Talk:Theodosius I

Would someone please explain what it means that Theodosius decided to punish "witchcraft"? How did his men decide what to call witchcraft, and what did they do about it? --Dan

In the ancient world there was a clear distinction between the worship of nature gods and natural forces, which was until Theodosius legal, public, and (often) state-subsidized and the attempt to help or harm others by private powers or to find out the fate of others through private augury. The typical Latin name is veneficia (which also means any kind of "poisoning"); I don't have a copy of the Theodosian Code at home to look up what term it uses or what the penalty is. It had for a very long time (since Augustus Caesar?) been illegal to practice private divination about the life of the emperor; this included astrology, which many of the Romans believed in fervently. Public augury had been legal - in fact, a duty of state officials. Private augury had always been seen as subversive; after the prevailing of Christianity it was also seen as a practice that denied free will. So if you are thinking of the nature-religion side of modern Wicca this may help sort that out. --MichaelTinkler.

So if the Theodosian decrees mention "veneficia" that would be nothing new, and would refer to astrology as a treasonous inquiry, rather than to the veneration of the gods. If "witchcraft" was a red herring here, it doesn't appear any more. Other distinctions are more historical: the subject of Ambrose' and Theodosius' intolerance for the synagogues is not even mentioned in this article yet... Wetman 19:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

With the remark "Emperors Don't Have to Collude," an anon. editor has given us this picture: "Theodosius participated in actions by Christians against major cult sites:" Not actually true, is it? I haven't reverted. Our anon. passer-by also removed "fanatical" describing the mob that looted the Serapeum. If this was not fanaticism, perhaps, then, no actions may be termed "fanatical," --if Christians are involved. --Wetman 23:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arians vs. Homoians

Hello -- my edits about Arians and Homoians were removed by a user who did not log in. I'd like to hear justification for these edits. Most scholars of late antiquity would not use "Arian" to discuss most of the contenders for ecclesiastical power in the late 4th century AD. Their Nicene opponents (like Ambrose of Milan and Gregory of Nyssa) would have called them Arians, and those opponents ended up prevailing and defining Orthodoxy; however, these ecclesiastics would not have called themselves this, and, more importantly, were a different group than the self-declared followers of Arius from the early 4th century. Check out Daniel Williams "Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Nicene-Arian Conflicts" for more details. Unless the nameless editor would like to discuss the reasons behind these changes, I'd like to revert back. The resulting article doesn't even make grammatical sense, for one thing. --Jfruh 19:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what you understand to be the relationships and distinctions between the Homoians and the Arians? How are they similar? How are the different? Paul August ☎ 20:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Basically, Arius had taught that Jesus had been created by, and was therefore different from and inferior to, God the Father. This was the belief that had been condemened as heresy by the Council of Nicea; the Nicene Creed that had been established by the bishops there declared the the Father and Son were "homoousios", which can be variously translated as "of the same same nature" or "of the same substance." The council also explicity declared Arius and his followers to be heretics. Mainstream chruchmen (with a few exceptions) accepted the heretic nature of Arius and they did not preach that Jesus was a created or inferior being; however, many did not accept the "homoousios" formula. Some declared that Jesus was of a "like substance/nature" (homoiousios) to God the Father; others wanted to get rid of discussion about "nature" altogether, and would only say that Jesus was "like (homoi) the Father, according to the scriptures." It was this last group who had been favored by Valens, though the idea that there were rigidly defined factions is perhaps a bit overschematic; many churchmen changed their position to match prevailing wisdom or political expediencey. The non-Nicene churchmen would not have identified themselves as Arians.

The issue is clouded by a couple of points. First, the champions of Nicene theology, like Gregory of Nyssa and Ambrose of Milan, didn't really care about these distinctions: as far as they were concerned, anyone who didn't accept the homoousios formula was an Arian whether they admitted it or not. Since their faction ended up prevailing under Theodosius, it's their writings that have been by and large used to understand the conflict, though modern scholars attempt to see past their biases to understand precisely how the other side defined themselves. Second, outside the Roman Empire, the Christian churches in Germany were explicitly Arian, and when the Germans conquered the West in the 5th century AD, they brought their Arian religion with them, setting off another round of conflict that the Nicenes eventually won again. Thus the early 4th century, late 4th century, and 5th century conflicts tend to be collapsed into a single, long-running Arian vs. "Catholic" battle.

The salient facts for this article are that the conflict in the late 4th century was one fought within the church organization, rather than between two separate churches; while Valens had favored Homoians and occasionally intervened (sometimes violently) in Church affairs, many Nicene bishops were allowed to keep their positions throughout his reign. Cases like that of the Nicene Gregory of Nazianzus, who claimed to be the "real" bishop of Constantinople while another Homoian churchman also held the role (and was recognized as bishop by most of the city), were rare; usually conflict broke out when a bishop died and the factions vied to establish one of their own as his successor. Theodosius, however, intervened much more forcefully, ejecting the incumbant bishop in Constantinople and recognizing Gregory of Nazianzus, and establishing the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and legally defined Christianity. His strong intervention, along with the shameful death of a known non-Nicene emperor, combined to establish the Nicene faith in the East.

Anway, I've gone on quite a bit here; hope it answers your question. The question now is, how to best integrate all this into the article? --Jfruh 21:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer some of my questions. I think I understand the situation a bit better now. I still have some questions though. Some of what you are saying seems at variance with our article on Arianism which says:

Arius and his followers agreed that Jesus was the son of God, but denied that they were one substance (Greek: homo-ousios). Instead, they viewed God and the Son as having distinct but similar substances (Greek: homoi-ousios). The difference in Greek was literally one iota (reflected in the English letter I) of difference. The apparently trivial nature of this difference led Edward Gibbon to remark that "the profane of every age have derided the furious contests which the difference of a single diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the Homoiousians".

Is the above in your view inaccurate? How did the belief of the "Homoians" differ from those of the Arians? Is the term Arian being used correctly elsewhere in the article? Specifically:

• "…Theodosius expelled the Arian bishop, Demophilus of Constantinople."

and

• "Although much of the church hierarchy in the East had held Arian positions in the decades leading up to Theodosius' accession, he managed to impose Nicene uniformity during his reign."

Also if you do reinsert your edits, since there does seem to be some controversy surrounding this, (as one would expect from what may be a longstanding historical misnomer), please consider including more explanation (perhaps in a footnote?) and citing some sources.

Paul August ☎ 22:35, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

succession box

I fixed it, since the thing wasn't showing up right. --Kross 08:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

edits by 216.135.9.75

I've reverted User 216.135.9.75's edits of 17:28–39, May 1, 2005. The following sentence was added:

"He ruled the Roman Empire independently from 392 to 395, but made an incredible impact of the Roman World. He ruled jointly with two others from 379-392, when he gained absolute power."

But, in my opinion this information is adequately covered in the article.

This user also tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to update the succession box to include his rule as Augustus of the Eastern empire, from 379-392. This might have some value. Paul August ☎ 02:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)