Editing Theodosius I (section)

=== Massacre and its aftermath: 388–391 ===
[[File:Massacre in the Hippodrome of Thessaloniki in 390, 16th century wood engraving.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|alt=16th century engraving of the massacre of Thessalonica in the hippodrome|Massacre in the Hippodrome of Thessaloniki in 390, 16th-century wood engraving]]
The [[Massacre of Thessalonica]] (Thessaloniki) in Greece was a massacre of local civilians by Roman troops. The best estimate of the date is April of 390.<ref name="Harold Allen Drake">{{cite book |last1=Washburn |first1=Daniel |editor1-last=Albu |editor1-first=Emily |editor2-last=Drake |editor2-first=Harold Allen |editor3-last=Latham |editor3-first=Jacob |title=Violence in Late Antiquity Perceptions and Practices |date=2006 |publisher=Ashgate |isbn=978-0-7546-5498-8 |chapter=18 The Thessalonian Affair in the Fifth Century Histories}}</ref>{{rp|fn.1, 215}} The massacre was most likely a response to an urban riot that led to the murder of a Roman official. What most scholars, such as philosopher Stanislav Doležal, see as the most reliable of the sources is the ''Historia ecclesiastica'' written by [[Sozomen]] about 442; in it Sozomen supplies the identity of the murdered Roman official as Butheric, the commanding general of the field army in Illyricum (magister militum per Illyricum).<ref name="Stanislav Doležal"/>{{rp|91}} According to Sozomen, a popular charioteer tried to rape a cup-bearer, (or possibly Butheric himself), and in response, Butheric arrested and jailed the charioteer.<ref name="Stanislav Doležal"/>{{rp|93–94}}<ref name="Sozomen">Sozomenus, ''Ecclesiastical History 7.25''</ref> The populace demanded the chariot racer's release, and when Butheric refused, a general revolt rose up costing Butheric his life.<ref name="Harold Allen Drake"/>{{rp|216–217}} Doležal says the name "Butheric" indicates he might have been a Goth, and that the general's ethnicity "could have been" a factor in the riot, but none of the early sources actually say so.<ref name="Stanislav Doležal">{{cite journal |last1=Doležal |first1=Stanislav |title=Rethinking a Massacre: What Really Happened in Thessalonica and Milan in 390? |journal=Eirene: Studia Graeca et Latina|issn= 0046-1628 |date=2014|publisher=[[Czech Academy of Sciences]] |volume=50 |issue=1–2 |url=}}</ref>{{rp|92, 96}}

====Sources====
There are no contemporaneous accounts. Church historians [[Sozomen]], [[Theodoret|Theodoret the bishop of Cyrrhus]], [[Socrates of Constantinople]] and [[Tyrannius Rufinus|Rufinus]] wrote the earliest accounts during the fifth century. These are moral accounts emphasizing imperial piety and ecclesial action rather than historical and political details.<ref name="Harold Allen Drake"/>{{rp|215, 218}}<ref>"Biennial Conference on Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity (5th : 2003" : University of California, Santa Barbara). ''Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Practices''. United Kingdom, Ashgate, 2006. p. 223</ref> Further difficulty is created by these events moving into legend in art and literature almost immediately.<ref name="Greenslade">{{cite book |editor1-last=Greenslade |editor1-first=S. L.|title=Early Latin Theology Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome |date=1956 |publisher=Westminster Press |isbn=978-0-664-24154-4}}</ref>{{rp|251}} Doležal explains that yet another problem is created by aspects of these accounts contradicting one another to the point of being mutually exclusive.<ref name="Harold Allen Drake"/>{{rp|216}} Nonetheless, most classicists accept at least the basic account of the massacre, although they continue to dispute when it happened, who was responsible for it, what motivated it, and what impact it had on subsequent events.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|pp=90, 216}}

====Theodosius's role====
[[File:Anthonis van Dyck 005.jpg|thumb|alt=Anthonis van Dyck|Anthonis Van Dyke's 1619 painting of St. Ambrose blocking the cathedral door, refusing Theodosius's admittance, a "pious fiction" invented by Theodoret ([[National Gallery]]).<ref name="Chestnut"/>]]
Theodosius was not in Thessalonica when the massacre occurred. The court was in Milan.<ref name="Harold Allen Drake"/>{{rp|223}} Several scholars, such as historian [[G. W. Bowersock]] and authors Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell, think that Theodosius ordered the massacre in an excess of "volcanic anger".{{sfn|Williams|Friell|1995|p=68}} McLynn also puts all the blame on the Emperor<ref name="Stanislav Doležal"/>{{rp|103}} as does the less dependable fifth century historian, Theodoret.<ref>Theodoretus, ''Ecclesiastical History 5.17''</ref> Other scholars, such as historians Mark Hebblewhite and N. Q. King, do not agree.{{sfn|Hebblewhite|p=103}}<ref name="Noel Quinton King">{{cite book |last1=King |first1=Noel Quinton |title=The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity |date=1960 |publisher=Westminster Press|asin=B0000CL13G |page=68}}</ref> [[Peter Brown (historian)|Peter Brown]] points to the empire's established process of decision making, which required the emperor "to listen to his ministers" before acting.<ref name="Brownpowerandpersuasion">{{cite book|last=Brown|first=Peter|title=Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire|publisher=Univ of Wisconsin Press|year=1992|isbn=978-0-299-13344-3}}</ref>{{rp|111}} There is some indication in the sources Theodosius did listen to his counselors but received bad or misleading advice.<ref name="Stanislav Doležal"/>{{rp|95–98}}

