Talk:Ambrose

New to this

Request for comments about geneology/name of St. Ambrose. 17:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried every way I can find but still the correction to the St Ambrose page has been removed. 'Aurelius Ambrosius' was NOT St Ambrose's name!!! It was his Dads.

If you remove my correction then one of you correct it - but correct the basic error!

If there is any doubt about this read YOUR references! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.144.161 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

St. Ambrose was also known as Aurelius Ambrosius. See: Paredi, Angelo, Saint Ambrose: his life and times, University of Notre Dame Press, 1964, p. 380: "The Ambrosian distichs for the basilica of St. Nazarius preserved in the Dresden codex are subscribed Aur. Ambrosius episc. (See GB Pighi in Aevum, XVIII [1944], p.17, and the studies of A. Silvagni cited there." Cagwinn (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Your references are very old!

Regarding Ambrose's father, note the following (which indicates that there isn't much evidence for the man's full name): Paredi, Angelo, Saint Ambrose: his life and times, University of Notre Dame Press, 1964, p. 380: "S. Paulinus in Vit. Ambr. 3 has the following: posito in administratione praefecturae Galliarum patre eius Ambrosio natus est Ambrosius. From this, practically all of Ambrose's biographers have concluded that Ambrose's father was praetorian prefect in Gaul. This is the only evidence we have, however, that there ever was an Ambrose as prefect in Gaul." Cagwinn (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For more on this last point, see Christoph Markschies, Ambrosius von Mailand und die Trinitätstheologie, Mohr Siebeck, 1995, p. 42-43.Cagwinn (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I partly agree with this, Ambrose's father held high status within Romano-British nobility but I strongly suggest you read Myres J.N.L. (1989)"The English Settlements" part of the Oxford History of England page 15. The issue is not as clear cut as you are trying to make it and anything 'subscribed' needs to be treated with the greatest caution. Your dogmatic reluctance to move away from 'out of copyright'/freeware information demonstrates the fundamental weakness of WIKI. It must be remembered that google books etc. are not the definitive statement...

Threaded Comments

Name issue suggestion: If there is an uncertainty of his "real" name, couldn't the article simply state that? St. Ambrose (real name commonly attributed as Aurelius Ambrosius</ref>, but sources vary)... Or something similar that accurately describes the uncertainty of his name. Readers actually interested in the name issue can check the sources themselves if further info is desired. Most will be content on knowing him as "St. Ambrose" and/or the fact that his real name is under some dispute. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 16:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

no, there is no literature stating he had a different nane. The duobt arose in the above post about the possible confusion with his father name, but being a roman also his father was actually the same. A ntv (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Additions

I added this: "This is a celebrated passage in modern scholarly discussion. The practice of reading to oneself without vocalizing the text was less common in antiquity than it has since become. In a culture that set a high value on oratory and public performances of all kinds, in which the production of books was very labor-intensive, the majority of the population was illiterate, and where those with the leisure to enjoy literary works also had slaves to read for them, written texts were more likely to be seen as scripts for recitation than as vehicles of silent reflection. However, there is also abundant evidence that silent reading did occur in antiquity and that it was not usually regarded as freakish."

And all of Ambrose and Celibacy.

I got the information word-for-word from the Barnes and Noble classics Confessions by Saint Augustine. The quotes from Confessions can be found on page 74, while the notes I added under the quotes is from the Endnotes Section. Unfortuntately I do not understand how to site this stuff, so you might have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edits

I deleted the most obvious POV evaluations without source and added some text from the German Wikipedia. I also replaced the four section titles "Battling XXX" which infer a certain POV in the biography of a bishop with more neutral titles and moved some paras to fit the new titles. I added some external links. --Irmgard 20:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Dont see any reference to the relationship of Ambrose with the mother of the Emperor Constantine in this article. Raybo

Is there any? Ambrose was born in ca. 337 (the year of Constantine's death) and Helena died about 329. The empress that did play a role in his life was Justina, the mother of Valentinian II - Ambrose was at out with her because she wanted him to hand over churches to the Arians. This is mentioned in the article. Irmgard 09:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The link on this page to Hilary is wrong. The link should be to Hilary of Poitiers, not Hilary of Arles.

Extremely POV, Criticism section required

With all due respect to the author, this article seems to have a very pro-Ambrose POV. I don't think there was a single criticism of Ambrose in the entire article despite the fact that he remains a very controversial figure in religious studies to this day. For instance, in the section on Ambrose and the Arians, the text reads, "Ambrose applied his theological prowess, using his eloquence to effectively refute the heretical Arian propositions." That passage is paradigmatic of the entire tenor of this article, namely that Ambrose could do no wrong and his victories over his opponents were preordained by God.

The following section on Ambrose and the Emperors continues this biased narrative. In detailing the fight between Ambrose and Symmachus over whether the Altar of Victory should be restored to the Roman Senate, the author devotes a full paragraph to Ambrose's argument and not even a sentence to Symmachus. This was one of the most important events in the religious struggle between Christianity and Paganism and deserves a fair portrayal. The arguments raised by Ambrose - which the author of course conveys in the best light – were arrogant and intolerant by even the most objective measure. Symmachus, on the other hand, presented compelling, logical arguments whose message still resounds today:

“It is reasonable that whatever each of us worships is really to be considered one and the same. We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe encompasses us. What does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the truth? Not by one avenue only can we arrive at so tremendous a secret."

