Question: Was Eugenius Confirmed by Senate

[guy]

Right now I'm doing research on Flavius Eugenius (died AD 394). He was elevated to the purple by the Frankish general Arbogast.

 

Although a nominal Christian, Eugenius was very sympathetic to the Pagans. In fact, he had support of most the senate, which was still predominately Pagan.

 

Eugenius promoted some of the Pagan policies and supported Pagan temples. He and his general Arbogast lost, however, the forgotten but very important battle of Frigidus against the militantly Christian Theodosius. Both Eugenius and his general quickly lost their lives. He was the last emperor to support polytheism.

 

Question:

 

The Emperor Eugenius has been called a usurper. Did he ever get confirmed by the Senate? If he received support for the Senate, wasn't he then a legitimate emperor (and not a usurper)?

 

Thank you for reading my post,

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited October 6, 2013 by guy

[Auris Arrectibus]

Hi Gaius,

 

I think that the difference between an usurpator and an emperor could be blurry. Depending on the moment and who was in charge to recognize the usurpator, or as a political statement.
Though, during the forth century, I think the Senate was no longer in power to appoint or recognize an emperor. Since the reforms of Diocletian the succession was to be decided by the ruling Emperors to avoid conflicts and hereditary claims. The emperors (or caesars) each appointed a caesar as a heir to the throne.

Or in fact, it was supposed to be. It just worked once, when both Dioclation and his fellow Caesar Maximianus abdicated and were succeeded by their appointed heirs Galerius and Constantius. After that there were usurpators and when recognized by the the other court, even for a while, they became emperors. When they were attacked, they would become defeated usurpatores again.

 

The Dominate period (284-476) that started with Dioclatian is characterized as a period in which the Caesar was in power and ended the fiction of supposed power by the Senate. They tried on several occasions, with no evident success.

 

Auris also known as Jeroen de Lange

[guy]

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

 

I would be surprised if Eugenius had not have been confirmed (or at least received a strong approbation) by the Roman Senate, even if the confirmation were more symbolic than meaningful. Unfortunately, our sources for this period are either very murky or biased.

 

A group of powerful Senators viewed Eugenius at least more tolerant of the Ancient Pagan religion, if not secretly supportive, than the Emperor Theodosius was.

 

Thanks, again,

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited October 23, 2013 by guy

[Auris Arrectibus]

Eugenius was more like a puppet controlled by the Frankisch commander Arbogastes. He put him on the throne after Valentinian II killed himself, or murdered by Arbogastes' men according to Zosimus.

 

Although originally a christian, Eugenius was instructed by Arbogastes to favour and restore pagan institutes like the Altar of Victory in the Curia and was therefore supported by the pagan faction of the Senate. Sure, they wanted to reinstore the traditions of pagan Rome, remembering the time when the Senate was in charge and Rome was booming.

 

These developments caused conflits with Theodosius in the East and the powerful bishop Ambrose in Milan. The former could not recognize this usurapator as a colleague, appointed his youngest son Honorius as Augustus of the West and defeated Eugenius and his magister militum Arbogast at Frigidus.

So, the support of any senator (or even the Senate) was never taken serious by the emperor. Theodosius that is.

 

Earlier, it was also Theodosius who recognized the usurpator Magnus Maximus as Emperor, not the Senate. When Maximus became a threat, it was Theodosius who took this title away by defeating him. The Senate declared a "damnatio memoriae" on Maximus, not to be remembered anymore. In this also, the power of the Senate was not succesful: We still know him.

 

Auris, Jeroen de Lange

[guy]

Earlier, it was also Theodosius who recognized the usurpator Magnus Maximus as Emperor, not the Senate. When Maximus became a threat, it was Theodosius who took this title away by defeating him. The Senate declared a "damnatio memoriae" on Maximus, not to be remembered anymore. In this also, the power of the Senate was not succesful: We still know him.

 

Auris, Jeroen de Lange

The list of Emperors declared damnatio memoriae by the senate is quite extensive:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_condemned_Roman_emperors

 

That said, the fact that Eugenius was not condemned is significant. It might reflect some residual underlying support in the Roman Senate for the man (or at least the Pagan beliefs he seemed to have tolerated and even promoted).

 

As mentioned, Theodosius was a rigid Christian doctrinaire and a ruthless authoritarian. There is no reason to believe he won't have had the Senate condemn Eugenius if he could.

 

Thank you, again,

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited October 9, 2013 by guy

[Number Six]

Like others have already said, the Senate approval cannot be considered to give legitimacy to 4th century emperors. Where would we derive such a general rule? From already dubious leges de imperio which date back to the 1st century? It would be arbitrary and baseless, for we need to look at the recent developments of Roman constitutional practices.

 

In general, the emperors of the 4th century and beyond seem to gain their legitimacy from being appointed by their predecessor or by the living Augustus. For example, you may look at Julian, who tried to get Constantius approval after being acclaimed Augustus by his own soldiers. Although the dynastic tendency is apparent from Constantine and beyond, family membership was not enough: it gave an expectation to the throne, but the emperors always provided to associate or appoint their heirs, in order to give them legitimacy.

