Product Description

'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics' - Emperor Theodosius. In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of the Godhead; all other interpretations were now declared heretical.Moreover, for the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Not since the attempt of the pharaoh Akhenaten to impose his god Aten on his Egyptian subjects in the fourteenth century BC had there been such a widesweeping programme of religious coercion. Yet surprisingly this political revolution, intended to bring inner cohesion to an empire under threat from the outside, has been airbrushed from the historical record.Instead, it has been claimed that the Christian Church had reached a consensus on the Trinity which was promulgated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. In this groundbreaking new book, acclaimed historian Charles Freeman shows that the council was in fact a shambolic affair, which only took place after Theodosius' decree had become law. In short, the Church was acquiescing in the overwhelming power of the emperor. Freeman argues that Theodosius' edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to the diversity of religious and philosophical beliefs throughout the empire but created numerous theological problems for the Church, which have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, Freeman concludes, marked 'a turning point which time forgot'.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #232183 in Books
• Published on: 2009-02-05
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 256 pages

Review
"'We authorise followers of this law to assume the title of orthodox Christians; but as for the others since, in our judgement, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious names of heretics.' Emperor Theodosius"

About the Author
Charles Freeman is a freelance academic and the author of more than five books, including The Closing of the Western Mind (2003), also published by Pimlico, and The Horses of St Mark's (2004). He lives in Suffolk.

Customer Reviews

Original and challenging
This book is a phenomenon - a study of doctrinal conflict in the Christian Church of the fourth century that is written not for scholars, not for students, but for the general public. It would be easy for professionals to point out various aspects of Freeman's treatment that are insecure - the over-estimation of the novelty of the decrees of Theodosius I (379-95) against heretics and pagan practices, the claim that he prematurely suppressed the Arian debate when in fact it had already become tiresome and unproductive, the pillorying of Nicene orthodoxy as oppressive when in fact it provided what has remained the decent minimum of common Christian belief ever since, the mistake of supposing that laws against heresy and paganism necessarily implied persecution when in fact they were primarily concerned to please God, and finally the unconscious clericalism of thinking that the leading role taken by the emperor was usurpation. But if we professionals leave the writing of non-academic books on this subject to non-professionals, we have no right to complain if they don't quite say what most of us would have said (particularly since 'we' are not in uniform agreement!). Surely we should thank Freeman for airing these matters in public, and for raising a major question that historians of doctrine too often ignore: was the price of Christian orthodoxy too high? Was the greater clarity gradually obtained over the Christian doctrine of God an adequate compensation for the restrictions on the freedom of debate that developed gradually in late antiquity (rather than suddenly under Theodosius I) and have remained a reality in most of the Christian churches (in varying degrees) ever since? Is Christianity, which claims to be based not on reason but on revelation, inevitably the enemy of intellectual freedom? However debatable certain features of this book as a work of history (and to say they are debatable is not to assert they are simply wrong), we must thank Freeman for pressing us on this vital question.

Those Ghastly Christians!
In late 4th century Constantinople the masseurs at the public baths, as they pummelled your body, debated vigorously with each other and their clients the finer points of Christian doctrine. Can you imagine the like today in say a modern sports club? An opinionated discussion about footie maybe,or in the City perhaps the Footsie? Shortly after finishing this book I embarked on Richard Hutchinson's The Last Days of Henry VIII and yet again in Tudor England we find the highest and lowest in the land passionately squabbling about Christian doctrine and often settling their disputes in the most horrible ways. I can't help thinking what a tragedy it was for mankind that for over 1200 years the finest intellects of the western world devoted themselves to sterile debate on the unprovable. And what a ghastly bigoted lot most of those early Christian fathers were irrespective of what side of the doctrinal fence they sat on. When the neo-platonist female philosopher and mathmetician Hypatia,arguably the finest intellect of her age but of course a pagan, was torn to pieces by a mob in early 5th c. Alexandria it was almost certainly at the instigation of their bishop.
This book is I think unlikely to prove compulsive reading for those with a casual interest in history even though it is clearly intended for popular consumption. You have to be interested in the late antique world, the history of Christianity or the history of ideas. That said, I found this book an engrossing read that brought into sharp focus much that I had encountered in various other works on late Roman history.

Theodosius the Bad
It's disconcerting when an author uses the Preface to what is intended as a serious historical work to emphasise that he is a tour guide rather than an academic. No disrespect to tour guides, but it doesn't encourage the idea that you're about to read a heavyweight piece of philosophical writing. Then you get to the bibliography and are told to use google to find the primary sources yourself!
Mr Freeman clearly has a point to make in this book. He gives a fair summary of intellectual debate within Christianity over the relationship between God and Jesus revolving around the Arian heresy and the Nicene creed. But he is concerned to show that the Emperor Theodosius used the Council of Constantinople of 381 to impose the Nicene Creed on the whole church and that the consequence of this esentially political decision was the annihilation of free speech and open debate in the church until Abelard and Aquinas.
My main problem with his analysis is that he seems to assume that if Theodosius had not acted as he did, then this debate would have continued as a fascinating intellectual exercise, whereas in fact most of the parties to it were equally intolerant of each other and that whoever casme out on top would have inmposed their view with equal determination. Also, Freeman's determination to pin the blame on Theodosius and imperial politics is somewhat undermined by the major roles he allots to Bishops Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo, both pilloried for their roles in driving out religious debate and instilling the fear of hellfire into doubters.
Overall it seems to be a case of having a perfectly arguable thesis but to have sought to drive it to extremes without worrying too much about the factors referred to in Dr Price's excellent review. Perhaps it's rather naive to try to apply modern concepts of free speech to the 4th and 5th centuries.
In sum, this is a worthwhile read provided you recognise the fact - admitted by the author - that the book is somewhat polemical, though I also agree with another review which says there are some pages which are too readily skipped - which should not be the case in a book of only 200 pages of actual text.