The fact that the article contains no citations leads me to believe that it was taken, either in whole or in part, from a Catholic source. Wikipedia’s commitment to viewpoint neutrality demands the insertion of a criticism section to balance the rampant pro-Ambrose bias. As of now, this is more a shrine to Ambrose fandom than an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMMike1 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

This article does seem rather hagiographic. The source seems mostly to be the Brittanica. I can make some small changes but this isn't my field.HG | Talk 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to sign Mike 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Such a pantheistic point view is "compelling" for you because, I suspect, you agree with Symmachus. The need for Symmachus' argument exists because it was given and is part of history, not because you find it compelling. That reasoning for including his argument is as inappropriate as the obvious pro-Ambrose and citation-lacking POV that the original author gave. (And I will not argue against its need to be corrected.) For what its worth, any Christian would respond to Symmachus in this way: "Whatever you worship, the stars or the sky or the Universe itself was created by God and that is the difference between the truth proclaimed through the Christian faith and your secret.", very likely followed by a quote from the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. My point being that the Christian POV has a cosmology with no place for Symmachus argument -- through their definitions of the stars, when they look up they both see something different. Therefore you may not conclude it is compelling, without quantification, simply because we live in a post-modern age with a form of hope that is undeniably similar to the pagan worldview of Symmachus' Roman world. Chrismon 18:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken. I didn't mean to insinuate that Symmachus' argument should be included simply because I find it compelling. The crux of my argument, which you admittedly agree with, is that this article should sound more like an encyclopedia article and less like an exercise in christian apologetics. While I do not intend to turn this page into a theological debate, your hypothetical christian response to Symmachus demonstrates why his argument deserves a fair exposition. Although his argument has pantheistic overtones, Symmachus was not strictly arguing for the divine status of the stars and sky, but rather appealing to the shared sense of awe and wonder we all experience when contemplating the meaning of existence. Mike 01:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Pie tastes good.

I think it needs to be clarified, also with a view to the rendition of the debate in the article, that the essence of Symmachus' argument is not that there is no difference between Paganism and Christianity - he explicitly describes them as different ways to search for truth - so just repeating the Christian view of what the difference is and how the Pagans are wrong is completely irrelevant. Symmachus' argument can be broken down like this: Step 1. Pagans and Christians have a lot in common, since both seek the divine in the Universe, each in their own way, and we all agree that seeking the divine is a good idea; Step 2. We can't be sure who is right ("man's reason moves entirely in the dark; his knowledge of divine influences can be drawn from no better source than from the recollection and the evidences of good fortune received from them"), and who knows, maybe they're both right; Step 3. Therefore, there should be tolerance for both. The hypothetical Christian response given by Chrismon boils down to "yeah, maybe we both kinda seek the divine, but the difference is that I 'm doing it right and you 're doing it wrong, b*tch." To make the argument complete by addressing Step 2, we may also infer the addition "and I know that's so, cuz I just know." The counter-conclusion in response to Step 3 is, presumably: "No, Symmachus, there shouldn't be any tolerance for religions other than Christianity". BTW, Symmachus doesn't even say that the physical stars, sky or universe are literally gods themselves, and he and his co-religionists most likely didn't believe that either, so, as usual, the Christian accusation that the pagans "worship the creature instead of the creator" (as in Romans 1:23 and 1:25) is arguing with a strawman. So yeah, compared with this kind of argumentation - which even most self-described Christians nowadays would find too embarrassing to use - Symmachus certainly does seem a billion times more intelligent, mature and "compelling", even if one need not be personally convinced by him (for the record, I'm not, since I disagree with Step 2; we can, in fact, be pretty sure that all religions are wrong. :)). --91.148.130.233 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how to post my concerns, so forgive the errors. Just wanted to agree that this article is hagiographic. Badly needs a Criticism section. For example, here are some of Ambrose's writings on the Jews.

"The faithlessness of the Synagogue is an insult to the Savior. Therefore, He chose the barque of Peter and deserted the boat of Moses; that is, He rejected the faithless Synagogue and adopted the believing Church ... Of these two ships, one is left at the shore, idle and empty; the other, loaded filled, is launched into the deep. For the Synagogue is left idle on the beach. Because of its own fault, it has lost Christ along with the warnings of the prophets. But the freighted Church is taken out into the deep, because it received the Lord together with the teaching of the Apostles. The Synagogue, I say, remains on the land, held fast as it were to earthly things. The Church is called forth to the deep, as though to search into the profound mysteries of Heaven." ~ St. Ambrose

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3198355/-Benedict-XVI

"The Synagogue is a godless house, a collection of wickedness, and God Himself has damned it." ~ St. Ambrose

source: http://www.stsimonoftrent.com/

"O Jewish hearts, harder than rocks!" ~ St. Ambrose

source: http://books.google.com/books?id=xscOAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA316&lpg=RA1-PA316&dq=O+Jewish+hearts,+harder+than+rocks!&source=bl&ots=9YOQTmQnvR&sig=e7Ehizfl1mQrlLHHDBXq8kJkNoY&hl=en&ei=ZYdcSqb_JZDSMqC8sK4C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

These quotes, and the beliefs that begat them, are deserving of some mention in any article on Ambrose, I think. Sgsnow (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A criticism section definitely must be made. To not have a criticism section when such quotes from him about Jews are well known is really being non-neutral. Senjuto 21:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

More on Theology, please!

