Pulcheria's Crusade A.D. 421-22 and the Ideology of Imperial Victory Holum, Kenneth G Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1977; 18, 2; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 153 .. Pu1cheria's Crusade A.D. 421-22 and the Ideology of Imperial Victory Kenneth G. Holum C 'EST qu'en effet l'empereur byzantin, comme son ancetre l'imperator des derniers siecles de Rome, est essentiellement, aux yeux de son peuple, un maitre victorieux." This pointed definition (from the pen of Jean Gagel) underscores a theme of imperial ideology which receives such insistent emphasis in the offi­ cial art, ceremonial and panegyric of late antiquity that it must correspond to a chilling reality. The defeat of an emperor threatened not only the integrity of the frontiers but internal stability as well and the ascendancy of the emperor and his friends. Conversely, if a weak emperor could claim a dramatic victory, he might establish a more effective hold on the imperial power. In A.D. 420-22 this inner logic of Roman absolutism led to innovations in imperial ideology and to a crusade against Persia, with implications which have escaped the attention of scholars. The unwarlike Theodosius II made war not to defend the Empire but to become "master of victory," and, as will be seen, to strengthen the dynastic pretensions of his sister Pulcheria Augusta. I The numismatic evidence is crucial. Between 420 and early 422 the mint of Constantinople initiated a strikingly new victory type, the much-discussed 'Long-Cross Solidi' (PLATE 2):2 Obverse AELPVLCH-ERIAAVG Bust right, diademed, crowned by a hand Reverse VOTXX MVLTXXX~ Victory standing left, holding a long jeweled cross, CONOB in the exergue 1 "l:Taupoc VLK01TOLbC: la victoire imperiale dans l'empire chretien," Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 13 (1933) 372. 2 PLATE 2 presents a specimen from the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. For the same reverse type with obverses of Theodosius II and of the western emperor Honorius see e.g. I. I. Tolstoi, Monnaies by~antines I (St Petersburg 1912) 73 nos. 47-48, and H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaiesfrappees sous l'empire romain VIII (Paris and London 1892) 188 no.68. For discussion see J. P. C. Kent, "Auream monetam ... cum signo crucis," NC6 20 153 154 PULCHERIA'S CRUSADE A.D. 421-22 Coin design during this period was generally not an inspired enter­ prise. Solidi of Theodosius II show only a dozen reverses during his long reign (402-50), and most of these continued themes already "trite and monotonous" in the last decades of the fourth century.3 Another element of traditionalism was the reluctance of coin designers to introduce themes of Christian imperial ideology. The labarum, which Christian writers identified with the cross, had appeared since 327-28,4 and beginning in the earlier years of Valentinian II (383-88) the cross sometimes replaced Victory on the imperial globus.s But neither these nor other Christian marks and symbols affected the traditional victory themes of the coinage. Thus when Theodosius I had defeated the usurper Eugenius and his pagan associates on the Frigidus River (September 394), the mint of Milan issued solidi with obverses of Theodosius and his sons and reverses which expressed the traditional ideology of victory: VICTORI-AAVGGG Emperor standing right, holding military standard and globus surmounted by Victory, trampling on captive.6 In contrast with the coins, Christian apologists in various quarters of the Empire exploited the battle of the Frigidus as an opportunity to recommend a Christian ideology of victory: Theodosii ergo fides fuit vestra victoria.7 (1960) 129ff; A. A. Boyce, Festal and Dated Coins of the Roman Empire (ANSNNM 153, New York 1965) 60ff; and R. Storch, "The Trophy and the Cross: Pagan and Christian Symbolism in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries," Byzantion 40 (1970) 105ff, citing earlier literature. Chronology is established by the reverse legend VOTXX MVLTXXX, which associates the initia­ tion issue (Kent type 1) with the vicennalia of Theodosius II celebrated sometime within the two-year period preceding 10 January 422, the twentieth anniversary of Theodosius' acces­ sion (Boyce 71). Kent 130f and Boyce 60ff attempt closer dating of the vicennalia and the initiation issue to late 421 or 422, but the numismatic evidence is indecisive and the literary evidence they adduce is unreliable (infra pp. 155-57). 