J. F. Matthews argues that the Emperor first tried to punish the city by selective executions. Peter Brown concurs: "As it was, what was probably planned as a selective killing&nbsp;... got out of hand".<ref>Mathews, J. F. 1997, “Codex Theodosianus 9.40.13 and Nicomachus Flavianus”, Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, 46; pp. 202–206.</ref><ref name="Brownpowerandpersuasion"/>{{rp|110}} Doleźal says Sozomen is very specific in saying that in response to the riot, the soldiers made random arrests in the hippodrome to perform a few public executions as a demonstration of imperial disfavor, but the citizenry objected. Doleźal suggests, "The soldiers, realizing that they were surrounded by angry citizens, perhaps panicked&nbsp;... and&nbsp;... forcibly cleared the hippodrome at the cost of several thousands of lives of local inhabitants".<ref name="Stanislav Doležal"/>{{rp|103–104}}  McLynn says Theodosius was “unable to impose discipline upon the faraway troops" and covered that failure by taking responsibility for the massacre on himself, declaring he had given the order then countermanded it too late to stop it.<ref name="Stanislav Doležal"/>{{rp|102–104}}

[[Ambrose]], the bishop of Milan and one of Theodosius's many counselors, was away from court. After being informed of events concerning Thessalonica, he wrote Theodosius a letter offering what McLynn calls a different way for the emperor to "save face" and restore his public image.<ref name="Wolfe Liebeschuetz"/>{{rp|262}} Ambrose urges a semi-public demonstration of penitence, telling the emperor he  will not give Theodosius communion until this is done. [[Wolf Liebeschuetz]] says "Theodosius duly complied and came to church without his imperial robes, until Christmas, when Ambrose openly admitted him to communion".<ref name="Wolfe Liebeschuetz">{{cite book |editor1-last=Liebeschuetz |editor1-first=Wolfe |editor2-last=Hill |editor2-first=Carole |title=Ambrose of Milan Political Letters and Speeches |date=2005 |publisher=Liverpool University Press|chapter=Letter on the Massacre at Thessalonica|isbn=978-0-85323-829-4}}</ref>{{rp|262–263}}

Washburn says the image of the mitered prelate braced in the door of the cathedral in Milan blocking Theodosius from entering is a product of the imagination of Theodoret who wrote of the events of 390 "using his own ideology to fill the gaps in the historical record".<ref name="Chestnut">{{cite journal |last1=Chesnut |first1=Glenn F. |title=The Date of Composition of Theodoret's Church history |journal=Vigiliae Christianae |date=1981 |volume=35 |issue=3 |pages=245–252 |doi=10.2307/1583142 |jstor=1583142}}</ref><ref name="Harold Allen Drake"/>{{rp|215}} Peter Brown also says there was no dramatic encounter at the church door.<ref name="Brownpowerandpersuasion"/>{{rp|111}} McLynn states that "the encounter at the church door has long been known as a pious fiction".{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=291}}{{sfn|Cameron|pp=63, 64}} Wolfe Liebeschuetz says Ambrose advocated a course of action which avoided the kind of public humiliation Theodoret describes, and that is the course Theodosius chose.<ref name="Wolfe Liebeschuetz"/>{{rp|262}}

====Aftermath====
According to the early twentieth century historian [[Henry Smith Williams]], history's assessment of Theodosius's character has been stained by the massacre of Thessalonica for centuries. Williams describes Theodosius as a virtuous-minded, courageous man, who was vigorous in pursuit of any important goal, but through contrasting the "inhuman massacre of the people of Thessalonica" with "the generous pardon of the citizens of Antioch" after civil war, Williams also concludes Theodosius was "hasty and choleric".<ref name="Henry Smith Williams">{{cite book |last1=Williams |first1=Henry Smith |title=The Historians' History of the World: A Comprehensive Narrative of the Rise and Development of Nations as Recorded by Over Two Thousand of the Great Writers of All Ages |date=1907 |publisher=Hooper & Jackson, Limited|volume=6|page=529}}</ref>  It is only modern scholarship that has begun disputing Theodosius's responsibility for those events.

From the time [[Edward Gibbon]] wrote his ''Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'', Ambrose's action after the fact has been cited as an example of the church's dominance over the state in Antiquity.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gibbon |first1=Edward |editor1-last=Smith |editor1-first=William |title=The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire |date=1857 |publisher=Harper |page=217}}</ref> [[Alan Cameron (classicist)|Alan Cameron]] says "the assumption is so widespread it would be superfluous to cite authorities. But there is not a shred of evidence for Ambrose exerting any such influence over Theodosius".{{sfn|Cameron|pp=60, 63, 131}} Brown says Ambrose was just one among many advisors, and Cameron says there is no evidence Theodosius favored him above anyone else.{{sfn|Cameron|p=64}}

By the time of the Thessalonian affair, Ambrose, an aristocrat and former governor, had been a bishop for 16 years, and during his episcopate, had seen the death of three emperors before Theodosius. These produced significant political storms, yet Ambrose held his place using what McLynn calls his "considerable qualities [and] considerable luck" to survive.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=xxiv}} Theodosius was in his 40s, had been emperor for 11 years, had temporarily settled the Gothic wars, and won a civil war. As a Latin speaking Nicene western leader of the Greek largely Arian East, Boniface Ramsey says he had already left an indelible mark on history.<ref name="Boniface Ramsey">{{cite book |last1=Ramsey |first1=Boniface |title=Ambrose |date=1997 |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-0-415-11842-2|edition=reprint}}</ref>{{rp|12}}

McLynn asserts that the relationship between Theodosius and Ambrose transformed into myth within a generation of their deaths. He also observes that the documents revealing the relationship between these two formidable men do not show the personal friendship the legends portray. Instead, those documents read more as negotiations between the institutions the men represent: the Roman state and the Italian Church.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=292}}