Cyril Mango

A FAKE INSCRIPTION OF THE EMPRESS EUDOCIA 33
having been one of the seven chosen to minister to widows (Acts, 6.
1-5). For the emperor’s father the obvious candidate is the Persian
eunuch Antiochus, who acted as guardian of Theodosius II 54 , but we do
not happen to know whose son he was. The last sentence may refer to
the setting up of a charitable institution bearing St. Stephen’s name. But
what are we to make of the statement that Pulcheria «housed» (θαλάµευσε)
Stephen? Is it to be taken literally and, if so, does it necessarily
imply that she had deposited Stephen’s relic in the Imperial Palace rather
than in her church of St. Laurence built on her estate of Pulcherianae,
or should it be understood metaphorically? A parallel is provided by
Homily 12, PG 65, col. 788B: «She has mortified her own flesh against
the passions; she has housed (θαλάµευσεν) the crucified One in her
spirit». Here, certainly, the meaning is metaphorical.
To conclude this part of our discussion, I can see no firm grounds to
give credence to Theophanes’ story and several reasons for disbelieving
it. The only well-attested relic of St. Stephen in 5th-century Constantinople
is the one that was brought by Eudocia in 439. The conjunction
of Stephen and Laurence was not, of course, fortuitous.The two deaconmartyrs
were often thought as a pair and were represented side by side
in mural paintings. Their remains were allegedly laid in the same tomb
in the Pelagian basilica of S. Lorenzo fuori le mura, and there is a text of
uncertain date concerning the «coniunctio corporum... Stephani et Laurentii
facta Romae sub Theodosio iuniore» 55 . Seeing that Eudocia exercised,
so to speak, patronal rights over St. Stephen’s bones, one can readily
see why Pulcheria, who was not exactly on friendly terms with her,
might have wished to establish a prior claim on the Protomartyr – hence
the invention of the story related by Theophanes.
For some time Stephen’s relics remained at St. Laurence’s. In speaking
of them, Marcellinus Comes uses the present tense, «in basilica sancti
Laurentii positae venerantur». His Chronicle, as it survives today, extended
to 534 56 . There is also a neglected reference in the Miracles of Sts.
54 The chronology of Antiochus’ career is uncertain. According to J.R. MARTIN-
DALE, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, II, Cambridge 1980,p.102, he was dismissed
by Theodosius II in or shortly after 421. J. Bardill argues, however, that he
remained in service until 439:in G.GREATREX - J. BARDILL, Antiochus the Praepositus,
in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 50 (1996), p. 197.
55 Acta Sanctorum, Aug. II (1735), pp. 528-530.
56 It is, of course, possible that in this passage he neglected to update the first
edition of 518.