz, 1866.
Holum, K., Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Dominion in LateAntiquity, Berkeley, 1982, 48-78.
Ludwig, F., Der hl. Johannes Chrysostomus in seinem Verhältnis zumbyzantinischen Hof, Braunsberg, 1883.
Mayer, W., "Constantinopolitan Women in Chrysostom's Circle", VigiliaeChristianae 53 (1999) 265-88.
Seeck, O., art. "Eudoxia. 1)", Pauly-Wissowa 6 (1909) coll. 917-25.
Van Ommeslaeghe, F., "Jean Chrysostome en conflit avec l'impératriceEudoxie. Le dossier et les origines d'une légende", Analecta Bollandiana97 (1979) 131-59.
Notes -
The Greek term for "woman" used by Philostorgius (to gynaion) has apatronizing, even contemptuous ring.
Ps-Martyrius has recently been identified as Cosmas, a deacon whohad been baptized by John Chrysostom and who was an ardent supporter ofhis cause. The funerary speech itself has been dated to the winter of407/8, making it a critical witness to events at Constantinople in theyears 398-407. See T.D. Barnes, "The Funerary Speech for John Chrysostom(BHG3 871 = CPG 6517)", Studia Patristica 37 (2001) 328-45, who providesa translation of the passages in which Cosmas (Ps-Martyrius) describeswith relish the still-birth suffered by Eudoxia at the time of each ofChrysostom's exiles (336-7). It is noteworthy that he uses the same termas Philostorgius for "the woman", when referring to Eudoxia, which Barnestranslates as "the hag". For Ps-Martyrius Eudoxia is the instigator of awar against the church (P 524b), which Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria,joins as co-conspirator.
Socrates says that the sermon simply incited the empress to evengreater anger, thus reinforcing the image that the alleged sermonprovokes.
See most recently R.C. Blockley, "The Dynasty of Theodosius", in A.Cameron and P. Garnsey (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History XIII. TheLate Empire A.D. 337-425, Cambridge, 1998, 116: "The empress Eudoxia, inalliance with members of the senatorial élite, moved to take overpower…"; and 117: "Eudoxia and her allies dominated the government of theeast for the next four years".
H. Dacier, Saint Jean Chrysostome et la femme chrétienne au IVesiècle de l'église grecque, Paris, 1907, 47: "Eudoxie, cruelle, haineuse,avide d'argent et d'honneurs, âme emportée, nature viciée, consciencedévoyée…"; and 58: "Nous l'avons dit, depuis qu'elle était impératrice,Eudoxie n'obéissait qu'à ses passions: injuste, cruelle, elle était femmeà ne reculer devant rien pour la satisfaction de ses appétits, employanttour à tour la ruse et la violence pour satisfaire ses ambitions". Inadopting this view she builds on the scholarship of Amédée Thierry andAimé Puech before her.
C. Baur, John Chrysostom and His Time II. Constantinople, eng.trans., Westminster MD, 1960, 32 describes her as possessed of "avivacious, sanguine temperament" and proceeds to damn her with faintpraise: "Eudoxia was not without good qualities. At the side of anupright man, she might have become a distinguished empress. But naturalstrength of character was lacking in her, and as far as guiding theEmperor was concerned, she was as yet too young, too inexperienced and,above all, too feminine. Her credulity, and her hasty passionatedisposition were soon made the most of, by all sorts of tale-bearing andinsinuations" (33). This view that her pairing with a "weak" emperorbrought out her vanity and ambitions can be seen in F.X. Funk, "JohannesChrysostomus und der Hof von Konstantinopel", Theologische Quartalschrift57 (1875) 458: "An der Seite eines schwachen und beschränkten Gatten, derstets das Bedürfnis empfand, von Andern geleitet zu werden, mußte sieselbst die Herrschaft an sich ziehen, wenn sie nicht unter dem Befehleines Dritten stehen wollte, und es war ihr nicht genug, die obersteLeitung der Geschäfte thatsächlich in ihrer Hand zu haben, sie wollteauch rechtlich und gesetzlich Herrscherin sein, vertauschte darum mitBeginn des Jahres 400 ihren seitherigen Titel Nobilissima mit dem TitelAugusta und ließ, um gleich dem Kaiser die Huldigung und Berehrung desVolkes in ihrem Bildniß entgegen zu nehmen, ihre Statue in den Provinzendes Reiches umherführen." J.N.D. Kelly, Golden Mouth. The Story of JohnChrysostom - Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop, London, 1995, 110, who presents aless emotive view, follows Philostorgius in stating that she outstrippedArcadius in intelligence and therefore quickly dominated him, and in theuse of adjectives like "volatile" and "impulsive" (272), and "vivaciousand strong-willed" (110). Cf. J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Barbarians andBishops. Army, Church, and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom,Oxford, 1990, who calls her "passionate and easily offended" (196) and"extremely strong-willed and at the same time hypersensitive" (202).