3 A. Voirol, "Miinzdokumente der Galla Placidia und ihres Sohnes Valentinian und Versuch einer Chronologie der Mlinzpragung unter Theodosius II (408-450)," Verhllnd­ lungen der Naturforschenden GeseUschaft in Basel 56 (1944-45) 431ff. For derivation of the re­ verses from earlier coinage cf Roman Imperial Coinage [hereafter, RIC] IX 311ff (index of types) and see ibid. p. xxxix for Pearce's characterization "trite and monotonous." • RIC VII 62, 64, 572-73 nos. 19,26, cf infra n.50. 5 M. R. Alfoldi, "Signum Deae: Die kaiserzeitlichen Vorganger des Reichsapfels," lING 11 (1961) 30f. 6 RIC IX 83-84 no.35a-c; O. Ulrich-Bansa, Moneta Mediolanensis (Venice 1949) 159f, cf 177f for continuation of the type after the death of Theodosius I (395). 7 Ambr. De obit. Theod. 8, cf 2, 7, 10, 52, and similar reactions in Jo.Chrys. Hom. VI in eccl.apost. (PG 63,491-92); Paul.Nol. in Gennad. De vir.ill. 49; Aug. De civ.Dei 5.26; Oros. KENNETH G. HOLUM 155 Amid the general conservatism of the coinage, the appearance of the long jeweled cross on the solidi of ca 420-22 was an event which demanded explanation. In his Liber promissionum et praedictorum Dei (written about 450) the African bishop Quodvulrdeus put them into a historical context: Indeed we know that in our own time there was a persecution among the Persians when Arcadius, a pious and Christian prince, was emperor. To avoid giving back Armenians who took refuge with him, he went to war with the Persians, assured of victory in advance by a sign-bronze crosses which appeared on the cloaks of his soldiers as they went into battle. For this reason, when he had won the victory the emperor also ordered that gold coins be struck with the same sign of the cross, coins which still circulate today in the whole world, especially in Asia.8 Kent9 and BoycelO have used this text to help date and interpret the Long-Cross Solidi, but it presents difficulties. As Boyce and Kent recognized, Quodvultdeus placed these events in the wrong reign. No other source mentions a Persian war in the time of Arcadius (395-408). From 399 Yazdgard I ruled in Seleucia-Ctesiphon, a monarch whose benevolence toward Christiansll raised hope in influential Roman circles that he would embrace Christianity and force the Persian magi and aristocracy to do likewise.12 The only persecution which might reasonably be associated with the Long-Cross Solidi came more than a decade after the death of 7.35.14,20-22; Severian of Gabala in A. Wenger, "Notes inedites sur les empereurs Theo· dose 1, Arcadius, Theodose II, Leon 1," REByZ 10 (1952) 50; and esp. the ecclesiastical histories written during the reign of Theodosius II, Socr. 5.25.12-15, Soz. 7.24.4-6, Thdt. HE 5.24. 83.36. 1 translate from the text of R. Braun, Sources chretiennes 101-02 (Paris 1964) II 558-60: Sane nostris temporibus apud Persas persecutionem factam novimus imperante Arcadio religioso et Christiano principe. Qui ne traderet ad se confugientes Armenios, bellum cum Persis confecit, eo signo ante potitus victoriam quo euntibus ad proelium militibus aeneae cruces in vestibus paruere. Vnde etiam victor auream monetam cum eodem signo crucis fieri praecepit quae in usu totius orbis et maxime Asiae hodieque persistit. See Braun's introduction (1 13ff) on this work and the authorship of Quodvultdeus. I thank my colleagues William T. Avery.and Robert Boughner for discussing this text with me. 9 Kent, op.cit. (supra n.2) 129ff. 10 Boyce, op.cit. (supra n.2) 61f. 11 J. Labourt, Le christianisme dans I'Empire perse (Paris 1904) 87ff; A. Christensen, L'Iran sous les Sassanides 2 (Copenhagen 1944) 269ff. 12 Jo.Chrys. Ep. 14 (PG 52, 618), Socr. 7.8.5, 18, Theoph. p.82, cf Labourt, op.cit (supra n.ll) 92. 