^{page 1 note 1} Ensslin, W., Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Thieodosius d.Gr., Munich 1953Google Scholar; King, N. Q., The Emperor Theodosius and the Establishment of Christianity, London 1961Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 2} Seeck, O., Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, V, 1913, 138Google Scholar.

^{page 1 note 3} W. Ensslin, op. cit., 13 n.15.

^{page 2 note 1} Socrates, H.E. v. 2. 1. H. Lietzmann (Geschichte d. alten Kirche, iv, 1944, 22 n.1.) claims that Valens had issued an amnesty for recalcitrant clergy. Something of the kind did indeed happen; but Socrates (op. cit., iv. 35. 2—Lietzmann's iv. 38 is incorrect) is rather vague, and Rufinus (x. 13) and the Chronicles are not altogether trustworthy. Ensslin (op. cit., 9 n.1) quotes Prosper Tiro to illustrate catholic tendentiousness

^{page 2 note 2} Cf. N. Q. King, op. cit., 23 n.1, 24, and W. Ensslin, op. cit., 15.

^{page 2 note 3} Cf. N. Q,. King, op. cit., 21 n.2.

^{page 2 note 4} This much can be deduced from Socrates, H.E., v. 2. 2: ἄξιον τς βασιλεας ἤδη πλαι κα πρ τἤς Γρατανοὖ χειροτονας ὑπ πμτων κριθντος

^{page 3 note 1} O. Seeck, op. cit., v, 479.

^{page 3 note 2} Ensslin (op. cit., 7) has assembled the evidence for Theodosius's preliminary appointment as ‘sprengel-General’, which is convincing. Subsequently the report by Theodoret (H.E., v. 5. 2 f., ed. Gaisford, 1854, 399 f.) has been accepted as substantially correct.

^{page 3 note 3} Mommsen (Theodosianus, i, 1904, cclv) accepts the date given by Socrates (H.E. v. 5. 3) unchanged; O. Seeck (op. cit., v, 479) suggests the later date.

^{page 3 note 4} Cod. Theod., vi. 30. 4. bears the date 6 December 379, but on this day Gratian could not have been in Sirmium, because he signed the constitution, Cod. Theod., xi. 31. 7 on 7 December 379, at Treves. Presumably the editors of the Theodosian Code misread December for February, which would not offer any great difficulties from the point of view of palaeography.

^{page 4 note 1} Cf. Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus, xlvii. 4. ed. Pichlmayr, 1961, 243 f.

^{page 4 note 2} Ammianus Marcellinus (xxxi. 9. 2) writes of a military operation by Gratian in the year 377: ille vero regendi conservandique milites non ignarus—which, as the verdict of an old officer, may serve to modify Ps. Victor's somewhat negative appreciation.

^{page 4 note 3} Epitome de Caesaribus, xlviii. 11.

^{page 5 note 1} N. Q. King, op. cit., 24.

^{page 5 note 2} Cf. Th. Mommsen, Theodosianus I, 1904, cclv f.

^{page 5 note 3} Cod. Theod., xii. 13. 4.

^{page 5 note 4} N. Q_. King (op. cit., 72) is hardly correct when he says, “in regulating the cutting of trees in the sacred cypress grove at Antioch’. First, it was only one tree, and secondly, the alytarchae were not professional wood-cutters.

^{page 5 note 5} Once more King (ibid.) is misleading: the consiituta maiorum are not ‘decisions of oar ancestors’. Already Gothofredus claimed that only the Christian predecessors of Theodosius are meant; but apart from Constantine there is only Jovianus with whom Theodosius, ‘the convinced Catholic’, could appear without compromising his character!

^{page 5 note 6} W. Ensslin, op. cit., 10 f.

^{page 6 note 1} Theodosius's victories are, probably rightly, regarded by O. Seeck (op. cit., v, 481) as mainly tactical; the victory in Thrace (Zos., iv. 25. 3 f.) won by Modares, which is likely to fall in the year 379, was apparently of greater importance.

^{page 6 note 2} Piganiol, A. (L'Empire Chrétien, 1947, 212Google Scholar) states, ‘on est surpris de constater que pendant une telle année de détresse, Théodose est demeuré presque constamment à Thessalonique’, but he offers no explanation. Ensslin and King do not even mention the fact.

