Soy: Eating This "Healthy" Food? It Could Be Slowly and Silently Killing You

By The Weston A. Price Foundation

The Weston A. Price Foundation provides accurate information about nutrition and is dedicated to putting nutrient-dense foods back on American tables.

Members receive a lively and informative quarterly journal and email updates on current issues and website events. Visit their at www.westonaprice.org.

Are you confused about soy? The Weston A. Price Foundation has compiled a list of soy dangers and myths to get the truth out once and for all.

Soy Dangers Summarized

High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting, and long, slow cooking, but only with long fermentation. High-phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.

Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals, soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.

Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.

Soy phytoestrogens are potent anti-thyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body's requirement for B12.

Soy foods increase the body's requirement for Vitamin D. Toxic synthetic Vitamin D2 is added to soy milk.

Fragile proteins are over-denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.

Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.

Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods to mask soy's unpleasant taste.

Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum, which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

Myths and Truths About Soy

Here we dispel the myths of the "Diet Dictocrats" and reveal the scientific validity behind our wise ancestors' nutrient-dense diets.

Myth: Use of soy as a food dates back many thousands of years.

Truth: Soy was first used as a food during the late Chou dynasty (1134-246 BC), only after the Chinese learned to ferment soybeans to make foods like tempeh, natto, and tamari.

Myth: Asians consume large amounts of soy foods.

Truth: Average consumption of soy foods in Japan and China is 10 grams (about 2 teaspoons) per day. Asians consume soy foods in small amounts as a condiment, and not as a replacement for animal foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods confer the same health benefits as traditionally fermented soy foods.

Truth: Most modern soy foods are not fermented to neutralize toxins in soybeans, and are processed in a way that denatures proteins and increases levels of carcinogens.

Myth: Soy foods provide complete protein.

Truth: Like all legumes, soybeans are deficient in sulfur-containing amino acids methionine and cystine. In addition, modern processing denatures fragile lysine.

Myth: Fermented soy foods can provide vitamin B12 in vegetarian diets.

Truth: The compound that resembles vitamin B12 in soy cannot be used by the human body. In fact, soy foods cause the body to require more B12.

Myth: Soy formula is safe for infants.

Truth: Soy foods contain trypsin inhibitors that inhibit protein digestion and affect pancreatic function. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors led to stunted growth and pancreatic disorders. Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D, needed for strong bones and normal growth.

Phytic acid in soy foods results in reduced bioavailabilty of iron and zinc, which are required for the health and development of the brain and nervous system. Soy also lacks cholesterol, likewise essential for the development of the brain and nervous system.

Megadoses of phytoestrogens in soy formula have been implicated in the current trend toward increasingly premature sexual development in girls and delayed or retarded sexual development in boys.

Myth: Soy foods can prevent osteoporosis.

Truth: Soy foods can cause deficiencies in calcium and vitamin D, both needed for healthy bones. Calcium from bone broths and vitamin D from seafood, lard and organ meats prevent osteoporosis in Asian countries—not soy foods.

Myth: Modern soy foods protect against many types of cancer.

Truth: A British government report concluded that there is little evidence that soy foods protect against breast cancer or any other forms of cancer. In fact, soy foods may result in an increased risk of cancer.

Myth: Soy foods protect against heart disease.

Truth: In some people, consumption of soy foods will lower cholesterol, but there is no evidence that lowering cholesterol with soy protein improves one's risk of having heart disease.

Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you.

Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue.

Myth: Soy foods are safe and beneficial for women to use in their postmenopausal years.

Truth: Soy foods can stimulate the growth of estrogen-dependent tumors and cause thyroid problems. Low thyroid function is associated with difficulties in menopause.

Myth: Phytoestrogens in soy foods can enhance mental ability.

Truth: A recent study found that women with the highest levels of estrogen in their blood had the lowest levels of cognitive function; In Japanese–Americans, tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease in later life.

Myth: Soy isoflavones and soy protein isolate have GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status.

Truth: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) recently withdrew its application to the FDA for GRAS status for soy isoflavones following an outpouring of protest from the scientific community. The FDA never approved GRAS status for soy protein isolate because of concern regarding the presence of toxins and carcinogens in processed soy.

Myth: Soy foods are good for your sex life.

