Talk:Theodosius I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

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)

Contents 1 Arians vs. Homoians 2 succession box 3 edits by 216.135.9.75 4 Globus Cruciger 5 EB 1911 6 Theodosius.jpg 7 Horrible 19th century engraving 7.1 Third opinion 8 Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion 9 Notes at top

[edit] 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)

Let me just add that the quoted passage from the article on Arianism certainly is completely inaccurate. Arius and his immediate followers did not use the term homoiousios, which was coined by later theologians after the Council of Nicaea in an attempt to find a formulation on which everyone could agree. Gibbon's famous dismissal of the entire debate is as misleading as it is flippant, since (a) there was far more to it than simply the rival terms homoousios and homoiousios, and (b) these two terms may have differed by only an iota but meant completely different things. Arius might have approved of "homoiousios" if it had been put to him, but we'll never know; the most extreme Arians, fifty years later, were branded "Anoians", meaning that they didn't even think the Son was like the Father. Finally, the use of the term "Son of God" in the quoted passage is completely misleading, since this term was originally a moral one, not a metaphysical one. To say that someone thinks that Jesus was the Son of God is in itself almost completely meaningless. 84.69.173.175 11:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] succession box

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Globus Cruciger

The caption for the coin photo says it depicts Valentinian II and Theodosius I holding a Globus cruciger. But the article for Glubus cruciger claims its first use was on a coin of Theodosius II in 423. Could this really be that coin?

No, the caption of this image is wrong.--Panairjdde 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EB 1911

The text starts abruptly; something has been lost, but here goes:

THEODOSIUS OF TRIPOLIS

Constantinople, consisting of 150 orthodox and 36 Macedonian bishops, met in the following year, confirmed the Nicene faith, ordered the affairs of the various sees, and declared the bishop of Constantinople to rank next to the bishop of Rome. The emperor cannot be acquitted of the intolerance which marks edicts such as that depriving apostatizing Christians of the right of bequest. It was not till 389 or 390 that he issued orders for the destruction of the great image of Serapis at Alexandria. Other edicts of an earlier or later date forbade the unorthodox to hold assemblies in the towns, enjoined the surrender of all churches to the catholic bishops, and overthrew the heathen temples " throughout the whole world." During the reign of Theodosius Gregory of Nazianzus was made bishop of Constantinople. In 383 Theodosius called a new council for the discussion of the true faith. The orthodox, the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians all sent champions to maintain their special tenets before the emperor, who finally decided in favor of the orthodox party. He seems to have suffered the Novatians to hold assemblies in the city. Perhaps the most remarkable incident in the life of Theodosius from a personal point of view is the incident of his submission to the reprimands of Ambrose, who dared to rebuke him and refuse to admit him to the Eucharist till he had done public penance for punishing a riot in Thessalomca by a wholesale massacre of the populace. Equally praiseworthy is the generous pardon that the emperor, after much intercession, granted to the seditious people of Antioch, who, out of anger at the growing imposts, had beaten down the imperial statues of their city (387). When the Christians in the eastern part of the empire destroyed a Jewish synagogue and a church belonging to the Valentinians, Theodosius gave orders for the offenders to make reparation. Such impartial conduct drew forth a remonstrance from Ambrose, who, where the interests of his creed were concerned, could forget the common principles of justice.

Theodosius was twice married(l) to Aelia Flacilla, the mother of Arcadius (3/7-408) and Honorius (384-423); (2) to Galla (d. 394), the daughter of Valentinian I.

The chief authorities for the age of Theodosius are Ammianus Marcellinus, Zosimus, Eunapius and the ecclesiastical historians (Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret). Much information may also be gleaned from the writings of St Ambrose, St Gregory of Nazianzus, Isidore of Seville, and the orators Pacatus, Libanius, Themistius. Among modern authorities see: E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. Bury, London, 1896), chaps. 25 and 27; T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders (Oxford, 1892), chaps. 5, 6, 8-11; A. Giildenpenning and J. Ifland, Der Kaiser Theodosius der Grosse (Halle, 1878); G. R. Sievers, Stttdien zur Geschichte der Tdmischen Kaiser (Berlin, 1870), pp. 283-333.

--FourthAve 07:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theodosius.jpg

Someone has overwritten Theodosius.jpg, which was once a very nice depiction of Theodosius from a contemporary silver plate, with what appears to be a circa 18th-19th century engraving. I've commented it out of the article because it's a fanciful depiction that has little to say about the real Theodosius. Can anyone restore the original image? And let this be a lesson: use specific file names, and be careful about overwriting files. --Jfruh 03:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Horrible 19th century engraving

Can we please not use this image? As the User:Kinneyboy90 says himself in the caption he added to the latest attempt to re-add this image to the article, it merely depicts what Theodosius "may have looked like", according to someone who lived 1500 years after his death, working from coins. I feel very strongly that this doesn't add anything helpful to the article, and in fact may give a false impression that we moderns "know" that Theodosius looks like this. I know its good to have portraits in articles that deal with individuals, and the temptation is to add portraits that are as photographic and lifelike as possible, but I don't see the point of using portraits that are fanciful reconstrutions just for the sake of having an image that "looks right" to us today.

