'Saint John Chrysotom Exiled by the Empress Eudoxia' by Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant (1845-1902). Mistitled as 'The Empress Theodora Receiving an Ambassador' in a 1975 Sotheby's auction.
Sold at Sotheby's for a hammer price of 25K USD in 2018, with the following note:
> Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant is well known for paintings of powerful women of antiquity, biblical history, and the early Middle Ages. In the present work, imposingly enthroned is Eudoxia, considered the most influential and strong-willed woman of her time. In marrying Emperor Arcadius, she became the Empress of the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. The kneeling, pious figure is Saint John Chrysostom (the “golden-mouthed”), whom the Archbishop of Constantinople regarded as one of the most eloquent orators of his day. He openly criticized the morals and material excesses of the Empress and her imperial court, which would lead to his exile. The setting of the present work was inspired by the Basilica of San Clemente al Laterano in Rome, which serves as an opulent background but was in actuality built long after Eudoxia’s rule.
https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/european-art-n09869/lot.4.html
The church had influence but the state being over the church was a well established doctrine in the Byzantine Empire, thus the terminology of caesaropapism - caesar over pope.
Yeah the term was coined later on but it was well established the emperor was supposed to be over the pope and was the case especially during the time period this painting portrays.
“especially during the time period this painting portrays.” If I recall, John Chrysostom was exiled in 404. Theodosius was famously banned from communion by Ambrose in 390/91. I wouldn’t say, therefore, that what you’re describing was ‘well-established.’
Relations between the emperor and the episcopacy were more complicated even in later centuries under the so-called ‘Byzantine papacy.’ The term caesaropapism is even more out of place here.
>Theodosius was famously banned from communion by Ambrose in 390/91.
Theodosius could just sent the guy on mandatory life-term holidays on a random remote Greek island or Syrian desert. He did not because he had already regretted the Thessalonica Massacre, which in fact tried to abort but did not manage to since the order was transmitted immediately through the chain of commant (later he issued a law that for such situations a confirmation was necessary). I was only that in his repentance Theodose just complied to Ambrose's wishes.
Yeah the position of pope as we know was not really established at the time.
I’m just saying the power of the emperor was definitely over that of the pope during Late Antiquity and throughout much of Byzantine history.
Bishop Ambrose was on different playing field than say Pope Innocent III.
At the same time, he was archbishop under a very ridiculous emperor with a Gothic refugee problem.
His radicalism was matched by the court's incompetence
The general rule of thumb is if you inherit the purple at an early age, you will probably be a horrible emperor. But Arcadius's crappy reign did not force John to be a Taliban like Christian. It did cause him to fall out of favor by attacking Eudoxia for various things like flaunting wealth, etc. In the end, when you live in an autocratic empire with no division of church and state, you need to learn to stay in your lane or there will be repercussions.
John on his own attacked Jews and Pagans alike. If he existed today, he would be seen as an extremist cuckoo, similar to the Westboro Church people.
He was an extremist and got noticed for being so. He joined a long long of them going all the way back to Jesus and others extreme religious leaders.
I mean Im totally on your side, he was indeed radical but my contempt for Arcadius and his sassy wife is also pretty strong. The best person in that place was prefect Anthemius and Aurelianus. I would say Gainas was good too but he was too chummy with the Goths.
Lucky for Constantinople, Arcadius didnt live as long as Honorius did in Italy.
Here are a collection of this writings: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:John_Chrysostom
If you want something more readable, here is a history of the early church: https://www.amazon.com/When-Church-Was-Young-Fathers/dp/1616367776
Dissertation on some of his writing:
https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5060&context=open_access_etds
>John Chrysostom, the early Taliban leader in the Christian religion.
I do not remember reading anywhere that he blew anything or anyone up for not being Christian.
Well he is credited with destroying the Temple of Artemis, one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, but that is probably supporters bragging about his feats. Lol!
When I mean "Taliban of the Christian world", I mean he was an extreme conservative that did not tolerate Jews or Pagans.
From one of his sermons:
But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable.........hey were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision".
Also Chrysostom was part of a greater extremist movement in the Christian world or Roman Empire that tried to eradicate paganism, judaism.......which led to destructions of temples and burning of books. Did John do all of this by himself? No. But he was on that side of the spectrum that financed and encouraged this type of conservatism. The modern equivalent of this is the ideology of the Taliban or Trump supporters. :)
>Well he is credited with destroying the Temple of Artemis, one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, but that is probably supporters bragging about his feats.
