CONSTANTINOPLE AND THE EASTERN EMPIREadministrative diffi culties.^16 But in practice, during this period, the eastern
government grew stronger while the western one weakened.
The east c. 400The turn of the century nevertheless found the east facing some severe prob-
lems, chief among them the threats posed by the pressure of barbarians on
the empire, and by the so-called ‘Arian question’. As we have seen, the two
were linked. At the turn of the century, certain Gothic leaders and their military
retinues had acquired considerable infl uence over the government at Constan-
tinople, and when Synesius arrived there he found city and court deeply divided
about how to deal with this potentially dangerous situation. This was not the
only problem. Like his brother Honorius in the west, the eastern Emperor
Arcadius was young and easily infl uenced by unscrupulous ministers. In this
way the eastern and western governments became rivals; the western court poet
Claudian, the panegyrist of the powerful Vandal general Stilicho, gives a luridly
pro-western account of the situation, especially in his scabrous attacks on the
eastern ministers, Rufi nus, master of offi ces, consul and prefect of the east, and
the eunuch Eutropius, head of the young emperor’s ‘Bedchamber’.^17 Though he
cannot rival Claudian’s level of invective, Zosimus’ account is similar in tone:
The empire now devolved upon Arcadius and Honorius, who, although
apparently the rulers, were so in name only: complete control was exer-
cised by Rufi nus in the east and Stilicho in the west ... all senators were
distressed at the present plight.
(New Hist., V.1.9)Even allowing for distortion, matters looked unpromising. The weakness of
the imperial government is shown by the fact that in 400 Gainas had only
recently been given the job of suppressing the troops led by his kinsman
Tribigild who were devastating Asia Minor, only to join them himself and
march on the city. The choice for the eastern government was stark: either it
could follow a pro-barbarian policy and continue to attempt to conciliate such
leaders, or it must attempt to root them out altogether. Both eastern and west-
ern courts were hotbeds of suspicion and intrigue, and the divisions which
resulted led to the murder of Rufi nus in 395 and the fall of Eutropius in 399,
and were subsequently to lead to the fall and death of Stilicho in 408.
Theodosius I’s policy in relation to the Goths was to settle them on Roman
land, but this did not remove the danger, and in 395 Constantinople employed
the traditional policy of using subsidies to buy off Alaric, the leader of the Visig-
oths, who was plundering land dangerously close to the city.^18 This proved dis-
astrous; in the following year Alaric devastated the Peloponnese and large parts
of the Balkans, an area whose control was disputed between east and west. A
major part of the problem lay also in the fact that Gothic soldiers formed a large
part of the Roman army itself. Nevertheless, the east was in a better position to
buy off the raiders than the west; furthermore, signifi cant voices, including that