156 PULCHERIA'S CRUSADE A.D. 421-22 Arcadius. In 420 a zealous Christian destroyed a Zoroastrian fire altar in Khuzestan, and the bishop Abdas refused to rebuild it, demon­ strating the attitude of defiance which forced Yazdgard to execute Abdas and other confessors and to renew persecution. Even before Yazdgard's death (late 420) Christians had begun to flee to the west. The phylarch Aspebetus assisted them until he too had to escape with his followers to Roman territory, where Anatolius magister militum per Orientem placed him in charge of Rome's Saracen federates. Then Vahram V, Yazdgard's son and successor, intensified the attack, apparently aiming to root out Christianity entirely.13 Socrates Scholasticus and St Augustine confirm that the persecution struck hard and that when the refugees reached safety they pleaded that their sufferings not be ignored.14 Even if Quodvultdeus correctly associated the Long-Cross Solidi with persecution in Persia and an ensuing war, obviously he was pro­ foundly ignorant of chronology, of Roman-Persian relations, and of the vicissitudes of Christianity in the Persian Empire, and there is little reason to believe that other elements of his account came from a dependable source. In addition the iconography of the coins casts doubt on his interpretation. As has been suggested, for him the cross of the coins represented miraculous bronze cross-fibulae of the military costume to which the soldiers attributed their success.15 But the long jeweled cross of the coins is far removed from such fibulae and indeed, to judge from the figure of Victory beside it, appears to be too large and heavy to be carried easily. Scholars should recognize that the interpretation of Quodvultdeus is without historical foundation. It is a product of the author's "gout du surnaturel,"16 of his effort to prove 13 Socr. 7.18.1, Thdt. Therap. 9.32 (ed. Canivet II 345), HE 5.39, Cyrill.Scyth. V.Euthy. 10 (Texte u. Untersuch. 49.2, 18-19), Marcell.com. 420.3, Theoph. pp.82-83; G. Hoffmann, transl., Auszuge aus syrischen Akten persischer Miirtyrer (Leipzig 1880) 34ff; P. Peeters, "Une passion armenienne des SS. Abdas, Hormisdas, ~ahin (Suenes) et Benjamin," AnalBoll 28 (1909) 4llff; cf Labourt, op.dt. (supra n.ll) 105ff; A. Voobus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient I (CSCO Subsidia XIV, Louvain 1958) 282ff; P. Canivet, Histoire d'une entreprise apologetique au V· siecle (paris 1959) 17ff. For the date ofYazdgard's death see Th. NOldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari ubersetzt (Leiden 1879) 419£". Socrates denies that Yazdgard began the persecution, but the other sources unani­ mously refute him. On Anatolius, whom Cyrill.Scyth. identifies as 0 'TOTE rile GivaTo.\ije crpa'TT}M:r'1c, cf infra n.66. 14 Socr. 7.18.2, Aug. De dv.Dei 18.52. 15 Braun, op.cit. (supra n.8) ad loc., II 558 n.6. For cruciform fibulae cf J. Heurgon, I.e tresor de Tents (Paris 1958) 21ff. 16 Braun, op.cit. (supra n.8) I 69. HOLUM PLATE 2 Figure 1. Obverse: AELPVLCH-ERIAAUG Bust right, diademed, crowned by a hand Figure 2. Reverse: VOTXX MVLTXXXll Victory standing left, holding long jeweled cross, CONOB in exergue SOLIDUS OF AELIA PULCHERIA AUGUSTA (A.D. 420-22) AT DUMBARTON OAKS Twice actual size (photographs by courtesy of the Dllmbartotl Oaks Collection) KENNETH G. HOLUM 157 that "the promises and prophecies of God" work themselves out in history. Another aspect of the coins leads to an interpretation which does not depend upon speculation and miracle. Previous scholarship has failed to evaluate Pulcheria specimens among the Long-Cross Solidi of ca 420-22. The appearance of an imperial woman on the coinage of the Christian Empire was not without precedent. Mints throughout the Empire had struck for Constantine's mother Helena, his consort Fausta and Constantia his sister, and after a hiatus of more than half a century eastern mints issued coins with obverse portraits of women of the house of Theodosius I: of Flaccilla his first wife in the period 383- 86, of Eudoxia consort of his son Arcadius 400-404, and of his grand­ daughter Pulcheria 414-ca 420. But this practice remained unusual and probably controversialP More significantly, until ca 420 the mints restricted reverses on coins of imperial women to female types, in every case distinct from the concurrent types of the emperors,IS confirming that the mints recognized a distinction between males and females of imperial rank. Thus in this respect also the issue of ca 420-22 broke with tradition: the mint of Constantinople struck solidi concurrently with identical long-cross reverses and obverses of Theodosius II, of his western colleague Honorius and of Pulcheria. II The iconographical assimilation of an empress with the reigning emperors becomes comprehensible when. evidence for Pulcheria's promjnence in the eastern court is brought under review.19 Born 19 January 399, she was the senior child of Arcadius and Eudoxia. Her mother bore two more daughters (Arcadia 400, Marina 403) and a son • 17 Soz. 2.2.4 following Euseb. VC 3.47.2 considers Helena's rank Augusta and her Munz:­ recht unusual distinctions. For nearly a century after 329 no western mint struck for an imperial woman, even when eastern mints had resumed the practice for Flacdlla 383. In 404 the western court protested iconographical assimilation of Eudoxia with the emperors in the East, Coll.Avell. 