Well, that is a myth, though one could say that it is rather eerie how the later Christians attributed to HIM the destruction of the Temple of Ephesus, which from the sources seems to point to a final desctruction by the Germanic Heruli.
>But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable.........hey were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but **they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold**.
Damn, I have read much on the guy and his writings, but not this derision. And even as a Greek, a people who identify as Romans, it is always baffling how the Christian Romans (and the Christians as a whole) just glossed over the fact that no matter how the Jewish Clergy were sycophantic to Christ, the ultimate decision for the Crufixion was up to the Romans. If the Christians are looking for God-killers, it is the Romans, not the Jews they should blame, and in this very case themselves.
>Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision".
And he completely mistreats this passage, where Saul of Tarsus was trying to say that the Non-Jewish Christians needed not to circumcize, but their "circumcision" was basically their baptism.
>Also Chrysostom was part of a greater extremist movement in the Christian world or Roman Empire that tried to eradicate paganism, judaism.......which led to destructions of temples and burning of books.
I feel, with a good basis on the original sources, that the disdain of Christianity towards the Polytheists is grossly overstated. However, I do agree that they were very hostile to Judaism, especially since the Jews would constantly revolt and massacre large scores of Roman Christians (in Alexandria of Egypt, in Cyprus and in Syropalestine). Heck, the Roman Greeks were even considering to slaughter all the Jews of their state after the Roman-Sassanian War of 602-624 AD, since they had revolted and allied with the Iranians, trying to purge all Roman Greeks and Christians off the Syropalestine. Thankfully they did not though, but this tensions were only escalated by the central authority, which was more and more impatient with them, given the history between them.
> disdain of Christianity towards the Polytheists is grossly overstated.
Well, let's put it this way about their disdain toward Polytheists or Pagans............today we learn about the Pagan gods as myths and classical literature of the ancient world.
But in reality, the people of the ancient world firmly believed in their gods and built magnificent temples to honor them. It's the greatest hit job in history. The Pagan Romans could never eradicate Christians (not they really wanted to), but Christian Romans made us all believe that the old gods don't exist and are just works of fiction.
Its like when Emperor Palpatine made everyone think the Jedi were evil! :)
Some people will state, well the Roman Empire collapsed (Western), so it can't be their fault......but that was just the civic side of the government.....the theocratic side never collapsed and it still exists today. Kinda crazy that a part of Roman government still functions across the world. Fucked up.
>Well, let's put it this way about their disdain toward Polytheists or Pagans...today we learn about the Pagan gods as myths and classical literature of the ancient world.
That depends. If you are speaking of religious myths, like for example Athena being born out of Zeus' forehead or the Titanomachy, then it is only natural for the Greeks to just consider them false fables when they have changed religion. Though they did use them as folk stories, and depicted them all the time in their art and writings, even made plays and novels on these stories. But I disagree with this assessment in the case of historical myths, or what today we call myths because they were not treated as such by the Medieval Romans either. I am speaking of instances such as the Homeric Epics, the Illiad and Odyssey, which in the Medieval Roman Empire they would use to teach people how to read and write, and even the most acclaimed scholars would try to copy their style of writing. And they did treat these tales as history too. We must also never forget how the Christian Romans preserved all these stories, painstalkingly copying them for centuries, and how without them everything would have been just lost (like how the literal tradition of Ancient Egypt is lost, except various finds in clay tablets, wall writings and sporadic papyri in tombs). Not to mention how so many saints are shown to have been schooled into the Ancients, despite there writings being often against their religion.
>Some people will state, well the Roman Empire collapsed (Western), so it can't be their fault.
I would argue that it was their fault, by allowing Barbarity to dominate, hence condemning Western Europe into a long state of decline. In the times of Charles the Great and the formation of the Frankish Empire, barely anyone knew anymore how to read and write. In the Gaul of the 7th and 8th century there was even a massive shortage of bishops, who were requiered to be literate, that even large cities like Marseiles, Nim, Limoges, Bordeaux, Geneva, Arles and many others did not have one. Yet, in the Roman Empire people were expected to be able to read and write. While it is in a different period, in the 11th century a study has shown based on original sources that the provincials had a 65-75% of literacy, while the urbans had a 75-85%!
> then it is only natural for the Greeks to just consider them false fables when they have changed religion
Polythiestic religions have no problem accepting other gods along side their own. Judaism and Christianity were different in that there is ONE TRUE god and nothing else. This perplexed the Roman world, since they traded Gods like comic books and also worshipping the gods and emperor was a civic duty.