Though I'm tempted very strongly to revert, I would like to build up some sort of consensus here to make sure I'm not totally out of the mainstream. If it must stay, might I suggest switching the locations of this image and the engraving in their current places in the article? The bronze-colored coin is a relatively good contemporary portrait of the man. --Jfruh (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, those are engravings reproducing the images on coins. Furthermore, a good 19th century image ia better that a bad 4th century one (I am talking of photographic quality).--Panairjdde 13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not reproducing coins, it's based on coins, with a lot of the artists' fancy added in. It's totally ahistorical. And what's wrong with the photographic quality of the bronze coin picture? --Jfruh (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote the wrong word but I have the correct concept in mind. I still prefer the 19th century engraving to the coin, because I feel the portrait of Theodosius on that coin is not good enough. This would be better, for example.--Panairjdde 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue at stake is not the quality of the image in isolation. After all, I could find a friend who looks something like an image on a coin, dress him up in Roman garb, and take his picture with a high-quality digital camera, and it would be a better image than the one in this article, but it wouldn't be of particular use to the reader. It just seems obvious to me that that contemporary portraits should have priority over later reconstructions. Obviously you want to get the best contemporary portrait that you can, of course, but not at the risk of ahistoricity. The image you link too would be nice -- but it doesn't appear that they are available for free. --Jfruh (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that an engraving depicting the reconstruction of T. based on his portraits is worse than a low-quality picture on a follis, and is not comparable with your friend in costume. As regards the photographic quality, having a photograph of T. would be the best thing, of course, but if it were dark and un-detailed as the coin is it would be almost useless.--Panairjdde 15:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we both feel fairly strongly about this, and it's just the two of us going back and forth. I hope you don't mind but I am going to put a request for a third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion; if we don't get more people in on this we'll just be going in circles forever. --Jfruh (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it very hard to understand why anyone would want to keep an engraving in an article which merely reproduces what a nineteenth century engraver thought Theodosius should look like. I don't understand how it can be argued that the engraving is a representation of the likeness on a coin - it looks nothing like the coin shown here. The image of the coin is quite good, and gives a much better flavour of how Theodosius and his officials wanted the emperor to be portrayed - surely far more relevant to an article about the emperor than the engraving. I vote very strongly to dump the engraving altogether. The contemporary images already in the article are quite good, and I think this image from a silver misourm showing Theodosius should head the article(see http://www.utexas.edu/courses/romanciv/Romancivimages23/theodosius.jpg). Once again, I find it hard to understand why anyone would want a fancilful nineteenth century engraving of said emperor. Way too many of those in Wikipedia.--Iacobus 06:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hello; this is in response to the listing at Wikipedia:Third opinion.

I agree with Panairjdde that the coin photograph is of sub-par quality and unsuitable for being displayed at the top of the article. But I also agree with Jfruh that the coin is more likely to be closer to an authentic depiction of the man than the engraving - I can't immediately find a verification for the assertion that the engraver was working from coin images, and a 19th century engraving may not be free from artistic licence. Finally, most of the handful of other emperor articles I've looked at also feature coin depictions at the top.

So I submit the following opinion: that the engraving should stay until the coin photograph is cleaned up by those versed in the ways of Photoshop - i.e. cropped, colours and contrast adjusted, etc. If this results in an acceptable picture, it should switch places with the engraving. Hope this helps. Sandstein 20:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What is there to clean up in the coin photo? It is an old coin worn with time, but which speaks to us fairly directly of how Roman officialdom wanted Theodosius to be portrayed. Fairly powerful and relevant, I'd say. The engraving should be dumped as a matter of urgency. --Iacobus 06:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A close look will show that the C19 engraving is based on the coin type. Very instructive pairing. Some footnote should be in the article to draw attention to the fact. --Wetman 07:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion

The last-but-one paragraph of this section ("In 391 or 392 he .... for this very purpose.") is more or less a repetition of the text above it. I personally would like to delete, if someone prefers a more subtle approach please do. Pukkie 11:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes at top

There is a disagreement between the brief notes near the top and the text about who Theodosius I ruled with at what times. The brief notes claim that he ruled with Gratian until 392 but the detailed information says that Gratian died in a rebellion in 383 and thereafter he ruled with Valentinian II. De Imperatoribus Romanis records the death of Gratian as 383, as well. David Marshall B.Ed. 06:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The notes are admittedly confusing. The information they are trying to convey is that Theodosius wasn't sole ruler in the west until 392, and that he was co-ruler with various western figures, including Gratian and Valentinian II, before that point (whose dates aren't listed). The situation of "co-rulers" during his reign is very complex and hard to encapsualte in a brief note. --Jfruh (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)