38.1 (CSEL 35.1, 85), cf H. Kruse, Studien z:ur offiz:iellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im romischen Reiche (Paderborn 1934) 31f. 18 e.g. Fausta SALVSREI-PVBLlCAE Empress (Salus) standing facing, looking left, head veiled, holding two children in her arms, RIC VII 749 (index of reverse legends and types); and Flaccilla SALVSREI-PVBLlCAE Victory seated right on cuirass, writing chi-rho on shield held on small column, RIC IX 316 (index of types), distinguished from a concurrent vota reverse of the emperors by its legend and by the absence of vota numbers. 19 In general Ensslin, RE 23 (1959) 1954ff. 158 PULCHERIA'S CRUSADE A.D. 421-22 Theodosius II (b. 401, Augustus 10 January 402) before succumbing in 404 to a miscarriage.20 When Arcadius himself died in 408, he left Theodosius in a precarious situation, with the danger that as Pulcheria and her sisters approached marriageable age an ambitious po.litician might arrange a union which would destroy the independence of the dynasty. Thus in her fourteenth year (412-13) Pulcheria devoted her­ self to virginity and persuaded her sisters to do likewise. According to Sozomen, a contemporary author who presumably knew the truth, she acted "in order that she might not bring another male into the palace and might remove every opportunity for competition and plotting." Pulcheria's method of announcing this vow revealed an appreciation of the value of publicity and the power of Christian­ imperial symbolism. "Calling to witness God himself and the priests and every subject," Sozomen continues (9.1.3-4), she dedicated an altar decorated with gold and precious stones, "for her own virginity and her brother's rule," in the Great Church of Constantinople. At about the same time Pulcheria also revealed a mature will and skill at manipulation. She persuaded Theodosius to ignore the influential cubicularius Antiochus and herself began to direct her brother's decisions (Theoph. p.82). At this point scepticism is in order. The initiative and acumen implied in Pulcheria's earliest political acts seem extraordinary in a person hardly past childhood. In addition, the fullest source is the miniature encomium with which Sozomen begins Book 9 of his Ecclesiastical History, a piece which certainly exhibits encomiastic amplificatio and perhaps contains distortion as wel1.21 Even so this encomium might help confirm that the emergence of Pulcheria in 412-13 was a political event of first importance. Sozomen dwells on Pulcheria's merits because in his view the piety of Pulcheria and her sisters won God's favor for Theodosius, protected him during his minority, and kept the eastern Empire secure in a period when the West faced grave crises.22 With this interpretation Sozomen implicitly refutes Socrates Scholasticus, whose more realistic treatment of the same phenomenon had appeared in his Ecclesiastical History soon after 439, about a decade before Sozomen's own. According to Socrates 10 Seeck, RE 6 (1909) 917ft". S1 Soz. 9.1.13 expresses concern ~~ Ka, ~w~~CTfTal T'C we lTEpa 1rpay~aTEvo~EVOC Ele eyKw~lwv vop.ov JTP&1rT1V. 21 9.3.3, 6.1. Thdt. HE 5.36.2-4 and Philostorg. 12.7 adopted similar interpretations. KENNETH G. HOLUM 159 (7.1.1-3), who mentions neither Pulcheria nor divine favor in this connection, the eastern Empire flourished during th~ minority of Theodosius II under the administration of Anthemius, praetorian prefect of the East. Even if Sozomen knew the truth, in this case abundant evidence proves Socrates correct. After receiving the praetorian prefecture in 405, Anthemius23 had distinguished himself by the ability to exercise power while respecting the traditional pretensions of aristocrats, men of nobility and intellect, many of whom he brought into his delibera­ tions (Socr. 7.1.3). Synesius of Cyrene associates him with a circle