Truth: Numerous animal studies show that soy foods cause infertility in animals. Soy consumption enhances hair growth in middle-aged men, indicating lowered testosterone levels. 

Myth: Soybeans are good for the environment.

Truth: Most soybeans grown in the US are genetically engineered to allow farmers to use large amounts of herbicides.

Myth: Soybeans are good for developing nations.

Truth: In third-world countries, soybeans replace traditional crops and transfer the value-added of processing from the local population to multinational corporations.

Soy Infant Formula: Birth Control Pills for Babies

Babies fed soy-based formula have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen compounds in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula. Infants exclusively fed soy formula receive the estrogenic equivalent of at least four birth control pills per day.

Male infants undergo a testosterone surge during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, baby boys are programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of their sexual organs and other masculinity traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior.

In animals, studies indicate that phytoestrogens in soy are powerful endocrine disrupters. Soy infant feeding -- which floods the bloodstream with female hormones that inhibit testosterone -- cannot be ignored as a possible cause of disrupted development patterns in boys, including learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder.

Male children exposed to DES, a synthetic estrogen, had testes smaller than normal on maturation and infant marmoset monkeys fed soy isoflavones had a reduction in testosterone levels up to 70 percent compared to milk-fed controls.

Almost 15 percent of white girls and 50 percent of African-Americans girls show signs of puberty, such as breast development and pubic hair, before the age of eight. Some girls are showing sexual development before the age of three. Premature development of girls has been linked to the use of soy formula and exposure to environmental estrogen-mimickers such as PCBs and DDE. Intake of phytoestrogens even at moderate levels during pregnancy can have adverse affects on the developing fetus and the timing of puberty later in life.

Arius Priest Of Alexandria

Berbers were not Caucasian. 

Arius (256 - 336 AD) was a Libyan theologian and of Berber descent. His father’s name is given as Ammonius. He was educated in the theological school of Antioch (now Antakya) under the distinguished Greek scholar, Presbyter and non-trinitarian Lucian of Antioch. He was regarded as the founder of Arianism, although its concept was by no means new, which some Christian sects regard as a heresy and was a key issue in the early Church, leading to the formation of the heretical Nicene Creed.

At the turn of the fourth century Arius was already known to hold strong views on theology and was a close associate of Lucian and Meletius (an Egyptian schismatic against Peter I), however following reconciliation in AD 306 Arius was ordained as a Deacon by Peter I (Patriarch of Alexandria: AD 300 - 311). Further disputes led the Bishop (Peter I) to excommunicate Arius, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter’s successor. Arius was re-instated and then ordained by Achillas (Patriarch of Alexandria 312 - 313) as the Presbyter of the district of Baucalis in Alexandria in AD 313, but when Achillas died that same year Arius was denied the Patriarchate of Alexandria (to which he aspired) by Alexander I of Alexandria (a Sebellianist heretic).

Arius’s most important work was “Thalia” (The Banquet, 323), a work comprising both prose and poetry, in which he defended his beliefs. The document was destroyed by the trinitarians and is no longer extant, and knowledge of most of Arius’s writings comes only from the works of his critics, who, in condemning him, revealed much information.

Arius continued to campaign against trinitarianism. He was excommunicated locally in 321 AD. He was declared orthodox in Asia Minor, where he had fled (323), but he was anathematised by the Council of Nicaea (324) and banished by the Roman Emperor Constantine I (325). But in the reaction after Nicaea, where Arius gained support from Clergy across all Europe especially in the east and at one point Arians outnumbered the trinitarians, he came into imperial favour. The emperor had ordered the Athanasians at Alexandria to receive him at communion when he suddenly died under suspicious circumstances immediately after having an audience with the Emperor at the imperial palace. Arians believed that Arius had been poisoned.

Arius’s legacy however has lived on in spite of its condemnation by the Council of Constantinople (381). Arianism was reinstated by Constantine I who was Baptised as an Arian Christian on his deathbed, and was supported by his son Constantius II who even raised St Felix II as the Arian bishop of Rome. The Arian controversy itself lasted for over 250 years until it was driven underground. Throughout the dark and middle ages trinitarians have brutally attempted to stamp-out Arianism, even the Spanish Inquisition could not quell Arius’s beliefs. As Roman Catholicism began to decline in central Europe, Arianism rose again, even in the Church of England! Today Arianism has returned to the fore with the Arian-Catholic Church lead by the Primus Inter Pares (First Among Equals): Rev Dr Brian B. Michael-John Mackenzie-Hanson.