^{page 6 note 3} Zos., iv. 31. 4f. The dates of the two edicts (Cod. Theod., xii. 12. 7. and xv. 1. 21.) are questioned by Mommsen, but seem to receive ample support from Zosimus. For, if we were to accept the contention of Piganiol (op. cit., 212 n.79) that the S.O.S. by Theodosius only came in mid-September, the forces of Bauto and Arbogast must have been sent by the Orient Express to have been able to carry out successfully the liberation of Thessaly before the winter. Yet we find them in battle near Sirmium in October: O. Seeck, op. cit. v, 487.

^{page 7 note 1} A. Piganiol, op. cit., 222.

^{page 7 note 2} Cf. A. Piganiol, op. cit., 212, 222; W. Ensslin, op. cit., 20 f.

^{page 7 note 3} Mommsen, Theodosianus I, cclvii, on Cod. Theod., vii. 22. 11 and Cod. Just., xii. 47.2.

^{page 7 note 4} O. Seeck, op. cit. v, 487. W. Ensslin (op. cit., 20 f.) seems to suppress the fact that on 31 August Theodosius was still in Thessalonica, and that he would have had to fight his way from Thessalonica to Sirmium within five days, which would have been a feat of valour even with sufficient troops.

^{page 7 note 5} A. Piganiol, op. cit., 211, whilst the bulk of Theodosius's early legislation is discussed on p. 214.

^{page 7 note 6} Zos., iv. 25. 1, 28. 4; cf. Piganiol, op. cit., 214 f.

^{page 7 note 7} Zos., iv. 29 f.

^{page 8 note 1} The first to quote Cod. Theod., xvi. 1. 2, was Sozomen, who founded upon it his (incorrect) guess about the date of Theodosius's baptism: cf. O. Seeck, op. cit. v, 487; W. Ensslin, op. cit., 17 f.

^{page 8 note 2} The whole title Cod. Theod., i. 2. witnesses to this fact.

^{page 8 note 3} Not even the fact that a number of laws in the Cod. Theod.—Mommsen even believed it to be the great majority (Theodosianus I, xxix)—were collected, not from the central imperial scrinium, but from the courts and the law-school at Berytus, makes their publication incontrovertible.

^{page 9 note 1} As this constitution is the earliest of those edicts issued by Theodosius in 380, it has to be admitted that he might have spent January at the capital; but he could never have signed Cod. Theod., x. 10. 12 in Thessalonica the very next day, 30 January.

^{page 9 note 2} This is the convincing interpretation of quern obsequii deformitas millitiae secemit, by Gothofredus, ad loc.

^{page 9 note 3} Some knowledge of Latin is to be presupposed in the Eastern provinces since, not only the two great law-books of the time, the Codices Gregorianus and Hermogenianus, were in Latin, but also the whole imperial legislation proceeded in Latin till the sixth century.

^{page 9 note 4} Cf. Zosimus, iv. 30. 1 f.

^{page 10 note 1} O. Seeck, op. cit. v, 128 f.

^{page 10 note 2} Jordanes, De Getarum sive Gothorum origine, etc. xxvii and xxviii. Jordanes is, of course, a late, and not altogether reliable, source, but it is not without interest to notice that he does not mention Theodosius's defeat in the summer 380, but does mention the praise of Constantinople by Athanaric. Such was the lasting effect of Theodosius's policy of ‘neglect’ amongst his opponents, more than a hundred years later.

^{page 10 note 3} The quotation is from Zos., iv. 26. 6. Stein, E. (Histoire du Bas-Empire, i (1959), 191Google Scholar) quoting only Ammian. Marc, xxi. 16. 1, puts the event in the autumn of 378, which his source only just permits, but which Zosimus makes impossible. No reasons are given by Stein for rejecting the more detailed report of Zosimus.

^{page 11 note 1} Zos., iv. 40.1 think that O. Seeck (op. cit., v, 129 f.) is right in putting the Gerontius incident in this context, i.e. before the death of Athanaric in January 381, although, if Zosimus is thought to have observed a strictly temporal sequence, it would belong to 386.

^{page 11 note 2} A. Piganiol, op. cit., 211 n.71.