 

It has also been speculated (correctly, in my opinion) that an emperorship which comes from God can be rightfully placed upon men only by the one who represents God, i.e. the living emperor. Of course panegyrists and political thinkers embraced the belief that when an empeor was acclaimed by his soldiers or by other means, it was just another manifestation of God's will, but the prime source of such manifestations was obviously his earthen vicar: the emperor.

 

Finally, the Senate approval was still looked for anyway, but it should be considered on the political ground: fresh emperors tried to gather as much consensus as they could, including the senate's. On the other hand, also Julian's behaviour towards Constantius may be considered 'political'. The point is, Rome never had a stable constitution, let alone a written one: we may say that every act of new emperors was constituent, rather than constitutional. We can't think Roman consitution in the same way as we think ours. But if a general trend has to be found in the formal mechanisms of the 4th and 5th centuries, I believe it was the appointment by the predecessor or by the living Augustus.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

Wasn't the Roman constitution similar to the British, contra the American emphasis on a written, rationalized doctrine where every part is equal?

 

The biggest difference in terms of constitutional typology between the British and the Roman constitutional 'tradition' is the British have a Judical Branch that is relatively independent, and goes out of it's way to remind everyone what it's constitutional emphasis is in any generation. In Rome, once emphasis on the 12 tables progressively eroded, and you had this awkward thing called Emperor calling the shots in a de jure republic, legitimacy and illegitimacy depended more than anything on a show of force.

 

However, the Senate was a damn good mechanism to keep around politically and for administration purposes. It had the ears and tongues of the major power players of the state, was autonomous to a certain extent, and could give benefit to a emperor or at the very least take some of the blame. And best of all, I can't begin to stress this enough, it was in essense a coup immune royal court! Most coups, especially in asia, knocked off not just the throne, but his court along with it. Not the Roman Senate prior to Boethius. A thick headed fool could, by virtue of brute force, become emperor, and as a unintentional afterthough receive bills from the senate already thought out and debated by intellectuals and governing specialists. The Senate was a good thing to keep around, and it bothers me the Eastern Empire didn't try to replicate it.

 

It's always a good idea to win the senate over. It doesn't give you legitimacy, as being a emperor isn't quite legal in the first place, but good governance, success on the battlefield, and prosperity will make you a good emperor, and the only reasonable means to achieving this end is via the Senate.

[Number Six]

Wasn't the Roman constitution similar to the British, contra the American emphasis on a written, rationalized doctrine where every part is equal?

 

Roman law as a whole is very similar to common law in the way they work, hence we may find similarities also in their constitutions.

But we must keep in mind that an unwritten constitution doesn't always mean a flexible one: it's often easier to change a written constitution, rather than one which is based on consuetude, for only time and practice can change the latter. The British constitution surely is far from flexible, which cannot be said of the Roman constitution in late antiquity.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

I've read the reconstructions of the 12 tables, a big boring chunk of Justinians Code, and chunks of the Visigoth's Code based on Roman law, as well as works on Roman Catholic Canon law, the origins of the commonlaw system, the medieval imposition of the secular divide by the vatican on the princes, and the early evolution of german law in the medieval period.....

 

I walk away not knowing much, but confusingly more than I should.

I dont think the Romans had interest in common law. I know the divide between criminal and civil law began in the late republic, and admit my ignorance on what this meant in terms of suits, but from my understanding, outside of Xeer law in Ethiopia which is maintained by clan pressure, the commonlaw system, though with precedent since the 8th century, largely arrived from similar Islamic practices, moving from Libya to Sicily, learned by the Normans during their occupation of Sicily, and brought to Norman England.

 

I may be wrong about it, as the scholarship for that assumption was from Qaddafi era Libya's old English News Service, and good chance whoever wrote that now is either dead or sleeps clutching a AK47 on their rooftop paranoid as hell, but it seemed well written and very plausable given the norman link and Islamic laws emphasis on behavioral precedents of Mohammed. I just dont see it in Roman Law..... but my understanding of Roman law is questionable, however deep aspects of it can be at times.

 

Im fairly certain if I time traveled to Rome, I would break the law purely out of ignorance of it, and would be enslaved in a fortnight. Thats despite my time wasted reading about it.

[Number Six]

You're not looking at the qualifying features of Roman law. And I am not talking of derivation. (Anyway, as far as contamination is concerned, you're right when you say that here may have been Islamic influences, but we must not forget that the legal assistants of Norman kings were trained canonists, they knew Roman Law and they borrowed a few concepts. Roman law was also thaught in England since early).