Arius was recognised as a Saint and Martyr by the Arian Catholic Church on 16th June 2006, which has become his memorial day.

 St Arius - Founder of Arianism

Presbyter Saint Arius - remembered for his views

concerning the trinity and

the divinity of

Christ

Arius Officially NOT a Heretic! An interesting point to note is that because Arius was officially re-instated into the Full Communion of the church before he died in 336 AD, by the Emperor of Rome, Constantine I, he officially is NOT excommunicated and therefore NOT a heretic according to the Roman Catholic church!

Arianism remained strong in Europe in spite of Roman aggression for a further 250 years and has continued to survive in the sidelines waiting for the time when Arianism can become strong again.

The Black Sea

From the time that I was a child introduced to a global atlas I have wondered how the Black Sea got its name. Throughout the years, each time I've heard its name mentioned it would send me searching for an answer. In my adult life I heard that it was named after the presence of Black people, however, I could not put my finger on when and where I heard such. It was in the last few years of conducting research for two books I am writing that I have been able to answer the question with certitude. Before I tell you the answer a bit of background is in order.

I came to know the answer indirectly by following the migrations of the ancient Tehnu (aka Libyan) of North Africa. How is that, you might ask? Well: The Tehnu, between 3,500 BC and 3,200 BC, fought the Ta-Mari(ans) lead by Pharaoh Mena over sovereignty of the Nile Valley area. At the heart of the dispute was the issue of an economy and hierarchy based upon Animal Husbandry (Tehnu) versus Agriculture (Ta-Mari) - the Tehnu lost and Kemet went on to become the greatest agricultural based society in the ancient world. In fact it is the Nubia-Kemet agricultural society that engendered civilization, and by way of the Ausarian Faith diffused said civilization around the world. The Tehnu dispersed, with some staying under the authority of the Pharaoh, while some moved west along the Mediterranean coast of North Africa, while some migrated east to the areas of Asia minor and the eastern Mediterranean shores of Canaan and Ugarit (Syria), and some went further east to India and China among other places. It is the group that crossed the Mediterranean Sea that led me to the answer. A contingent of the Tehnu migrated to the Island of Crete, where they established the Minoan Society, and, to Mainland Europe where they established the society of Argos. This group migrated even further northeast till they surrounded the shores of the Black Sea. They established settlements west (Thrace), north, and south (in Hatti/Turkey) along the Black Sea. The Kheti, Ta-Meri(ans), and others of Nubia-Kemet eastablished settlements south (Hatti) and east (Kheti = Colchis) along the Black Sea. From these areas the Tehnu migrated along the rivers leading into Europe and Eurasia - rivers that now bear their name: Tenu (Don), Dniester, Dnieper, and Danube (Tehnu).

click map to enlargeAlong the Tenu (Don) and Dnieper Rivers the Tehnu migrated into what is now Russia (Eastern Europe) where they established numerous villages, cities and towns - including Kazan (on the Volga River), Chernigov (on the Dnieper River), and Cherusci (north of the Dniester) in modern-day Germany. Note that the prefix Cher(n) in archaic Russian means Black, and Black Town. Chernobog - meaning 'Black god' - was one of the numerous Black gods throughout Russia, and of the many throughout Europe, in general. Along the Danube River the Tehnu traveled through what is now Western Europe all the way to the British Isles and Ireland where they settled - becoming known as the Tautha De Danann: meaning: The people of the Ntcher (deity, god) Danu (Anu) - an ancient Kemetic Sun/Creator god. The Tehnu, pastoral-herdsmen, established the Tenetian Faith - celebrating Ntcher (goddess) Tena-t - portrayed as the Sacred-Cow - everyplace they settled; in fact, they introduced animal husbandry to the British Isles - including Ireland, for which the area is now famous. Incidentally, the Ausarians followed them - as well as preceded them in some other areas. Between the two of them they established branches of the Kemetic Faith throughout the Black Sea area and throughout Europe and Eurasia. In fact, the roots (foundation) of what is considered to be Celtic, Norse, and early Russian society and culture were established by the Twa, Tehnu, and the Ta-Mari(an) of Africa.