^{page 11 note 3} Zos., iv. 30. 4 f. cf.; H. Lietzmann, Gesch. d. alien Kirche, iv, 1944, 25 n.2.

^{page 11 note 4} Especially in his oration ‘On Kingship’, held before Arcadius in 397.

^{page 11 note 5} Zos., iv. 31. 5f.

^{page 12 note 1} O. Seeck, op. cit., v, 484.

^{page 12 note 2} W. Ensslin, op. cit., 17 f.

^{page 12 note 3} E. Stein, op. cit., i, 197.

^{page 12 note 4} H. Lietzmann, op. cit., iv, 28 f.

^{page 12 note 5} Cf. W. Ensslin, op. cit., 9 n.3.

^{page 12 note 6} Cod. Theod., xvi. 5. 5.

^{page 12 note 7} O. Seeck, op. cit., v, 137.

^{page 12 note 8} The fact that the law was published in the West is shown by Ambrose, who commented at once upon it: A. Piganiol, op. cit., 225 n.2. After all, he was its god-father.

^{page 13 note 1} N. Q. King, op. cit., 29.

^{page 14 note 1} W. Bright (in Murray's Dictionary of Christian Biography, 1911, 834) even claims that he was already dead on 14 February 380, a fortnight before the edict was issued. This is evidently incorrect.

^{page 14 note 2} N. Q,. King, op. cit., 27 f.; W. Ensslin, op. cit., 32; H. Lietzmann, op. cit., 30 f.; E. R. Hardie, Christian Egypt, 1952, 82 f. The description of the incident by O. Seeck (op. cit., v, 140 f.) cannot be taken seriously.

^{page 14 note 3} E. R. Hardie, op, cit., 83; E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, i, 1930, 233 f.

^{page 14 note 4} The date of the summer of 379, suggested by E. R. Hardie (op. cit., 82), is unacceptable. Gregory was at that time not yet sufficiently established in Constantinople to become the obvious candidate for the patriarchate.

^{page 15 note 1} Cf. N. Q,. King, op. cit., 27 n.4.

^{page 15 note 2} So A. Piganiol (op. cit., 217), who charges Theodosius's ‘coterie catholique espagnol’ with being the intermediaries; but I am hesitant even in recognising the existence of such a group at that early date in Theodosius's reign.

^{page 15 note 3} E. Caspar, op. cit., 232.

^{page 15 note 4} Socrates, H.E., v. 4. 2.

^{page 16 note 1} W. Ensslin, op. cit., 28.

^{page 16 note 2} Theodoret, H.E., v. 6. 1 (ed. Gaisford, 401).

^{page 17 note 1} This makes the story told to us by Theodoret (H.E., v. 7. 3, ed. Gaisford, 403) of the meeting of Theodosius and Meletius in November 380 so relevant.

^{page 17 note 2} I profoundly disagree with N. Q. King (op. cit., 30 n.4), who lumps together ‘all sorts and conditions of men' whom he considers in an abstract way as ‘influences’ upon Theodosius. Meletius came to Constantinople in order to rescue the ecclesiastical policy of the emperor from the impossible position into which it had been brought by the pope of Alexandria, but not to ‘influence' Theodosius, who had, indeed, little to offer him.

^{page 17 note 3} All the authors quoted make valiant efforts to represent Theodosius as deeply interested in Western Catholicism. O. Seeck (op. cit., v, 137) and W. Ensslin (op. cit., 21) discuss the examination of Ascholius about his orthodoxy before the baptism of Theodosius as an event of historical significance; N. Q. King (op. cit., 30 f.) promotes Ascholius to the place of Theodosius's spiritual adviser; and A. Piganiol (op. cit., 217 and elsewhere) produces his ‘coterie espagnole pieuse’, acting on behalf of pope Damasus—both without the least bit of evidence. But, even the first two ought not to be heard. If Theodosius had ever heard of it, the decision of Stephen I about heretical baptism ought to have prevented the slightly opprobrious examination of the baptising priest by the candidate for baptism; and if it did not do so, where is the western Catholicism of Theodosius? Incidentally, I would suggest that Socrates (H.E., v. 6. 5) has served his readers with an ingenuous eastern invention. He too was not a theologian!