The Theology says nothing about apologisms or vindications, actually. More needed! Said: Rursus 18:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Forms of name

Do we really need to give his name in Latin, Italian, and Lombard? Is there some policy of which I am unaware that says we should? It doesn't seem to be worth the space it takes up, in my opinion. Personally, I'd keep the Latin and delete the other two, but I'd like to know what others think. Carl.bunderson 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Before reading your comment, I reworked the lead, moving those names to the end of it. That opening was unreadable, and not just the alternative names. I think we tend too often to try to get all our pedantry into the very first sentence of an article. It’s not a good idea, it puts readers off! Does it look better now, or would you still want to remove them? —Ian Spackman 16:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I did see your edit, which is actually what prompted my comment. It's definitely a good edit, much better than it was. But the different forms of his name seem kind of orphaned/out of place now. That's what made me suggest that we just do away with them. Carl.bunderson 16:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right that they look orphaned, though I’d still marginally prefer to keep them somewhere—the Latin and the Italian at least. My intention was to relegate them to a footnote, but didn’t quite find a way to do it to my satisfaction. Maybe just a footnote to the word ‘Ambrose’? I’d suggest that, having read what I think, you do what you think looks best. I won’t revert you! And I wouldn’t hang around too long waiting for comments. If what you do turns out to be controversial then there can be a discussion. What to do about the rest of the article is a bigger problem. If it is mostly 1911, then it’s 1911 on a bad day. It’s not just the POV issue, but a readability one. I couldn’t bring myself to read much of it—my attention kept straying. And I start off with the advantage of being fairly interested in Milan. —Ian Spackman 17:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I made a footnote for them, keeping them all. I guess its the best solution. And I may or may not tackle the article as a whole, but not now anyhow. Carl.bunderson 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 1

With all the edits--and I didn't see it before they began--footnote 1 seems to have been orphaned. The 1st note in the text is [2], and down below, [1] does not have a link. What happened? Kit1066 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First footnote is to the infobox and several other places in the article. Don't worry: nothing went wrong here. --Dampinograaf (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

strange part

There is a strane paragraph. It seems that someone introduced it for "fun". I do not know if I can erase it. I will copy it here for you to see it: [edit] Bishop of Milan

ambrose was very tall. he hit puberty at the age of 5. he was born with an extra webbed toe. since there were no doctor he kept it. it helped later when he was on a cruise he had too many beers and fell into the nile river however god saved him.his weird toe helped him swim too!he loved god very much! he also loved turkey everyone loves turkey.!!!!!! <Comment from Sombody else>: That guy is a jack ass... But i agree, i also like turey.

Reinachbia 18:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral and lacking citations

This article is written almost exclusively from a Christian perspective and not a historical one. Sources that I've read regard things treated in this article as fact as mythical at best. Most of these statments are unreferenced. For example, the nature of his election to the office of Bishop is legend as far as I have read and not historical fact. These distinctions are critical for neutrality. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the above, the article does not currently meet B-class criteria. I've reduced it to C-class until improvements are made. DJLayton4 (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Half of the citations are from secular sources. Skimming over this article; I see a few weak points, but it's mostly excellent. I would recommend moving this back up to B-Class, unless you have some other or more specific objections. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand Djlayton4's criticism. The article states Ambrose's theological positions without - so far as I understand it - expressing approval or disapproval. What else would a genuinely NPOV article do? And Djlayton4 quotes 'sources I have read' without any references! What 'things treated' Djlayton4? The account of his election to the office of Bishop is from a biography of Ambrose written by his own secretary, Paulinus! How much more historical - and NPOV - can you get? This should be put back up to B-Class, without any question. OldTownAdge (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This article suggests that the only dispute was between Nicene adherents and Arians - this is completely untrue. The opinion at the imperial court was in line with the church councils convened by the Emperor Constantius and often described as 'Homoean' - a belief that Jesus was like the Father but not of identical substance. This was arguably the majority opinion in Christianity. To use the term 'heresy' to describe the Homoean or Arian position shows that this article is simply a Catholic Church view. There is no attempt to understand Ambrose's opponents or question his motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.164.255 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Being that Ambrose was a Catholic, and the Catholic Church considered heterodox opinions to be "heresy", I don't see what the problem is. -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Character section is also short on citations--who is it who said he used relics for political power or was snickered at by a "court party"? Sounds like an interesting passage to read, but, um, whose? 70.51.29.55 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am doubtful how much influence Ambrose was able to exert over the emperors prior to Theodosius (and the latter only in Milan), and whether Gratian for example conducted an anti-pagan persecution. It is surprising however to see the Altar of Victory referred to without mention of Symmachus. On this issue though Ambrose was an antidote to old-fashioned conservatism : Clive sweeting (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC) 7 December 2018 Clive Sweeting

Redirect

Is it really appropriate to have 'Ambrose' redirect to this page? Hue White (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No. But when I searched for "[[Amb" in text, couldn't find it. Student7 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal concerning Ambrose on almsgiving

I am planning on adding the following material to the article on Saint Ambrose in order to provide more information on his philosophy in regard to giving charity to the poor. In summary, it points out his view that almsgiving should not be done in a condescending manner and that in giving charity we are giving back to the poor what is theirs. The proposed insert is based on references from Peter Brown, distinguished Professor at Princeton in his book "Through the Eye of the Needle" and primary resources from Saint Ambrose in "De Nabuthae" and "De Officiis". I would appreciate and comments or edits before I make the insert in the article. I am thinking of placing it in a new section on "Giving to the Poor" after the section on "Imperial Relations", although I am open to other suggestions.

Giving to the Poor

Ambrose held that giving to the poor should be based on a strong sense of human solidarity. The poor should not be seen as outsiders. He went out of his way to make sure that Christians did not see almsgiving as a condescending gesture. Instead they were to see it as a gracious repayment to their fellow humans of an ancient debt. [1] Ambrose wrote the following in De Nabuthae: It is not anything of yours that you are bestowing on the poor; rather you are giving back something of theirs. For you alone are usurping what was given in common for the use of all. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich…. Hence Scripture say to you: Incline your soul to the poor, give back what is owed, And answer him with peaceable words in gentleness (Sirach / Ecclesiasticus 4:8) [2] .