It is in distinguishing the exploits of the Tehnu in the history, myths and legends of Europe, and to a lesser extent that of the Ausarians, that I came to understand that once upon a time almost all of Europe, at least from the Volga River in eastern Europe and west to the British Isles - including Ireland, and, parts of southwestern Europe were called the 'Black Lands' or 'Land of the Black People(s)'. White peoples who migrated (invaded) the areas subsequently, designated territories all around (especially boundaries) by the color of the people they encountered. Hence: Black Forest, Black River, and Black Lands. In addition they named the occupation and skills of the Black people they encountered: black-smith, black-magic, black-arts, black-science, and the gods: black-god(s)- e.g. Chernobog, etc. Added to this, all of the Black societies south of Europe bore similar names such as Kemet: 'Land of the Blacks'; Sag-Gi-(Ga)(Sumer): 'The Black Headed People'; Meluhha (Indus): 'Land of the Blacks'; and Shang (China): 'The Black Headed People'. It all began to fit into place. Black people where taking a stand by naming their occupied territories 'Land of the Black People' against the invading White hordes, who, themselves were naming territories 'Black' after the Black people they encountered, and subsequently, naming territories they conquered from Black people 'White' - For example: Belarus - meaning 'White Russia'; the 'White Sea' - north of the Baltic Sea - in contrast to the Black Sea - etc. Additionally, the Black Sea is called 'Cherno more' (Bulgarian), 'Chornoye more' (Russian), and 'Chorne more' (Ukrainian); yet, all attempts to explain its name by White sources ignore the obvious: Black inhabitants - See for example: EncyclopediaOfUkraine.com -Click Here / and: Wikipedia.org -Click Here

It was in light of the forgoing that I came to know and understand that the Black Sea got its name due to the preponderance of Black people that inhabited the territories surrounding it for hundreds and thousands of miles in all directions, and for thousands of years before the coming of White people. Now you know what I know: The Black Sea - named for the Black people that inhabited its surrounding shores (lands).

Notes:

Diodorus' Map - Diodorus lived in the first-century B.C., by his time each of the major Black civilizations (societies) had been conquered by invading Whites - The area noted as Scythia once occupied by descendants of the Tehnu and Ta-Mari were overrun by barbaric Scythian tribes; east of the Black Sea - Colchis - is where Herodotus visited the Kheti (Nubian-Egyptian) tribes. South of Colchis, Sumerian Civilization in Mesopotamia was invaded by White barbaric tribes continuously for approximately two-thousand years and ultimately destroyed before Diodorus. Further to the east, Indus and Shang civilizations and societies were overrun by White barbarians - including the Aryans. From 700 BC to the time of Diodorus (100 BC), Kemet (Egypt), at the southeast of the Mediterranean Sea had been overrun by successive groups of White invaders Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans.

References:

Birrell, Anne, (1993), Chinese Mythology: An Introduction, The Johns Hopkins University Press

The earliest 'Chinese' society - Shang - is of African (Black) origins - this book is a good resource to compare early 'Chinese' Mythology to that of Kemet, to know that Kemet is its source. See p.83 for reference to 'black-haired people'. Note that most contemporary White scholars routinely interpret (change) ancient references of 'black-head' and 'black-face' to 'black-hair' as a way of 'hiding' the presence of Black people - this author has done the same.

Bonnefoy, Yves, (1981), Mythologies 2.vols, University of Chicago Press

This is a very good set to have or to consult on mythologies around the world; however, beware of the Eurocentric bias to relate other peoples mythology to Greeks and Romans, and to falsely claim various people, especially Black people in Europe and Eurasia, and their myths to be 'Indo-European'.

Dixon-Kennedy, Mike, (1998), Encyclopedia of Russian and Slavic Myth and Legend, ABC-CLIO

See the listings for 'Cher' - however, be leery of the authors modern racial bias in defining the Black-God 'Chernobog' - as the epitome of evil, which was not the case anywhere in Russia, especially where there were numerous Black gods all of whom were beneficent - including the Black God of the Black Forest, the Black God of the Black River, the Black god of the Black Stream, Dunai the Black-god-hero for whom the Danube river is named, and the Black god euhemerized as Saint George; and of course one cannot forget the numerous 'Black Madonna's' - Black goddesses - celebrated throughout Europe - east and west.

