Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

theodosius ii 35
emperor) emerged as a powerful enemy of Chrysaphius and someone
whom Theodosius is said to have feared as a potential usurper. 15
The important role of these individuals in the political life of
Theodosius’ reign can be explained partly in personal terms, as a result of
Theodosius’ own apparent lack of inclination to exercise power (a tendency
no doubt encouraged by his advisers and tutors during his formative
years). But it also reflects an important structural change in the character
of the imperial office which began during the reign of his father – namely,
the way in which first Arcadius and then Theodosius abandoned leading
the army on campaign in person and indeed rarely travelled far beyond the
environs of Constantinople, instead spending virtually the whole of their
reigns in the capital. 16 The permanent residence of emperors in
Constantinople enhanced the opportunities for those at court to exercise
influence because the emperor was now constantly in contact with them
and was also less exposed to the outside views and influences that would
have been one of the incidental benefits of a more itinerant lifestyle. 17 To
be sure, the adherence of subsequent emperors of the fifth and sixth
century to this pattern did not prevent them from taking more active roles
in political life, but they had experienced substantial portions of their lives
beyond the confines of the palace before they assumed the imperial purple.
Theodosius, on the other hand, had known nothing else and was therefore
that much more susceptible to the limiting effects of this regime.
Despite all this, however, Theodosius was not overthrown, nor did the
imperial office come to be seen as something which could be dispensed
with. 18 For one thing, Theodosius’ formal claim to the throne, unlike that
of most of his fifth-century successors, was not open to question: he was
the son of the deceased emperor, and had already been elevated to the
status of co-emperor with his father some years earlier. 19 For another, the
very prominence of influential courtiers and advisers is likely to have had
Ardabur Aspar (though he was probably not magister in the final years of the 440s: Zuckerman (1994)
170–2), Fl. Plinta (though he was probably still magister in 439/40: Zuckerman (1994) 160–3).
15 PLRE ii, s.v. Fl. Zeno 6.
16 Presumably it was anxieties about this development, coming as it did after more than a century of
military emperors, which spawned the story that Theodosius I had forbidden his sons to campaign: Joh.
Lyd. De Mag. ii.11, iii.41. For Theodosius’ known movements outside Constantinople, see Dagron,
Naissance 85–6, with Roueché (1986).
17 Hopkins (1978) ch. 4, valuable though it is on the power of eunuchs, does not take sufficient
account of this fundamental change in imperial behaviour in the fifth century. On eunuchs, see also
Patterson (1982) 299–333.
18 Reports of potential usurpers (Priscus fr. 16) show that Theodosius’ position was sometimes perceived
to be under threat. Cf. the popular anger expressed against Theodosius himself during a grain
shortage in the capital (Marcell. Chron. s.a. 431).
19 This is not to deny that the months immediately following Arcadius’ death were nervous ones in
Constantinople, since Theodosius was still vulnerable on account of his extreme youth: see Zos.
v.31.3–4, Soz. HE ix.4 (Stilicho’s plans), Lippold (1973) 963–4, Blockley (1992) 51–2 (for the problematic
sources on possible Persian interference); threats from these quarters, however, soon dissipated.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008