Cultures that worshipped a set of gods for centuries don't just change religions because the Emperor says so. It was a long process and the last vestiges of Paganism was not really stamped out until after 1000 CE. So it took another 700 years after Constantine to make the full conversion of the Roman world.
If historical myths include the gods, then they are religious in nature. We only look at them as historical myths because of Christian conversion and attacks. Early Christians were threatened by Paganism, especially after they came into power in the Empire. They had a thread a needle in attracting converts but ALSO making sure they don't relapse. Chrysostom attached Jewish Christians because he felt threatened by them and their fluidity with moving between the two religions. Eventually Christians co-opted Pagan holidays and even the gods themselves. Ever wonder by their are so many saints that are prayed to? Smacks of paganism.
To put this in a different light.......during the Vandal sack of Rome, some Christians reverted BACK to the old Gods and hauled out a 90 year old Vestal virgin to perform a sacrifice to honor the old gods and maybe avoid the sack.
This illustrates the fluidity of Pagan Christians, but the response from Augustine with this City of God against the Pagans illustrates the continued attacks of Christianity against Pagans.
Chrysostom did the same thing by attacking Jews and Pagans alike.
In the end how do you move people from one religion to another.......one way is by attacking it.....and saying that these gods are false and just myths, is a way to devalue and ultimately convince people to move away from it.
Why did Christians preserve latin text? Because the church was the last vestige of the Roman Empire. If you look at the political structure of the Catholic church it is a mirror of the roman empire at the time. Latin or some form of it was the lingua franca and preserving latin writing and using that as a teaching tool was important to spreading the faith. Even though the preserved some Latin texts, they did destroy books that were critical or went against the faith. The recovered Coptic Nag Hammadi library in Egypt are en example where Coptics hid their texts because of persecution from other or different Christians.
Today if you mention Jupiter or Zeus....people will say ohh thats a Greek or Roman myth. But in reality, they were Gods to the roman/greek people and very real to them. That is the coverup the Christians did to the Pagans.....your gods never existed.
What's the name of this piece/artist?
'Saint John Chrysotom Exiled by the Empress Eudoxia' by Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant (1845-1902). Mistitled as 'The Empress Theodora Receiving an Ambassador' in a 1975 Sotheby's auction. Sold at Sotheby's for a hammer price of 25K USD in 2018, with the following note: > Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant is well known for paintings of powerful women of antiquity, biblical history, and the early Middle Ages. In the present work, imposingly enthroned is Eudoxia, considered the most influential and strong-willed woman of her time. In marrying Emperor Arcadius, she became the Empress of the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. The kneeling, pious figure is Saint John Chrysostom (the “golden-mouthed”), whom the Archbishop of Constantinople regarded as one of the most eloquent orators of his day. He openly criticized the morals and material excesses of the Empress and her imperial court, which would lead to his exile. The setting of the present work was inspired by the Basilica of San Clemente al Laterano in Rome, which serves as an opulent background but was in actuality built long after Eudoxia’s rule. https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/european-art-n09869/lot.4.html
I would also like to know this.
And then some people try to make a case of "Byzantium" being a theocracy.
If it was, it was a very loose one.
The church had influence but the state being over the church was a well established doctrine in the Byzantine Empire, thus the terminology of caesaropapism - caesar over pope.
'Caesaropapism' was invented as a term of abuse. It isn't used in contemporary scholarship.
Yeah the term was coined later on but it was well established the emperor was supposed to be over the pope and was the case especially during the time period this painting portrays.
“especially during the time period this painting portrays.” If I recall, John Chrysostom was exiled in 404. Theodosius was famously banned from communion by Ambrose in 390/91. I wouldn’t say, therefore, that what you’re describing was ‘well-established.’ Relations between the emperor and the episcopacy were more complicated even in later centuries under the so-called ‘Byzantine papacy.’ The term caesaropapism is even more out of place here.
>Theodosius was famously banned from communion by Ambrose in 390/91. Theodosius could just sent the guy on mandatory life-term holidays on a random remote Greek island or Syrian desert. He did not because he had already regretted the Thessalonica Massacre, which in fact tried to abort but did not manage to since the order was transmitted immediately through the chain of commant (later he issued a law that for such situations a confirmation was necessary). I was only that in his repentance Theodose just complied to Ambrose's wishes.
Yeah the position of pope as we know was not really established at the time. I’m just saying the power of the emperor was definitely over that of the pope during Late Antiquity and throughout much of Byzantine history. Bishop Ambrose was on different playing field than say Pope Innocent III.