of poets, philosophers and politicians who called themselves vAaK­ T77pLOV) of the Empire. This cross did resemble the hypothetical pattern cross in design, location and function, but it was done in mosaic or fresco, while the text of Theophanes and particularly the coins indicate a model which was plastic and movable.56 A more attractive possibility is the "cross of St Constantine the Great" known from a number of passages in Constantine Porphyro­ genitus De cerimoniis. Described as "very beautiful," "much-revered," "studded with precious stones" and "large," it was portable enough to be brought forth for coronation rites and the veneration of the faithful and to be carried in processions with the labara and other military standards. To judge from its name it was also ancient by the tenth century, and it was kept, significantly, in the palace church of St Stephen with other implements of imperial ceremoniaV~7 It may have been there from the beginning. Perhaps when Pulcheria deposited U Contrast Kent, op.cit. (supra n.2) 131, on the coins: "Christianity, symbolized by the great cross, is supported by Roman Victory." In my view the symbolism of the cross is much richer than Kent admits, while the figure of Victory, far from evoking the strength of Roman arms 'supporting' Christianity, is no more than a trite abstraction for the notion of victory. 65 Most scholars believe that the Golgotha cross itself inspired the cross of the solidi, e.g. Kent, op.cit. (supra n.2) 132; Boyce, op.cit. (supra n.2) 60; Storch. op.cit. (supra n.2) 117 n.2. A. Grabar, L'iconoclasme by~antin (Paris 1957) 28 n.2, denies any connection, observing that the Golgotha cross was fixed while the cross of the solidi appears to be portable. The theory of a common model removes this difficulty. 51 Thus Victory holds the cross. If she did not, it would_fall. (Contrast Kent's view. supra n.54.) &7 De cerimon. 1.1 (ed. Vogt I 6): TOV plyav KIX~ 'II'£P'KaMij KIX~ 'll'O~VT4LT/TOV TOG a"lov KWVCTlXVTlvov CTIXVpOV, 1.41. 43, 44 (ed. Vogt II 18-19,27, 33), also 1 app. (Bonn ed. I 502): ToG npJ.ov CTIXVpoG TOG IL£Y&.\OV T£ KIX/. a,aM8ov, 2.8, 10 (Bonn ed. I 538-41, 549-50), esp. 2.40 (p.640): 0 lL'yIXc CTIXVpOC TOG a"lov KIX~ IL£Y&.\OV KWVCTlXVTlvov. Cf Grabar, op.cit. (supra n.52) 36, and C. Cecchelli, II trionfo della croce (Rome 1953) 110. KENNETH G. HOLUM 167 St Stephen's relics in her newly-built martyrium she placed this cross there as well,58 for this cross or another much like it was present in 420-21 to inspire the common symbolism of the Golgotha cross ~md the Long-Cross Solidi. In the intimacy of the palace the 'cross of Constantine' became a palladium of Theodosian victory, like St Stephen's relics a physical guarantee of divine favor for the dynasty. Pulcheria's cross-piety paralleled her piety toward the saint in a coherent program of ideological preparation for the war against Persia. IV Despite the usual intractability of the sources,59 the strategy of 421 is not difficult to grasp. Roman generals planned to inflict grave damage on Persia and extract enough concessions for the 'victory' which the court expected. Thus Ardaburius magister militum praesentalis crossed the frontier east of Amida and plundered Persian Arzanene, then marched into Mesopotamia and besieged Nisibis.6o In the mean­ time a satraps' revolt in Persarmenia invited the Romans to challenge Persia on a second front. Anatolius magister militum per Orientem marched northward (also in 421) and fortified Karin on the frontier between Roman and Persian Armenia, renaming it Theodosiopolis.61 58 A sermon published among the dubia of St John Chrysostom seems to contain a contemporary reference: NVII .d&.p1lTl T£P'TTvry Ka~ 8W.ptATfC, ov P.OllOll 8m8EC'TaTa PAv~ovca II&p.a'Ta, OV Kop.ac fiEllfipwII Xapt£c'T&'Tac £K'TpE.pOVca, cUAa 'TTpOCAapovca ~EIIOV .pV'TOV 'TOV c'Tavpov (PG 50, 715). Leroy, op.cit. (supra n.4S) 216£, recognizes that this sermon is in the manner of Proclus of Constantinople and suggests (p.158) that Proclus delivered it in the imperial palace ('Daphne'), "sans doute dans la me me eglise S. Etienne de Daphni, en quelque sorte paroisse imperiale." 