Ambrose was referring back to a time of innocence, when the earth was the possession of all, and God had provided food for everyone in common, and before usurping greed had established private rights. [3]

1.Jump up ^ {{Citation | first = Peter | last = Brown | title = Through the Eye of the Needle - Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD. | publisher = Princeton University Press | year = 2012 | page 133 2.Jump up ^ {{Citation | S. Ambrosii | De Nabuthae | translator | first = Boniface | last = Ramsey | title = Ambrose | publisher = Routledge | year = 1997 | page = 135 3.Jump up ^ {{Citation | S. Ambrosii | De Officiis | translator | first = Ivor J. | last = Davidson | publisher = Oxford University Press year = 2001 | at 1.28.132, page 194.

Balenceinall (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Balenceinall

Comments

Perhaps it is best not to let others edit your text here, so that those who comment later will still know what it is that you are proposing, while seeing also what comments others have made. I have therefore made bold to reformat what you wrote. Do you know that the Brown text is available on Google Books (published, it appears, in 2013, not 2012)? SeePeter Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle (Princeton University Press 2013 ISBN 978-1-40084453-1). You can give a link to Ecclesiasticus/Sirach thus: Sirach 4:8. Esoglou (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the Comments

The printed version of "Through the Eye of the Needle" indicates that the copyright was in 2012. My only reason for putting the proposed alteration on this page was that I did not receive any response when I put my proposed draft in for review. I was hoping to get some response, which I have not received officially yet. Should I consider your comments an official response? What do I do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balenceinall (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Esoglou (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, Balenceinall, we generally don't put forward text on the Talk page unless it might be controversial. Usually, we just edit the article directly. Others then may or may not modify it "live" in the article, or if someone really doesn't like it they revert the article to what it looked like before the addition. If it's not reverted it is deemed to be accepted. See WP:EDITCONSENSUS. But nothing "officially" happens. It's all about "consensus" of volunteer editors. For more on thst read WP:CONSENSUS. The Talk page is more for when there is a disagreement as to whether a change should have been reverted. The idea is to resolve the disagreement here. Read also WP:BRD on how the process should ideally work. DeCausa (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is so closely paraphrased from Brown that it raises issues of copyright. Even the quote of Ambrose is taken directly from Brown, including the ellipsis. Furthermore, I'd say a section on Ambrose's teachings should be a part of "theology", not of "life" - we're not discussing whether Ambrose himself gave to the poor, but what he thought on giving in general. I'll move and reword the section accordingly, but it may need more attention from an expert. Huon (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Only St. Ambrose?

Is this Ambrose the only St. Ambrose?

I ask because in the 70s I was in a German cathedral ( I don't recall the city, but obviously not Milan where the present Ambrose is displayed) that had an "Ambrose" under glass as a relic.

Either it was a different Ambrose being venerated or it was a competing claim to have the body of this Ambrose.--23.119.205.88 (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Roman Martyrology lists the following Ambroses canonized or beatified (I give their names in Latin, as in the book, even that of Ambrose Edward Barlow): Ambrosius (Aloysius) Valle Matamales (feastday: 26 August), Ambrosius (Salvator) Chuliá Ferrandi (18 September), Ambrosius Augustinus Chevreux (2 September), Ambrosius Eduardus Barlow (10 September), Ambrosius Fernández (7 January), Ambrosius Franciscus Ferro (3 October), Ambrosius Kibuka (3 June), Ambrosius Leo (Petrus Lorente Vicente (23 Octover), Ambrosius Sansedoni (20 March), Ambrosius, Abbot (2 November), Ambrosius, Bishop of Milan (7 December). Esoglou (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Picture

the second picture on the page, by the Meister von Gro( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_von_Großgmain )is of St. Augustine according to this german — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintermerte (talk • contribs) 14:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ambrose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428013944/http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/AuthorBioPage.php?recordID=0011 to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/AuthorBioPage.php?recordID=0011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ambrose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512105612/http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd18.html to http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd18.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on recent expansion