Grantham, Charles A, (2003), The Battle For Kemet, Kemetic Institute Of Chicago

Very good essays; see especially the essay entitled 'The Battle For Kemet' that debunks the racist assertions by 'White Egyptologist' that promote a fraudulent interpretation of the name 'Kemet'.

Henig, Martin, ed., (1995), A Handbook of Roman Art, Phaidon - Oxford University Press

Herodotus, (George Rawlinson, Trans.), (1942) The Persian Wars, Random House Inc.

Herodotus as a resource provides a valuable historical account of the Black presence in Eurasia, especially along the Black Sea - himself being an eyewitness.

Holloran, John Alan, (2006), Sumerian Lexicon: A Dictionary Guide to the Ancient Sumerian Language, Logogram Publishing

A good resource for studying the language of Sumer - an ancient Black civilization of Kemetic orientation. See p. 224 for Sag-gi-(ga): 'Black-headed people' reference.

Kramer, Samuel Noah, (1963), The Sumerians Their History, Culture, and Character, The University Of Chicago Press

A good survey of Sumerian Civilization, however, beware of the author efforts to claim the Black civilization as the doings of White people - who where in fact invaders and, ultimately, destroyers of Sumerian civilization. See pp. 276-284 for Meluhha - 'Land of the Blacks'- reference.

Massey, Gerald, (1995 [1881]), A Book Of The Beginnings - 2-vol's., Black Classic Press

Volume-One of Massey's 503-page tome is devoted to exposing the 'Egyptian' (Black) origins of civilization and society in the British Isles, including its residual artifacts - cultural, religious, material, and language. Volume-Two is an exhaustive expose of the 'Egyptian' (Black) origins of the Hebrew and Akkado-Assyrian societies, culture and religions.

Rolleston, T.W., (1990 [1917]), Celtic Myths and Legends, Dover Publications

The author acknowledges the 'Egyptian' [Kemetic] origins and impact on Celtic society, religion and culture. However, beware of his efforts to link the culture to White (Aryan) people.

Siculus, Diodorus, [Murphy, Edwin, trans.] (1989), Book II - The Antiquities Of Asia, Transaction Publishers

Source of the map from Diodorus' time

Sertima, Ivan Van, (1993), African Presence In Early Europe, Journal Of African Civilizations, Transaction Publishers

This publication features excellent articles and a wealth of documentation on the Black presence in Europe in general, and of the Tehnu in part.

Greek God Atlas And Kemet

The name Shu means "he who rises up". As the god of air and a god of light, or of light personified, Shu was said to make himself manifest in the beams of the Sun by day and in the light of the Moon by night. He appears as rising up from behind the earth while supporting the sun with his hands similar to the way Atlas can be seen supporting the heavens on his shoulders. Shu is the son of Atum-Ra, the husband of the goddess Tefnut and father of Nuit and Geb. It is said that Shu was created by Ra by way of masturbation. "I had union with my hand, and I embraced my shadow as a wife. I poured seed into my own mouth and I sent forth from myself issue in the form of the gods Shu and Tefnut." Egyptian Story of Creation.

 

   Shu is the god of the wind, the atmosphere, the space between the heavens and the earth. As Lord of the atmosphere it is his duty to separate his children. Shu can be seen supporting the sky goddess and daughter Nuit above his head while his son and earth god Geb resides below his feet. It has been said that if Shu were to ever be removed from his place, chaos would come to the universe and all life would cease.

Shu's Role in Egypt:

     It is stated that after Ra, Shu was Egypt’s second Divine Ruler. He was a part of the great Ennead of Gods. After battling and defeating the god Apep and having most of his followers turn away from him Shu left the throne leaving his son Geb in command. As a god of the wind the Egyptians would often invoke Shu to give good winds to their sails. He was also considered to be the personification of the northern winds which were a source of life for the Egyptians. To the Egyptians he was the breath of life, the bridge between life and death for breath is the sign of life and without breath there can be no life. His bones were thought to be the clouds and with the help of a giant ladder he was said to hold, he would raise the spirits of the dead to what was called the 'Light Land' by the Egyptians. As the bridge between life and death Shu was also considered to be both a protector and punisher of souls in the afterlife. As a punisher of the souls of the dead Shu would oversee the elimination of those souls who were found unworthy of an afterlife. Those who were deemed worthy would then climb the ladder of Shu and enter on into the 'Light Land'. Shu was a god related to living and allowed life to flourish in Egypt. He was the division between day and night, the world of the dead and that of the living. The Egyptians believed that without Shu there could be no life, and that Egypt existed because of Shu.