58 Socr. 7.18.9-25, 20 gives the only connected account, a selective and tendentious version which reflects his own speculation and the panegyric tone of his sources (infra pp.168, 171). His distortions have led some scholars to perceive a Roman victory in 421-22, e.g. Labourt, op.cit. (supra n.ll) lIS, and J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire II (London 1923) 4f, while Seeck, op.cit. (supra n.33) VI S5ff, and Stein, op.cit. (supra n.23) I 2S0f, adopt proper caution. The Persian tradition preserved in Tabari, transl. NOideke, op.cit. (supra n.13) lOS, is even more tendentious, from the opposite point of view. In addition modern scholars (though not the ancient authors) have confused events of 421-22 with a second Persian war of 441 (infra n.66). 60 Socr. 7.18.9-14, 20, cf Demandt, RE sup pI. 12 (1970) 747f, on Ardaburius and his com­ mand. 61 Movses Xorenac;i, History of Armenia 3.56-59 (transl. Langlois II 164-67), cf supra n.13 and infra n.66 on the command of Anatolius. Based on Xorenac;i, Weissbach, RE 5A (1934) 1924ff, correctly dates Anatolius' fortification of KarinjTheodosiopolis to the time of the 168 PULCHERIA'S CRUSADE A.D. 421-22 From this position Anatolius presumably supported Armenian inde­ pendence, although nothing is heard of his operations. The Paschal Chronicle (p.579) reports that on 6 September 421 word of a 'victory' over the Persians reached Constantinople. This was most likely a minor success of Ardaburius during the Arzanene cam­ paign, because during the siege of Nisibis King Vahram appeared with the bulk of his army and brought the offensive of Ardaburius to a premature end. While his Saracen allies struck across the frontier, the Persian king forced Ardaburius to withdraw from Nisibis (Socr. 7.18.21-22, 24). Then Vahram also went on the offensive, advancing deep into Roman territory to besiege Theodosiopolis-not Theodo­ siopolis in Armenia but an important Roman fortress in Mesopotamia (earlier Resaina).62 Vahram had wisely postponed the recovery of Persarmenia and concentrated instead on Mesopotamia, where the absence of Anatolius presumably gave him an advantage. In this threatening situation Christian observers found material for speculation on the Christian ideology of victory. According to Soc­ rates (7.18.23), God inflicted an "irrational terror" upon the Saracens, thousands of whom promptly threw themselves fully armed into the Euphrates, while Theodoret (HE 5.37.8-10) relates how a providential missile struck a blasphemous Persian lieutenant, inducing Vahram to give up the siege of Theodosiopolis. In reality the Persian king had already secured victory enough by carrying the war to the Romans and could cut his losses while depending on stalemate to bring re­ newal of the treaty.63 In the next year Theodosius II decided to make peace. "Out of generosity," Socrates says, "and even though his side had been success­ ful," the emperor dispatched his master of offices Helio to the Meso­ potamian frontier to initiate negotiations.64 The real reason for this satraps' revolt which followed the death of Yazdgard I (late 420, supra n.l3). The revolt lasted three years (Xorena\i), but by 422 Anatolius had returned to Mesopotamia to par­ ticipate in negotiations, after \yhich he gave up his command (infra p.169). 61 Thdt. HE 5.37.6-10. Seeck, Weissbach, and Stein (supra nn.59, 61) are among scholars who assume that Vahram attacked Armenian Theodosiopolis, but Armenia was in revolt and Xorena\i's account (supra n.61) makes it clear that Vahram did not intervene. On Theodosiopolis/Resaina see V. Chapot, lAfrontih"e de I'Euphrate (Paris 1907) 301fT. 63 When Helio arrived in 422 to begin negotiations (infra), the Romans had fortified de­ fensive positions in Mesopotamia, Ma ,",V Ta"'pov ol' PWl'ault '1Tp6c olK£lav "'v>'a~v l'1T£'1TolTJVTO, Socr. 7.20.3. "Ibid. 1-3, Theoph. p.87, cf Seeck, RE 8 (19l3) 46f. KENNETH G. HOLUM 169 decision is clear from the failure of the Roman offensive in 421 and from a laconic entry in the Chronical of Marcellinus under 422: Hunni Thraciam vastaverunt. A major Hun invasion into the Danube provinces forced the Romans to bring forces committed to the Persian war back to their stations in Europe. These redeployments began as early as 3 March 422, when Theodosius issued a constitution to Eusta­ thius praetorian prefect of the East providing quarters in the new land wall of Constantinople for troops "returning from campaign or setting out for battle."65 By this time the emperor was also listening to other advisers who persuaded him that the