Extended discussion

@Jenhawk777: as asked, I'll give an input. First, do you think dedicating 4 paragraphs to context alone is a sound idea? Much of it you already wrote for other articles, and have now simply copied it over here. I'm hesitant to make a drastic cleanup on my own after you worked so hard. Second, some citations need to be corrected, for example number 71 (Salzman), which doesn't have a page 861 (neither a 361). Avilich (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC) The four paragraphs (I assume) you are referring to are under Attitudes toward paganism, right? They are not simply copied and are not simply context; they actually are about attitudes toward pagans. The first paragraph seems necessary since this is a changed perspective and if someone is not familiar, as you are, they will be shocked by what this section doesn't say. The second paragraph makes what seems like a necessary point - that paganism was not the priority for Christians - which is not what modern people expect. It can be pared down to that one sentence if you think that's appropriate, but that sentence matters. The third paragraph reflects the negative attitudes in writing and that's important. The fourth paragraph makes the point that this has colored interpretation of the period. That too can be pared down to that sentence if you like. Each paragraph has a point that seems important and necessary, but it can be pared down and it doesn't even have to go in this section if you think it should go elsewhere. It seems repetitive to you because you have read it in other articles, but others won't find it so. This information belongs here as well. I'll check the ref and see if I can figure out what the problem is. Thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Avilich I shortened it, is that better? Fixed the ref. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC) You put a tag on Ambrose secured support from the Christian general Bauto and the pagan general Rumoridus, composed a refutation to Symmachus in his normal matter-of-fact terms supported by facts, and then he had it read to the consistory along with his letter to Valentinian. "In this way, he settled the matter" and Symmachus' appeal was refused.[5]:77–78[dubious – discuss] but it reflects - almost too closely - what the source says on the pages referenced. If there is another source that says differently, that should be dealt with accordingly, otherwise this tag should be removed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Those two generals were in the party of SYmmachus, not Ambrose (I'd jut remove mention of them altogether), and I'm not sure what 'normal matter-of-fact terms supported by facts' is supposed to mean in the wider context. Avilich (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Avilich I like the revision overall, it is an improvement. You're like my husband in being a better editor than creator, while I am a better creator than editor, which is probably why we work so well together. I really do need you to review everything I have ever written!!! You are really really good at it. Anyone that can make me more concise yet still make my main points is brilliant! I've been through many reviews with multiple reviewers and haven't run into anyone else with your skill. But why in heaven's name did you leave the dubious tag in? I understand that they were part of Symacchus' party, and that must be why it is so significant that Ambrose got their support, but all the source says is that he did so. I will go look and see if I can find an additional source on that since you question the one I have. If I can't, we can reasonably remove it as one sourced material is sometimes wrong. Normal matter of fact is a description of Ambrose' style of writing as compared to the brilliance of Symmachus I think - though the source doesn't specifically make that direct comparison, it is implied. It's an indirect reference to Ambrose' character as being straightforward and practical, but the source says matter of fact, so that's what I used. Reusing the other terms (from character) would be perfectly okay, and would convey pretty much the same idea, we'd just have to switch the reference out if that's what you want to do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks a lot for your comments. I don't actually have access to the source there referenced, I just found the sentence kind of awkward and so decided to be bold and highlight it with tag. The second part seemed to me either biased or poorly worded when compared to the wider paragraph. If you think I'm wrong, don't hesitate to remove the tag I placed there, since I went basically on intuition. Though I still feel that part could be worded better. What caught my eye on that sentence in the first place was that about Bauto and Rumoridus. Cameron 2010 (p. 375) explicitly says, "Although himself a Christian, Bauto had sided with Symmachus in the affair of the altar of Victory". Avilich (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Avilich AH hah! Then one source contradicted the other, and you were probably right. I found a Salzman article (and know she is really good) that said Symmachus wasn't really friends with the pagans, that he disliked pagans, he was just polite to them. But she doesn't say if they sided against him for the AoV. So it's gone now. Everyone agrees Ambrose' intervention did the trick, so that's what's there, and the tag is gone. (I hate tags. :-) I'd much rather have it out here.) I made some other changes including removing the last stuff about the laws because it wasn't really about Ambrose. I saved it to my sandbox in case you feel it needs to be put back, but I am guessing you will like it better as is. I am trying to learn from you to be nore concise and on point. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Just checked. I think the current version it's very good, you did great work here. Avilich (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Cool. Saw last changes saying source says opposite??? I don't see that, but I like the adjustments you made so it doesn't matter. :-) All good now I think... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: The text said "scholars agree" that Thedosius' legislation "reflected his own views and Spanish theology", but the McLynn ref explicitly casted doubt on that. Avilich (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Btw, could you check if this that I removed is supported by the citations? "Theodosius began promulgating ant-pagan legislation... 380/381 almost immediately after his accession, long before Ambrose had any kind of influence with him. He continued to do so throughout his reign with no indication of Ambrose involvement." McLynn and MacMullen make no argument of the sort, but I don't have access to King or Hebblewhite. Avilich (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Avilich I appreciate your diligence. As to the first "reflected his views", I apologize that it has taken me awhile to get back to you, but I had to go to the resource exchange and get them to send it to me again , since, when I thought I was done here, I closed out all my sources and deleted everything on Ambrose from my sandbox. I was going to send you an email with a copy of the relevant pages, but I don't see that you have enabled email. So. Page 106 is the correct page. It says: "While Ambrose was finishing De Fide, Gratian's colleague Theodosius proclaimed his own faith in an edict... blah blah... subjects ordered... more blah blah... remnant were branded as heretics ... blah ... divine vengence ... imperial intervention. This dramatic declaration has been much discussed, and its exact purport is still debated. But there is unanimity that it expresses the emperor's own long-held beliefs and reflects the characteristic doctrinal views of his native Spain". The Edict of Thessalonica was issued in 380, and here McLynn's statement also supports what is paraphrased in the next comment. But it is primarily from Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches by Liebeschuetz and Hill, that the next part comes. Go to page 11: "The year 378 was a turning point... in the episcopate of Ambrose. In this year ... he was delegated to carry the synod's petition to the emperor Gratian at Sirmium. There he made the acquaintance of Gratian." In footnote 4 on that same page it discusses McLynn's view that they did not make friends at this point, and didn't do so until Gratian moved to Milan. Theodosius was in the East after defeating the Goths until 388 while Ambrose was dealing with Valentinian and Justina, so, on page 17, it says that after defeating Maximus, "Theodosius and his court spent the next three years in Milan. This was the beginning of a fascinating relationship." referring to Ambrose and Theodosius. That is when they met for the first time, so Ambrose couldn't very well have influenced him before then. I paraphrased, but if you think it needs to be represented in more detail, I have no problem with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC) You can just download a copy of McLynn for free in Library Genesis, as I have already done, so sending me anything by email is unnecessary. A closer look at the sentence you left in bold seems to demonstrate I'm correct. By 'there is unanimity', McLynn only means scholarship until that point. N.b. the very next sentence and the three following pages – which were in the original citation – which McLynn spends attacking this notion of a distinctly Spanish upbringing. There's nothing specific I feel needs to be added atm, I just wanted your opinion on that passage in particular. Avilich (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC) No Avilich I don't agree. You are not correct on this one. In the three following pages McLynn talks about being "cautious" in interpreting Theodosius as being influenced by Spanish theology, but nowhere do we claim or write that he was. The statement I highlighted does not make that claim. You know that if McLynn thinks scholars are wrong he always says exactly that. He does not say that here. McLynn's discussion does not in any way contradict the unanimity statement even if Theodosius himself wasn't himself that familiar with Spanish theology. The statement as it stands leaves that open. Hence the subsequent discussion. Mclynn makes the two statements he can before discussing the one he can't. It doesn't really even matter for our use if Theodosius was familiar with Spanish theology or not, as it is historians who are agreeing that it reflects Spanish theology of the time and no one has claimed Theodosius himself made that claim. No, Avilich, you are mistaken this time. I don't think your claim of "what McLynn meant" is accurate. I think he meant what he said, and that we should take it that way. I think the subsequent discussion only indicates that he was careful not to say too much. He didn't make claims about how much Spanish theology influenced Theodosius, he only says the edict is consistent with what it said at the time. The statement is a good one - as far as it goes - and should be in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Exactly, "it doesn't matter", whence I removed the sentence about it in the first place. The subject of that paragraph is the extent of Ambrose over Theodosius' religious policy, and Theodosius' upbringing specifically runs very tangential to that. However you choose to frame this, McLynn spends three pages casting doubt on the idea that Theodosius had a distinctly Spanish upbringing which shaped his view on religion. Incidentally, he wrote a whole article dissecting that idea. So, here we have a dubious assertion that has not much to do with the subject matter (Ambrose); I rest my case. Avilich (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Avilich Please, show me, where in my sentence is there anything about Theodosius' upbringing? Your reasoning for removal does not include an actual contradictory statement of that sentence. Your reason for reversion is based on what you have implied - it's personal opinion, interpretation, synth and I don't agree it is a completely correct interpretation. McLynn's original statement doesn't include claims about Theodosius' upbringing. The discussion that follows is tangential to his original statement. It's a subset of the issue, and as such, it does not contradict the bigger claims, because they are free-standing on their own merit. Did Theodosius legislation reflect his own views? Scholars agree, yes, that's what the source says. Please acknowledge. Did his legislation reflect the state of Spanish theology at the time? Yes, that's what scholars and the source says. Please acknowledge. Are your concerns about his upbringing implications you have made? Yes, please acknowledge. You have no contradictory sentence, nothing where McLynn says, 'but this is wrong.' Look, I'll meet you halfway. If you want to remove the part about Spanish theology because you have interpreted his later qualifiers as contradicting his plain statement, fine, that's on you, but you have no cause to remove the claim that there is agreement that Theodosius' legislation reflected his own views. Nowhere does McLynn or anyone else cast doubt on that. So put it back. And put back the other one as well. Please. Be fair and reasonable and demonstrate good faith here. Your reasoning for reversion doesn't hold up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Actually (should've noticed this earlier), McLynn is talking about the Edict of Thessalonica, not anti-pagan legislation. Theodosius' "own views and Spanish theology" refer to the complicated debate of what distinguished heresy from orthodoxy; Christian opinions of paganism were straightforward and predictable, to the extent that speaking of a specific emperor's views on it, rather than those of Christian emperors in general, is redundant. That Theodosius enacted anti-pagan laws based on his own views is of course true, so obviously that it doesn't need to be stated explicitly. Using McLynn p. 106 as a source for this, however, constitutes SYNTH, since he's talking about heretics, not pagans. The reason McLynn (pp. 330–333) gives for Ambrose's non-influence on Theodosius is what I replaced the old text with, and I stand by it. I also stand by everything I said so far, though I do not now think it's relevant to the issue at hand. If you wish to argue further, please bring it to your or my talk page. This discussion and its size are of no interest to the average editor. Avilich (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