Arcadius, DIR: "While there were several events in which she playeda crucial part, they were not terribly important moments duringArcardius' reign". Liebeschuetz, Barbarians, 196-202 also downgrades herrole.
Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity,Berkeley, 1982, 48-78.
In particular, Palladius' Dialogue; the church histories ofSocrates, Sozomen and Theodoret; and the Life of Porphyry by Mark theDeacon.
PLRE I, 159-60 s.v. Flavius Bauto.
Theodosian Empresses, 52.
Holum, loc. cit.; Seeck, "Eudoxia. 1)", Pauly-Wissowa 6 (1909) 917.
PLRE I, 750-1 s.v. Flavius Promotus. The careers of Bauto andPromotus have many points in common and are markedly similar.
Theodosian Empresses, 52 n. 18.
The second view is proposed by Nathan, Arcadius.
For sources for the names and dates see the documentation providedin PLRE II, 410 s.v. Aelia Eudoxia 1. The eldest, Flaccilla, died before408, since she is not mentioned among the children who survived theirfather (Soz., HE 9.1).
See n. 2 above.
Regarding the dates see W. Mayer, "'Les homélies de s. JeanChrysostome en juillet 399'. A second look at Pargoire's sequence and thechronology of the Novæ homiliæ (CPG 4441)", Byzantinoslavica 60/2 (1999)285-6 and literature.
On the questions of the initiative and timing see Alan Cameron inA. Cameron and J. Long with L. Sherry, Barbarians and Politics at theCourt of Arcadius, Berkeley, 1993, 170-3, who argues that it was thepraetorian prefect (praefectus praetorio per orientem) Aurelian, who,with the courtiers Saturninus and John, had formed a power bloc and wasattempting to use Eudoxia to exert his influence over Arcadius. Holum,Theodosian Empresses, 67, had argued against this possibility on thegrounds that Gainas was in control of Constantinople and Aurelian and hisassociates already in exile at the time. He went on to propose that theinitiative may have come from Eudoxia herself. Cameron's carefullyrevised chronology of events, however, which places the exile ofAurelian, Saturninus and John only in April 400 (ibid., xii), undercutsHolum's arguments. Holum's alternative suggestion (69) that the courtpromoted Eudoxia in response to Gainas in an attempt to rouse publicsupport for the eastern principate at a time of crisis likewise falterson the chronology, but otherwise bears some merit.
Theodosian Empresses, 65-6.
Coll. Avell. 38.1. Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 66-7.
Socr., HE 6.18; Soz., HE 8.20. Regarding the inscription at thebase of the statue see J. Gottwald, "La statue de l'impératrice Eudoxie aConstantinople", Échos d'Orient 10 (1907) 274-6. Both Socrates andSozomen describe the public festivities that accompanied the erection ofthe statues as the final straw in the strained relationship betweenEudoxia and the bishop, John Chrysostom.
For examples see W. Mayer, "Constantinopolitan Women inChrysostom's Circle", Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999) 284-5.
Socr., HE 6.8 (Eudoxia provided silver crosses and tapers; hereunuch led the chanting); Soz., HE 8.8 (no mention that Eudoxia providedthe silver crosses, but says that her eunuch was appointed to regulatethe processions, pay costs and prepare hymns). Holum, TheodosianEmpresses, 54.
Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 55-8.
The events are recorded in encomiastic terms by John Chrysostom,Hom. dicta postquam reliquiae martyrum.
John Chrysostom, Sermo post reditum a priore exsilio 2, where hedwells at length on her role in swaying the emperor and at the same timeusing her private resources to keep his whereabouts secret and hisenemies at bay. At the close of the homily he styles her as "mother ofthe churches, feeder of monks, patroness of saints, staff of beggars".Cf. Soz., HE 8.18, who appears to have had access to the sermon, and whoadds that Eudoxia sent her personal eunuch Brison to fetch John and thenhoused him on his return at her own suburban estate, Marianae. If theLife of Porphyry by Mark the Deacon is accepted as a valid source, thenEudoxia's securing of an edict permitting destruction of the Marneion atGaza is an example of her exercise of ecclesiastical patronage beyond theconfines of Constantinople. She is alleged to have provided thirty-twomarble columns for the Christian church to be built on the site. SeeHolum, Theodosian Empresses, 54-6.
See Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 22-44, 53-8.
Copyright (C) 2002, Wendy Mayer. This file may be copied on the conditionthat the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice,remain intact.
|
|
|
|