crusade against Persia was misguided and dangerous. At first Helio worked with the existing generals, sending Maximus, assessor of Ardaburius, to negotiate with Vahram (Socr. 7.20.3), and also Anatolius,66 who had apparently led his army back from Armenia to reinforce the tenuous Roman position in Mesopo­ tamia. Not long after his return, however, Anatolius gave up his command as magister militum per Orientem to Procopius, who won a victory (of minor importance, despite Socrates67) and then brought negotiations to a conclusion.68 This Procopius was the son-in-law of Anthemius, as noted above; his appearance thus marks the return to power of traditionalists who had lost influence along with Anthemius eight years earlier. In the previous year (7 June 421) Theodosius had 85 Cod. Theod. 7.8.13, cf J. O. Maenchen -Helfen, The World of the Huns (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1973) 76, associating this constitution with the Hun invasion but not with re­ deployments from the Mesopotamian frontier. 88 Procop. BPers. 1.2.11-15 CA. 'T01' rilc £W c'Tpa'TT['Yol'), Theoph. p.87 CA. 'T01' rilc al'a'ToMlc c'Tpa'TT['Yov). Averil Cameron, "Agathias on the Sassanians," DOPapers 23-24 (1969-70) 151, and Demandt, RE suppl. 12 (1970) 742, accept the suggestion of Noldeke, op.cit. (supra n.13) 116 n.2, that the embassy of Anatolius which Procopius and Theophanes mention followed a second Persian invasion of 441, after which an Anatolius negotiated peace. I see no reason to reject the dating of the sources. Cyril of Scythopolis and Xorenac,:i, representing inde­ pendent traditions, provide details of Anatolius' operations 420--21 (supra nn.13, 61), and thus it is likely that he also participated in negotiations with Vahram, as Procopius and Theophanes clearly state. Procopius also records a treaty provision related to the war of 421-22 (infra p.170 with n.73). 67 7.20.5-11, characteristically tendentious, calling Procopius simply C'Tpa'T'T/Aa-TT}c. Treaty provisions prove that the Persians more than held their own on the battlefield (infra pp.170--71). 68 Sid.Ap. Carm. 2.75-93 reporting (perhaps inexactly) that Procopius received the eastern command only after completing the negotiations: peditumque equitumque magister prae­ ficitur castris, ubi . .. spectaret Orontem. Jo.Mal. 14 p.364 calls him C'Tpa'T'T/A&'T'l)v avaToMjc in a confused passage on the war of 421-22. In 424 Theodosius addressed Cod. Theod. 7.4.36 to procopius magistro militiae per Orientem. 170 PULCHERIA'S CRUSADE A.D. 421-22 married Athenais/Eudocia, the daughter of an Athenian sophist,69 and with her support these men were able to break Pulcheria's hold over her brother. Their new leader was apparently Asclepiodotus, Eudocia's maternal uncle, a man of traditionalist persuasion who replaced Eustathius as praetorian prefect of the East1° and entered the ordinary consulship 1 January 423, the day before Eudocia herself received the rank Augusta (Chron.Pasch. p.580). Within a year An­ themius' son Isidorus reappeared in high office for the first time since 412, as praetorian prefect of Illyricum.71 Various sources permit reconstruction of the terms which the Ro­ mans accepted: 1. Each side agreed not to receive disloyal federate Saracens of the other.72 Since Anatolius had so received Aspebetus in 420 (supra p.156), this provision was directed against Roman encroachment upon the status quo and was a Roman concession. 2. Each side agreed not to construct new fortifications in its own territory near the common frontier. 73 Since Anatolius had fortified Theodosiopolis in 421, this provision likewise represented a Roman concession to restore the status quo. 3. The Romans apparently agreed to renew or continue payments to Persia for defense of the Caucasus passes against incursions from the north which threatened both empires.74 4. The Persian side agreed to end persecution of Christians in its territory. Although Socrates does not admit it, the Romans also agreed to return to Anthemian policy and protect fire worshipers in Roman .. Marcell.com. 421.1, Chron.Pasch. p.578, cf Socr. 7.21.8, Olymp. fr.28; Seeck, RE 6 (1909) 906fT. The romantic story of the marriage found in Jo.Mal. 14 pp.352-55 and later sources is mostly fiction, including the notion that Pulcheria had anything to do with it. 70 Asclepiodotus is attested as CSL 29 April 422 (Cod. Theod. 