 

Anyway, as I said, I am not talking of derivation, but of inner similarity. The idea is well known among schiolars, I'm not saying anything new or debated. In fact, since I have no time right now, I'll just copy few lines from a book: in both cases the actual decision, the law-finding, was the work of amateurs: the judge in Rome, the jury in England. In both cases they acted on the basis of instructions, from the praetor in Rome, from the judge in England. And in both cases the complaint had to go through a process of screening: to conform to the praetor's edict in Rome, to be within the categories of written royal commands or writs which could be used to start up the royal procedures in England (Glenn Patrick H., Legal Traditions of the World: Sustainable Diversity in Law; a book that I do not advise, though, except the first two chapters... as long as cleared of few misconceptions).

Edited November 3, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

The early english juries had to not just listen to the case, but do the sloothing themselves individually.

 

I can see convergent evolution as a starting point, but the English courts evolved out of royal authority, as the jury were nobles stuck with the job, didnt evolve from roman institutions as far as I know.

 

I dont think the English were bijural mixing common and civil law together, just common law. They were bijural mixing salic and english, canon or old testament..... but from my understanding European civil law (roman law) got its start with the rediscovery of Justinian's codes.

 

Im sure alot remained intact in southern france, and equally sure the british remained oblivious to this for the most part till much later when the common law system was in full swing.

[Number Six]

The thing is that Roman law had very little to do with modern civil law. The point that I am trying to convey is that, regardless of derivation, Roman law was indeed more similar to common law (and I am specifically talking of the British original model, here) than to civil law: Roman and common law are both created by legal operators and they both ehnance precedents, while civil law is made by the state and typically doesn't observe precedents.

[guy]

guy, on 06 Oct 2013 - 11:43, said:

Right now I'm doing research on Flavius Eugenius (died AD 394). He was elevated to the purple by the Frankish general Arbogast.

 

Although a nominal Christian, Eugenius was very sympathetic to the Pagans. In fact, he had support of most the senate, which was still predominately Pagan.

 

Eugenius promoted some of the Pagan policies and supported Pagan temples. He and his general Arbogast lost, however, the forgotten but very important battle of Frigidus against the militantly Christian Theodosius. Both Eugenius and his general quickly lost their lives. He was the last emperor to support polytheism.

 

guy also known as gaius

The premise of this discussion may be wrong.

 

After plowing through some of the dense and scholarly tome by Alan Cameron, "The Last Pagans of Rome," I may have now changed my opinion of the relationship among the fourth century Christian and Pagan communities.

 

Here are two good reviews of the book:

 

http://www.unrv.com/book-review/last-pagans-rome.php

 

According to our own Maty's review:

Quote

The last pagans in Rome were busy administrators who happened not to be Christian. Most of the Christians with whom they dealt likewise did not see the issues of the day purely in terms of who worshipped what. This was after all a time when the Roman empire was undergoing huge changes, with invading armies sweeping across the provinces and economic collapse a stark reality.

 

While there were fanatics - mainly on the Christian side - for most aristocratic Romans religious belief was simply not the deciding factor in the issues of the day. However, conversion was a convenient option in an ever more Christian empire, and Rome's last pagans eventually succumbed - with hardly a whimper.

The other great review:

 

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/417316.article

 

Quote

Cameron opens his introduction with a quotation from Gibbon about the "ruin of paganism, in the age of Theodosius" as "a singular event in the history of the human mind". He grabs our attention by proclaiming that "the romantic myth" of a class of pagan aristocrats who in the 380s and the following decades were "fearless champions of senatorial privilege, literature lovers, and aficionados of classical (especially Greek) culture as well as traditional cults" must be dismantled.

Eugenius' power grab might need to be assessed with this alternative (and thoroughly researched and convincingly argued) background in mind. Eugenius might not have been the last great "hero of the Pagans" once imagined.

 

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited November 3, 2013 by guy

[Number Six]

Just because we cannot support a romantic view of late pagans and, indeed, Eugenius may have not been a 'champion of paganism' (on the other hand, Constantine wasn't a 'champion of christianity' either), you shouldn't easily drop the idea of a contrast between late paganism and post-Constantinian christianity. I did not read Cameron's Last Pagans (I'm noticing just now that a paperback edition was released in 2013: the previous one was a bit more costy and I couldn't get my hands on it yet), but I'm familiar with some of the ideas behind it. You may wanna widen Cameron's perspective with Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries. Cameron's judgement is just representative of a certain historiographical current, which is not the only authoritative one.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Number Six

[Onasander]

I need to make a confession, outside the selfish pagan aristocrats in the west that revolted,, tripping up the Roman line of defence allowing every barbarian tribe through, as pro Christian as I am, its a secondary issue at best. The Romans had been declining under paganism, Christianty invigorated it, but it wasnt enough in the west, though it clearly worked in the east.

 

A couple of nearly monotheistic sun worshipers or Mithra Cultists meeting underground mumbling crypto-stoic beliefs wont sink society. The late pagans were not nearly as superstitious as the silliness that came before. The big issues to me would of been similar to Vegetius' Vegetius' focus in the military mechanics of a healthy, expanding empire, as well as strategems for getting distangled from the hordes that kept showing up. Someone dressed like a raven underground slaughtering goats crying Mithra would be the lesser of my concerns.