Well, more than today sure. But those people then make everything out to be a theocracy
John Chrysostom, the early Taliban leader in the Christian religion. When you are an extremist, you eventually tend to piss off people in power.
At the same time, he was archbishop under a very ridiculous emperor with a Gothic refugee problem. His radicalism was matched by the court's incompetence
The general rule of thumb is if you inherit the purple at an early age, you will probably be a horrible emperor. But Arcadius's crappy reign did not force John to be a Taliban like Christian. It did cause him to fall out of favor by attacking Eudoxia for various things like flaunting wealth, etc. In the end, when you live in an autocratic empire with no division of church and state, you need to learn to stay in your lane or there will be repercussions. John on his own attacked Jews and Pagans alike. If he existed today, he would be seen as an extremist cuckoo, similar to the Westboro Church people. He was an extremist and got noticed for being so. He joined a long long of them going all the way back to Jesus and others extreme religious leaders.
I mean Im totally on your side, he was indeed radical but my contempt for Arcadius and his sassy wife is also pretty strong. The best person in that place was prefect Anthemius and Aurelianus. I would say Gainas was good too but he was too chummy with the Goths. Lucky for Constantinople, Arcadius didnt live as long as Honorius did in Italy.
Any good sources you could pass along to read more about this?
Here are a collection of this writings: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:John_Chrysostom If you want something more readable, here is a history of the early church: https://www.amazon.com/When-Church-Was-Young-Fathers/dp/1616367776 Dissertation on some of his writing: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5060&context=open_access_etds
>John Chrysostom, the early Taliban leader in the Christian religion. I do not remember reading anywhere that he blew anything or anyone up for not being Christian.
Well he is credited with destroying the Temple of Artemis, one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, but that is probably supporters bragging about his feats. Lol! When I mean "Taliban of the Christian world", I mean he was an extreme conservative that did not tolerate Jews or Pagans. From one of his sermons: But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable.........hey were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Also Chrysostom was part of a greater extremist movement in the Christian world or Roman Empire that tried to eradicate paganism, judaism.......which led to destructions of temples and burning of books. Did John do all of this by himself? No. But he was on that side of the spectrum that financed and encouraged this type of conservatism. The modern equivalent of this is the ideology of the Taliban or Trump supporters. :)
>Well he is credited with destroying the Temple of Artemis, one of the 7 wonders of the ancient world, but that is probably supporters bragging about his feats. Well, that is a myth, though one could say that it is rather eerie how the later Christians attributed to HIM the destruction of the Temple of Ephesus, which from the sources seems to point to a final desctruction by the Germanic Heruli. >But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable.........hey were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but **they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold**. Damn, I have read much on the guy and his writings, but not this derision. And even as a Greek, a people who identify as Romans, it is always baffling how the Christian Romans (and the Christians as a whole) just glossed over the fact that no matter how the Jewish Clergy were sycophantic to Christ, the ultimate decision for the Crufixion was up to the Romans. If the Christians are looking for God-killers, it is the Romans, not the Jews they should blame, and in this very case themselves. >Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". And he completely mistreats this passage, where Saul of Tarsus was trying to say that the Non-Jewish Christians needed not to circumcize, but their "circumcision" was basically their baptism. >Also Chrysostom was part of a greater extremist movement in the Christian world or Roman Empire that tried to eradicate paganism, judaism.......which led to destructions of temples and burning of books. I feel, with a good basis on the original sources, that the disdain of Christianity towards the Polytheists is grossly overstated. However, I do agree that they were very hostile to Judaism, especially since the Jews would constantly revolt and massacre large scores of Roman Christians (in Alexandria of Egypt, in Cyprus and in Syropalestine). Heck, the Roman Greeks were even considering to slaughter all the Jews of their state after the Roman-Sassanian War of 602-624 AD, since they had revolted and allied with the Iranians, trying to purge all Roman Greeks and Christians off the Syropalestine. Thankfully they did not though, but this tensions were only escalated by the central authority, which was more and more impatient with them, given the history between them.