24.154.55.106 I have moved and removed some of what you recently added. It repeated things already in the article in the section on Arianism, directly contradicts the majority view on the Massacre of Thessalonica, and was otherwise out of place in the section on Theodosius. It's now in the character section. If there's a problem please discuss it here. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit war 24.154.55.106 recent edits; please respond

• I have moved the warning to your talk page. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Pious portrayals and triumphalist exaggerations aside, is entirely pov and has no place in a WP article. This should be removed entirely.
• several emperors, Theodosius among them, were forced to change course due to his demands is a claim without evidence or citations to support it. It is not the majority view, and is disputed by current scholarship. You can include a minority view but you have to say that's what it is, and you need something newer than 1980. Some of that discussion is already in the article in the section directly above the one you added as well, so please avoid duplication. This should be removed until properly cited and stated.
• When Valentinian II was influenced by an Arian faction to give two Milanese churches to the Arians, Ambrose refused imperial arbitration and thwarted the effort. is a duplication of what is already in the section on Arianism and should be removed accordingly. It's generally a good idea to actually read an article and know what it says before editing.
• Ambrose, in fact, did take a stand against Theodosius, who had ordered the military to kill people assembled at a stadium in Thessalonica for the earlier murdering an unpopular official. Several thousand were killed. Ambrose ordered the emperor to do public penance for this act and he did. Theodosius' actions are disputed. Please see the article Massacre of Thessalonica for a more complete explanation. At best, this is a minority view, and that is how it must be presented. I can support adding a little more on Theodosius here, but this is not an article on him or the massacre, this is about Ambrose, and none of these references say Ambrose "ordered" anything, indeed the sources do not say that, and again this reflects pov. Brown does say Theodosius did penance, that's the only thing correct here. This should be removed because it makes assertions not supported by its references.
• Edit warring as you have has now created an additional duplication, since I moved what you wrote down to the character section where it still is. So now this material is in two and three places in this article. That is screwed up and needs fixing.