6.30.23) and as PPO Or for the first time 14 Febr. 423 (Cod.Theod. 7.4.35). The V.Sym.Syr. 130-31 (Texte u. Untersuch. 32.4, 174-75) attacks the ihrapxoc (or £7Tapxoc) 'Asklepiades', maternal uncle of the empress. as friend of pagans and Jews for ordering Christians to restore synagogues seized from the Jews. This account receives general support from Cod.Theod. 16.8.25-27, 10.24 addressed to Asclepiodotus PPO Or February-June 423. 71 Cod.Theod. 11.1.33 (10 Oct. 423, cf Seeck, op.cit. [supra n.35] 88). 72 MaIchus fr.l, cf infra p.l71 and Bury, op.cit. (supra n.59) II 5 n.l, for association with the treaty of 422. 73 Procop. cited supra n.66. Mention of this provision in Procopius' account suggests that it was included in the final version of the treaty. a Tabari, transi. Noldeke (supra n.l3) 108, 116. On these payments cf Prise. frs. 31, 37, Jo.Lyd. De mag. 3. 51-53, Joshua the Stylite 8-9 (transi. Wright pp.7-8). KENNETH G. HOLUM 171 territory.75 It is unlikely that either side was in a position to enforce toleration.76 Procopius accepted these terms in the summer or autumn of 422, in a treaty which was to last for one hundred years.77 They confirm that the military advantage lay with the Persian King and that the Roman government was prepared to return to the status quo ante in its relations with Persia. Gibbon did not think much of this conflict of 421-22, Hthe slight alarm of a Persian war" which did little in the long run to affect the balance between Rome and the Persians.78 In terms of international politics his judgement was correct. Later in the fifth century, however, the historian Malchus (fr.l) remembered it as "the greatest war against them in the time of Theodosius," an attitude which may reflect the dangers it presented and the importance it assumed in debate on the Roman ideology of victory. Socrates reports that after the 'victory' the literati of Constantinople presented encomiastic orations in praise of Theodosius (~ac£ALKo~ A6YOL). Among the literati was the empress Eudocia, who composed a poem on the 'victory' in heroic verse (Socr. 7.21.7-10). None of these works survives, but some of their content can be recovered from Socrates himself, who records the exploits of Roman heroes in Homeric fashion and attributes ultimate victory to the battlefield success of Procopius.79 This in­ terpretation would have pleased the pagan Eunapius of Sardes, who expressed profound shock that Christian victory propaganda be­ littled "the emperor's courage, the strength of his soldiers and the conditions of real battle."8o Traditionalists discounted imperial piety and Pulcheria's asceticism while stressing the dependence of Theodo- 75 Socr. 7.20.13, Aug. De civ.Dei 18.52. About 464 the Persians complained in an embassy that the Romans were interfering with fire cult in their territory, but the government of Leo I denied such interference (Prise. fr.31). The exchange suggests that an agreement existed on the subject. 76 Thdt. HE 5.39.5, the Armenian passion in Peeters, op.cit. (supra n.13) 412, and Prise. fr.31 (supra n.75) indicate continued persecution in both empires. 77 Soz. 9.4.1, Marcell.com. 422.4. The fullest recent discussion of this treaty is H. Herrera Cajas, Les relations internationales de l'Empire bYZantin d l'epoque des grandes invasions (Bor­ deaux 1968) 65f. 78 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire III (London 1897) 390. 79 Socr. 7.18.25, 20.6-11, also reflected in Jo.Mal. 14 p.364 and Cedren. p.599. 80 Eun. fr.78. On the date of Eunapius' vEa ;K3octc see most recently F. Paschoud, Cinq etudes sur Zosime (Paris 1975) 169fT, proposing the period after Pulcheria's eclipse (423) because of Eunapius' harsh attack in fr.87 on venal suffragium J1T~ IIovAXfiplac T1/C {3anAlc­ CTJC. Fr.78, which relates to events ca 400, would have special point if written ca 423. 172 PULCHERIA'S CRUSADE A.D. 421-22 sius II, who was no soldier himself, on the good sense and capabilities of his generals. With his speculation on divine intervention, Socrates also represents the response of Christian theorists, along with Sozomen and Theo­ doret. But the clearest expression of Christian victory ideology is the Long-Cross Solidi, which identified the emperor's victory with the victory of Christ on Golgotha. The mint of Constantinople continued to strike long-cross reverses after the