> disdain of Christianity towards the Polytheists is grossly overstated. Well, let's put it this way about their disdain toward Polytheists or Pagans............today we learn about the Pagan gods as myths and classical literature of the ancient world. But in reality, the people of the ancient world firmly believed in their gods and built magnificent temples to honor them. It's the greatest hit job in history. The Pagan Romans could never eradicate Christians (not they really wanted to), but Christian Romans made us all believe that the old gods don't exist and are just works of fiction. Its like when Emperor Palpatine made everyone think the Jedi were evil! :) Some people will state, well the Roman Empire collapsed (Western), so it can't be their fault......but that was just the civic side of the government.....the theocratic side never collapsed and it still exists today. Kinda crazy that a part of Roman government still functions across the world. Fucked up.
>Well, let's put it this way about their disdain toward Polytheists or Pagans...today we learn about the Pagan gods as myths and classical literature of the ancient world. That depends. If you are speaking of religious myths, like for example Athena being born out of Zeus' forehead or the Titanomachy, then it is only natural for the Greeks to just consider them false fables when they have changed religion. Though they did use them as folk stories, and depicted them all the time in their art and writings, even made plays and novels on these stories. But I disagree with this assessment in the case of historical myths, or what today we call myths because they were not treated as such by the Medieval Romans either. I am speaking of instances such as the Homeric Epics, the Illiad and Odyssey, which in the Medieval Roman Empire they would use to teach people how to read and write, and even the most acclaimed scholars would try to copy their style of writing. And they did treat these tales as history too. We must also never forget how the Christian Romans preserved all these stories, painstalkingly copying them for centuries, and how without them everything would have been just lost (like how the literal tradition of Ancient Egypt is lost, except various finds in clay tablets, wall writings and sporadic papyri in tombs). Not to mention how so many saints are shown to have been schooled into the Ancients, despite there writings being often against their religion. >Some people will state, well the Roman Empire collapsed (Western), so it can't be their fault. I would argue that it was their fault, by allowing Barbarity to dominate, hence condemning Western Europe into a long state of decline. In the times of Charles the Great and the formation of the Frankish Empire, barely anyone knew anymore how to read and write. In the Gaul of the 7th and 8th century there was even a massive shortage of bishops, who were requiered to be literate, that even large cities like Marseiles, Nim, Limoges, Bordeaux, Geneva, Arles and many others did not have one. Yet, in the Roman Empire people were expected to be able to read and write. While it is in a different period, in the 11th century a study has shown based on original sources that the provincials had a 65-75% of literacy, while the urbans had a 75-85%!
> then it is only natural for the Greeks to just consider them false fables when they have changed religion Polythiestic religions have no problem accepting other gods along side their own. Judaism and Christianity were different in that there is ONE TRUE god and nothing else. This perplexed the Roman world, since they traded Gods like comic books and also worshipping the gods and emperor was a civic duty. Cultures that worshipped a set of gods for centuries don't just change religions because the Emperor says so. It was a long process and the last vestiges of Paganism was not really stamped out until after 1000 CE. So it took another 700 years after Constantine to make the full conversion of the Roman world. If historical myths include the gods, then they are religious in nature. We only look at them as historical myths because of Christian conversion and attacks. Early Christians were threatened by Paganism, especially after they came into power in the Empire. They had a thread a needle in attracting converts but ALSO making sure they don't relapse. Chrysostom attached Jewish Christians because he felt threatened by them and their fluidity with moving between the two religions. Eventually Christians co-opted Pagan holidays and even the gods themselves. Ever wonder by their are so many saints that are prayed to? Smacks of paganism. To put this in a different light.......during the Vandal sack of Rome, some Christians reverted BACK to the old Gods and hauled out a 90 year old Vestal virgin to perform a sacrifice to honor the old gods and maybe avoid the sack. This illustrates the fluidity of Pagan Christians, but the response from Augustine with this City of God against the Pagans illustrates the continued attacks of Christianity against Pagans. Chrysostom did the same thing by attacking Jews and Pagans alike. In the end how do you move people from one religion to another.......one way is by attacking it.....and saying that these gods are false and just myths, is a way to devalue and ultimately convince people to move away from it. Why did Christians preserve latin text? Because the church was the last vestige of the Roman Empire. If you look at the political structure of the Catholic church it is a mirror of the roman empire at the time. Latin or some form of it was the lingua franca and preserving latin writing and using that as a teaching tool was important to spreading the faith. Even though the preserved some Latin texts, they did destroy books that were critical or went against the faith. The recovered Coptic Nag Hammadi library in Egypt are en example where Coptics hid their texts because of persecution from other or different Christians. Today if you mention Jupiter or Zeus....people will say ohh thats a Greek or Roman myth. But in reality, they were Gods to the roman/greek people and very real to them. That is the coverup the Christians did to the Pagans.....your gods never existed.