Please respond. I already posted this once. This is my second request. If I don't hear back from you, I will remove this again for the reasons above and notify an administrator. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your last edits indicate you have read this and are continuing to edit without engaging here. That is cause for contacting an administrator about this. Please demonstrate good faith and engage here instead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

IMHO I suggest to remove the new para by 24.154.55.106, but to make more clear the texts above on regards the two churches given to Arians by Valentinian II and about the massacre of Thessalonica. If for sure we cannot say that Ambrose "ordered" something to the Emperator, Ambrose led a "public consensus" in the capital of the Empire that the Emperor had to consider, and this marked him as extremly important in the history of the Western Church. A ntv (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A ntv I appreciate this. I will give them some time to demonstrate good faith and respond. There is no reason to rush. Content can be removed any time. But this will add to consensus if I am forced to go to an admin.

For sure there is no source that says Ambrose could or did "order" anything to any emperor. Emperors were autocrats with all the actual power in the fourth century. The church was not yet the power it became by the sixth century. Its wealth did not begin to accrue until the end of this century. A bishop had his reputation to stand on, and that was pretty much it. Theodosius had the army, the Senate and the entire government. Ambrose advised Theodosius; Theodosius "ordered" Ambrose, and that is the right word for an emperor, not the other way around. Theodosius ordered Ambrose away from his presence more than once, whenever he got annoyed with his advice, and Ambrose could do nothing but obey. Ambrose was one among many of Theodosius' advisors and was not even in his inner circle. When Ambrose defied Valentinian he knew he was risking his life. That's why his response is recorded as "If you demand my person, I am ready to submit: carry me to prison or to death, I will not resist." He knew it was a possibility. Valentinian only refrained from acting accordingly because he was afraid of rioting due to Ambrose' popularity - not because Ambrose had some so-called authority that made him in any way equal to an emperor, much less able to order an emperor about. This is already in the section on Arianism. How do you suggest making it clearer?

As to the massacre of Thessalonica, the whole story of Ambrose standing in the door of the church demanding penance from Theodosius was made-up in the fifth century. There is no current scholar who does not declare it fiction. Theodosius may have been responsible for the order to kill some Thessalonicans in reprisal, but he also might not have been. There is no consensus on it. That can be said in the article, though what of substance it would actually add concerning Ambrose is questionable.

Ambrose was important for multiple reasons - none of which have anything to do with Thessalonica. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

24.154.55.106 Your additions have been removed. If they are replaced again, I will notify an admin that you have done so and have been unresponsive here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

And there you are back again still with no response here. Going to the admin now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• The wording on that first paragraph seems to be pretty POV, the second might be useful, though I don't know much about Ambrose to put things into context or find another suitable place for it. I have tentatively removed the first for now. And what's up with that 120 page range (McLynn 170–290) anyway? Avilich (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Avilich Great minds think alike! I didn't revert the entire thing. I moved part of it into character where it still is. The sentence about Valentinian is duplicated in the Arian section, and the rest is pov OR w/o proper sourcing - because it's wrong. Hard to find quality sources to support error. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Avilich OOps! The sentence you left duplicates the one I moved to the character section. Please go see if you might prefer it there or if want it in Theodosius instead and remove one if you will please sir. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Now I see, I removed that too. I left as you put it, it's probably too broad to be categorized under Theodosius anyway. Avilich (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t realize who deleted my addition and I didn’t check the talk tab. Apologies to all.

My main concern is that, in an article on Ambrose, merely to clear away pious exaggerations about him and Theodosius and say nothing more is itself asserting a pov and inadequate as history. If we really intend to avoid imposing a pov, this section of the article needs (a) some straightforward, justifiable statement about what did happen, and preferably (b) some acknowledgement of the issues at stake for this Bishop as a man of his times and faith from his pov, not ours.

I propose submitting the following proposition in the Theodosius section for (a). It could be adjusted to occur either before clearing away the myths surrounding the event or after.

The majority opinion among historians is that Theodosius did make an act of public penance in Milan at the behest of Ambrose for the massacre in Thessalonica.

McLynn (227-8), Herrin, Brown (2003, 80; and Power and Persuasion, 112), and Alan Cameron (80-1) together affirm this proposition. So too the entries by separate authors for Ambrose and Theodosius in The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd Ed., Rutledge, 1997 (43, 1120). It is hardly a minority opinion or just my pov.

Further, Herrin wrote “the emperor was forced by Ambrose to perform public penance . . .” (p. 64) The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity under Ambrose uses “forced” and under Theodosius “compelled.” (pp. 43, 1120) McLynn (pp. 325-7) shows how Theodosius was pressured by Ambrose to perform the act of penance in Milan, though it was presented also as a politically-expedient move. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, under Ambrose, (p. 59) speaks of his “demands that Theodosius model himself after the penitent King David” in his letter re the massacre in Thessalonica. Neither Herrin, McLynn, Brown, nor these encyclopedias are given to presenting minority opinions without qualification. But “behest” seems fair enough to cover the range of opinion.

