A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

without any apparent loss of face. In other threats to his authority, notably the
defacement of his statue in tax riots in Antioch in 387, Theodosius’ response had
been comparatively restrained: only those proved to have been guilty were
punished and there was no retribution against the citizenry as a whole. But now a
major incident was to threaten all he had achieved.
Thessalonika was an important city, the capital of the province of Macedonia,
and a thriving port. It had one of the larger hippodromes of the empire, holding
perhaps 100,000 people, and as such was prey to the tensions unleashed by the
chariot races and their stars, the successful charioteers. The garrison of the city
was made up of Goths under a commander by the name of Butheric. It was
Butheric who imprisoned one of the most popular charioteers on what seems to
have been a charge involving homosexual rape. When he failed to appear in his
chariot at the next games, the crowds erupted. Resentment against the Goths
added to their anger, and Butheric and several of his officers were murdered and
their bodies dragged through the streets.
Theodosius was furious when the news reached him in Milan, but this time, in
contrast to the tax riots in Antioch, orders for retribution were given without
delay. It remains unclear whether these were given directly by the emperor or
elaborated by his officials, such as Flavius Rufinus, his magister officiorum, a
ruthless figure in his own right, as the command travelled eastwards to
Thessalonika. What followed was a rush of bloodletting in which some 7,000
may have died. By the time Theodosius had realised the enormity of what he had
initiated and issued counter-orders, it was too late. The recognition of his own
responsibility is suggested by an order issued soon afterwards that all executions
in the empire were to be delayed for thirty days so that each could be reviewed.
The shedding of more blood could not be risked.
The massacre was a major public embarrassment for the emperor, as much for
the deaths caused as for the image it presented of a ruler unable to control his
emotions. For Ambrose, here was a chance to establish a psychological hold
over Theodosius. In a private letter, he assumed the guilt of the emperor, whose
actions he attributed to his unruly temper, and requested that Theodosius show
penitence. Ambrose intimated that he would not give the emperor communion
until he did so. The events that followed are difficult to interpret. Theodosius did
indeed come to the cathedral and profess penitence, but the humilitas he showed
in doing so could well have been a carefully calculated pose by which he knew
he could resolve the situation. Humilitas was one of the range of virtues an
emperor could use in the stage-management of himself before his subjects.