     "I am Shu, I draw Air from the presence of the Light-God. From the uttermost limits of heaven, from the uttermost limits on Earth and from the uttermost limits of the pinion of the Nebeh bird. May air be given unto this young divine Babe. My mouth is open, I see with my eyes."

The Chapter of giving Air in Khert-Neter-The Egyptian Book of the Dead

In the Golden Dawn System:

     In the Golden Dawn tradition we are first introduced to the god Shu through the exchange between the Kerux and the Hegemon in the Theoricus Initiation : "The priest with the mask of the Ox spake and said, 'Thou cannot pass the Gate of the Northern Heaven unless thou can tell me my name!' 'Satem in the abode of Shu, the Bull of Earth is thy name; thou art Kephra the Sun at night.'" Theoricus Ceremony.

     With this in mind we can see that it is through the Abode of Shu, the Path of Tav on the Tree of Life, that we must pass in order to reach the higher planes of existence. Once given the secrets of the Theoricus grade sign we can use this sign to connect with the forces of Air. By imitating the god Shu we are in essence raising our minds above the earth and placing it into the higher realms of splendor above. This fits very well in the context of advancing from the Grade of Zelator, the worker of Earth to the grade of Theoricus, the worker of Air.

     Shu Can also be found in Enochian Chess as a Bishop of Air. He is titled with his Coptic name of Shu-Zoan and is depicted as the human-headed god with as ostrich feather on top his head personifying atmosphere. According to S.L MacGregor Mathers, "The Bishops are subtle and sharp, Airy in quality, moving rapidly, but easily arrested in their course. They clash not with opposing Bishops, and the friendly Airs support each other in attack and defense. Where the active Airs whirl the passives cannot come. They are the forces of the Princes, and of Yetzirah, the Son." As a represention of these airy qualities, Shu's place as a Bishop of Air fits perfectly.

FIFA 2015

Suns Of God - Free PDF

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F0B06c3IrxNgAhUEt0Yi1yQzdjWms%2Fedit&ei=UKCSVcSUDcG6sQXwiKuwDw&usg=AFQjCNHekOu_2-um9koTcIV3Y96ty2mgfA&sig2=8H5fUXmswXH2hVs70Aeu-Q

Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpibbethel.no-ip.org%2Fbiblioteca%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2FGaia_Lembi_Joseph_Sievers-Josephus_and_Jewish_History_in_Flavian_Rome_and_Beyond-2005.pdf&ei=Bp6SVcaXC4LLsAXcrrywCQ&usg=AFQjCNENbbGP3V2Ot52sb1g9r7kYPG9h-Q&sig2=DC8vxuvwSzjttE65_MdLfw

Titus Vespasianus Augustus

Titus, in full Titus Vespasianus Augustus, original name Titus Flavius Vespasianus   (born Dec. 30, 39 ce—died Sept. 13, 81 ce), Roman emperor (79–81), and the conqueror of Jerusalem in 70.

Titus, Arch of: “Romans Taking Spoils of Jerusalem” [Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, New York]After service in Britain and Germany, Titus commanded a legion under his father, Vespasian, in Judaea (67). Following the emperor Nero’s death in June 68, Titus was energetic in promoting his father’s candidacy for the imperial crown. Licinius Mucianus, legate of Syria, whom he reconciled with Vespasian, considered that one of Vespasian’s greatest assets was to have so promising a son and heir. Immediately on being proclaimed emperor in 69, Vespasian gave Titus charge of the Jewish war, and a large-scale campaign in 70 culminated in the capture and destruction of Jerusalem in September. (The Arch of Titus [81], still standing at the entrance to the Roman Forum, commemorated his victory.)