True about bringing up too much of the Arian matter under Theodosius. I propose that in the Arian section Ambrose’s own thoughts (Epistle, 21.4 and Sermon Against Auxentius, 36) regarding the matter be included in the interest of (b).

Ambrose wrote to Valentinian II: “In matters of faith bishops are the judges of Christian emperors, not emperors of bishops.” (Epistle, 21.4). He then famously told to the Arian bishop chosen by the emperor, “The emperor is in the church, not over the church.” (Sermon Against Auxentius, 36).

Again, it is hardy a minority opinion or just my pov that Ambrose took emperors to task, was involved in their changing course, and showed concern that the internal affairs of the church be free from imperial control thus representing the emerging Western (versus Eastern) view of Church-State relations. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity, under “Ambrose”, (p. 59) speaks of his “shaping imperial behavior and policy” (58). Brown (‘’The Rise of Western Christendom’’, 80) uses expressions like “He stood up to emperors” and “rebuked” them. He calls this a “classical example of the beginning of the problem of the conflict of Church and State” in the West. The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity under Ambrose notes that his “championing of the church’s interests . . . had a profound impact on the relations between church and state during the Middle Ages and subsequent centuries.” (43) And John Moorhead, 3: “Such activities [“two public clashes” with Theodosius], and the powerful expression which Ambrose gave to his convictions concerning them, guarantee him an important place in the long story of relations between church and state which has been so much a part of western history.” Averil Cameron in The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, Routledge, 1993 writes that Ambrose “was able at times to exercise great influence over Theodosius I.” (p. 62) However, if these authors’ observations move too much in an interpretative direction or are too far into the weeds for the other editors, I argue for at least including what I propose for (b). --LucasR52 (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing

Hello everybody. Jenhawk777 has asked to to look at how the referencing in the article is setup, and standardising it. So I'll be making a lot of edits similar to this one. I'll also post here when I come across issue, speaking of which... (I've signed each one so that they can be replied to separately). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has references without targets. The first is Cameron 2010, which is referred to twice in the Theodosius section and twice in Attitude towards pagans.
Could this be Cameron, Alan (2010). The Last Pagans of Rome.? This is referenced but as 2011, is there a difference between versions? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 FixedJenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The second is a reference which is simply Cameron, again it's found in the Theodosius and Attitude towards pagans sections. Could someone clarify which work this is referring to? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 FixedJenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The next one is Errington 2006, used in Theodosius again. There is Errington 1997 that refers to Errington, R. Malcolm (1997). "Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I"., but no work of Errington in 2006 is mentioned in the article. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 FixedJenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And the next is Hebblewhite also in Theodosius, no mention of the year of the work and again no mention of which work this refers to. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 FixedJenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The last three are all in the Character section, where Brown 2013, Herrin (no year), and Jedin (no year) are referred to. None of these are defined. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Could Herrin refer to Herrin, Judith (1987). The Formation of Western Christendom. Princeton University Press? I missed that it was in the cited works section, without the year there's no formal link.
In a similar vein there's Jedin, Hubert, ed. (1980). History of the Church. is this what Jedin is referring to? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes Judith Herrin. I will come back in a bit with these 3. I will have to run down Brown as there is no 2013 work. I haven't a clue what that's about, but there is a 2012 and a 2014, so I will have to look based on content and page numbers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Has this article had text merged into it? These errors would suggest so, but I could see if this was the case from the article history. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is material I wrote, but since it was not actually copied, just paraphrased, I probably didn't bother to say so and just used the reference. They are from Theodosius I if you want to have a look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks it's just helpful to know if I come across something odd. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested That something odd would no doubt be me. :-) I have now maxed out my thank yous to you once again. I think they put a limit at 412. I'm sorry I haven't gotten to those others yet. RL is interfering right now and will for the next week. I am making Christmas cookies tomorrow. I have very important things to do you see. Merry Christmas my friend! Happy Holidays! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Jenhawk777. I hope you have a lovely time. I'll have lots of questions for you to answer when you're back. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Referencing questions 17 Dec

The first is found in the Early life, following "but some scholars identify his father as an official named Uranius who received an imperial constitution dated 3 February 339". Both Mazzarino, S. "Il padre di Ambrogio", Helikon 13–14, 1973–1974, 111–117. and Mazzarino, S., "Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio", Problemi e ricerche di storia antica 4, Rome 1989, 79–81. are referenced, but I can only find reference of Il padre di Ambrogio as a section of Storia sociale del vescovo Ambrogio. I'm guessing 111-117 are page numbers, but my only understanding of Helikon is Greek mythology. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The section is in the Arianism section, following Ambrose and his congregation barricaded themselves inside the church, and the imperial order was rescinded. a reference to The Cambridge Ancient History, p. 106 is used. But The Cambridge Ancient History is a multivolume work, with several different versions. So there's no way of knowing for sure what this refers to. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The last two are in the Attitude towards pagans section, following for everything that could be regarded by Christian standards as repulsive and irreligious.". The reference is for North, John (2017). "The Religious History of the Roman Empire", but no page number is given. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The last one is in Attitude towards pagans again, following Archaeological evidence indicates that, outside of violent rhetoric, the decline of paganism away from the imperial court was relatively non-confrontational.. The reference is to Markus, R. A. (1990). The end of ancient Christianity., also again there is no page number. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok another last one, or two. There are two primary sources, the first at the end of the Bishop of Milan following who had served as governor of Campania, went to Milan to attend the school of Ambrose., and the second in the Arianism section following he studied the Old Testament and Greek authors like Philo, Origen, Athanasius, and Basil of Caesarea, with whom he was also exchanging letters.. It would be better if secondary sources could be found. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)