Editing Ambrose (section)

====Theodosius====
{{See also|Massacre of Thessalonica}}
While Ambrose was writing ''De Fide'', Theodosius published his own statement of faith in 381 in an edict establishing Nicene Christianity as the only legitimate version of the Christian faith. There is unanimity amongst scholars that this represents the emperor's own beliefs.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=106-110}} The aftermath of the death (378) of [[Valens]] (Emperor in the East from 364 to 378) had left many questions for the church unresolved, and Theodosius' edict can be seen as an effort to begin addressing those questions.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=108}} Theodosius' natural generosity was tempered by his pressing need to establish himself and to publicly assert his personal piety.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=109}}

On 28 February 380, Theodosius issued the [[Edict of Thessalonica]], a decree addressed to the city of [[Constantinople]], determining that only Christians who did not support Arian views were [[Catholicity|catholic]] and could have their places of worship officially recognized as "churches".{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=217}}{{sfn|Lietzmann|1951|p=37}}{{efn|Recent scholarship has tended to reject former views that the edict was a key step in establishing Christianity as the official religion of the empire since it was aimed exclusively at Constantinople and seems to have gone largely unnoticed by contemporaries outside the capital.{{sfn|Errington|1997|pp=410–415}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|p=82}} Nonetheless, the edict is the first known secular Roman law to positively assert a religious orthodoxy.{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=217}}}} The Edict opposed [[Arianism]], and attempted to establish unity in Christianity and to suppress heresy.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|p=73}} German ancient historian {{ill|Karl Leo Noethlichs|de}} writes that the Edict of Thessalonica was neither anti-pagan nor [[Antisemitism|antisemitic]]; it did not declare Christianity to be the official religion of the empire; and it gave no advantage to Christians over other faiths.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|pp=72–74; fn. 32, 33, 34; 77}}

Liebeschuetz and Hill indicate that it was not until after 388, during Theodosius' stay in Milan following the defeat of Maximus in 388, that Theodosius and Ambrose first met.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|p=17}} 
[[File:Anthonis van Dyck 005.jpg|thumb|''[[Saint Ambrose barring Theodosius from Milan Cathedral]]'' a "pious fiction"{{sfn|Chesnut|1981|p=245-252}} painted in 1619 by [[Anthony van Dyck]]. [[National Gallery, London]]]]
After the [[Massacre of Thessalonica]] in 390, Theodosius made an act of public penance at Ambrose's behest.{{sfn|Herrin|1987|p=64}} Ambrose was away from court during the events at Thessalonica, but after being informed of them, he wrote Theodosius a letter.{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|pp=262}} In that still-existing letter, Ambrose presses for a semi-public demonstration of penitence from the emperor, telling him that, as his bishop, he will not give Theodosius communion until it is done. [[Wolf Liebeschuetz]] says "Theodosius duly complied and came to church without his imperial robes, until Christmas, when Ambrose openly admitted him to communion".{{sfn|Liebeschuetz|Hill|Mediolanensis|2005|pp=262-263}}

Formerly, some scholars credited Ambrose with having an undue influence over Emperor Theodosius I, from this period forward, prompting him toward major anti-pagan legislation beginning in February of 391.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=331}}{{sfn|Errington|1997|p=425}}{{sfn|Curran|1998|pp=78-110}} However, this interpretation has been heavily disputed since the late-twentieth century. McLynn argues that Theodosius's anti-pagan legislation was too limited in scope for it to be of interest to the bishop.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|pp=330–333}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|2020a|p=intro}} The fabled encounter at the door of the cathedral in Milan, with Ambrose as the mitred prelate braced, blocking Theodosius from entering, which has sometimes been seen as evidence of Ambrose' dominance over Theodosius, has been debunked by modern historians as "a pious fiction".{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=291}}{{sfn|Cameron|2011|pp=63, 64}} There was no encounter at the church door.{{sfn|Brown|1992|p=111}}{{sfn|Moorhead|2014|p=3, 13}}{{sfn|Cameron|2011|pp=60, 63, 131}}{{sfn|MacMullen|1984|p=100}} The story is a product of the imagination of [[Theodoret]], a historian of the fifth century who wrote of the events of 390 "using his own ideology to fill the gaps in the historical record".{{sfn|Washburn|2006|p=215}}

The twenty-first-century view is that Ambrose was "not a power behind the throne".{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=291}} The two men did not meet each other frequently, and documents that reveal the relationship between the two are less about personal friendship than they are about negotiations between two formidable leaders of the powerful institutions they represent: the Roman State and the Italian Church.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|pp=291–292;330–333}} Cameron says there is no evidence that Ambrose was a significant influence on the emperor.{{sfn|Cameron|2011|pp=63–64}}

For centuries after his death, Theodosius was regarded as a champion of Christian orthodoxy who decisively stamped out paganism. This view was recorded by Theodoret, who is recognized as an unreliable historian, in the century following their deaths.{{sfn|Errington|1997|p=409}} Theodosius's predecessors [[Constantine I|Constantine]] ({{reign | 306 | 337}}), [[Constantius II|Constantius]] ({{reign | 337 | 361|show=none}}), and [[Valens]] had all been [[semi-Arian]]s. Therefore, it fell to the orthodox Theodosius to receive from Christian literary tradition most of the credit for the final triumph of Christianity.{{sfn|Cameron|2011|p=74 (and note 177)}} Modern scholars see this as an interpretation of history by orthodox Christian writers more than as a representation of actual history.{{sfn|Nicholson|2018|pp=1482, 1484}}{{sfn|Errington|2006|pp=248–249}}{{sfn|Cameron|2011|p=74}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|loc=chapter 8}} The view of a pious Theodosius submitting meekly to the authority of the church, represented by Ambrose, is part of the myth that evolved within a generation of their deaths.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|p=292}}