The victorious troops in Palestine urged Titus to take them with him to Italy; it was suspected that they acted on his prompting and that he was considering some sort of challenge to his father. But eventually he returned alone in summer 71, triumphed jointly with Vespasian, and was made commander of the Praetorian Guard. He also received tribunician power and was his father’s colleague in the censorship of 73 and in several consulships. Although Vespasian had in various ways avoided making Titus his own equal, the son became the military arm of the new principate and is described by Suetonius as particeps atque etiam tutor imperii (“sharer and even protector of the empire”). As such he incurred unpopularity, worsened by his relations with Berenice (sister of the Syrian Herod Agrippa II), who lived with him for a time in the palace and hoped to become his wife. But the Romans had memories of Cleopatra, and marriage to an Eastern queen was repugnant to public opinion. Twice he reluctantly had to dismiss her, the second time just after Vespasian’s death.

In 79 Titus suppressed a conspiracy, doubtless concerned with the succession, but, when Vespasian died on June 23, he succeeded promptly and peacefully. His relations with his brother Domitian were bad, but in other ways his short rule was unexpectedly popular in Rome. He was outstandingly good-looking, cultivated, and affable; Suetonius called him “the darling of the human race.” His success was won largely by lavish expenditure, some of it purely personal largesse but some public bounty, like the assistance to Campania after Vesuvius erupted in 79 and the rebuilding of Rome after the fire in 80. He completed construction of the Flavian Amphitheatre, better known as the Colosseum, and opened it with ceremonies lasting more than 100 days. His sudden death at age 41 was supposedly hastened by Domitian, who became his successor as emperor.

Titus married twice, but his first wife died, and he divorced the second soon after the birth (c. 65) of his only child, a daughter, Flavia Julia, to whom he accorded the title Augusta. She married her cousin Flavius Sabinus, but after his death in 84 she lived openly as mistress of her uncle Domitian.

Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius, in full Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, original name (until 161 ce) Marcus Annius Verus   (born April 26, 121 ce, Rome—died March 17, 180, Vindobona [Vienna], or Sirmium, Pannonia), Roman emperor (ce 161–180), best known for his Meditations on Stoic philosophy. Marcus Aurelius has symbolized for many generations in the West the Golden Age of the Roman Empire.

Youth and apprenticeship

Conservatori, Palazzo dei: bas-relief of Marcus Aurelius [Credit: Alinari/Art Resource, New York]When he was born, his paternal grandfather was already consul for the second time and prefect of Rome, which was the crown of prestige in a senatorial career; his father’s sister was married to the man who was destined to become the next emperor and whom he himself would in due time succeed; and his maternal grandmother was heiress to one of the most massive of Roman fortunes. Marcus thus was related to several of the most prominent families of the new Roman establishment, which had consolidated its social and political power under the Flavian emperors (69–96), and, indeed, the ethos of that establishment is relevant to his own actions and attitudes. The governing class of the first age of the Roman Empire, the Julio-Claudian, had been little different from that of the late Republic: it was urban Roman (despising outsiders), extravagant, cynical, and amoral. The new establishment, however, was largely of municipal and provincial origin—as were its emperors—cultivating sobriety and good works and turning more and more to piety and religiosity.

 

The child Marcus was thus clearly destined for social distinction. How he came to the throne, however, remains a mystery. In 136 the emperor Hadrian (reigned 117–138) inexplicably announced as his eventual successor a certain Lucius Ceionius Commodus (henceforth L. Aelius Caesar), and in that same year young Marcus was engaged to Ceionia Fabia, the daughter of Commodus. Early in 138, however, Commodus died, and later, after the death of Hadrian, the engagement was annulled. Hadrian then adopted Titus Aurelius Antoninus (the husband of Marcus’s aunt) to succeed him as the emperor Antoninus Pius (reigned 138–161), arranging that Antoninus should adopt as his sons two young men—one the son of Commodus and the other Marcus, whose name was then changed to Marcus Aelius Aurelius Verus. Marcus thus was marked out as a future joint emperor at the age of just under 17, though, as it turned out, he was not to succeed until his 40th year. It is sometimes assumed that in Hadrian’s mind both Commodus and Antoninus Pius were merely to be “place warmers” for one or both of these youths.

The long years of Marcus’s apprenticeship under Antoninus are illuminated by the correspondence between him and his teacher Fronto. Although the main society literary figure of the age, Fronto was a dreary pedant whose blood ran rhetoric, but he must have been less lifeless than he now appears, for there is genuine feeling and real communication in the letters between him and both of the young men. It was to the credit of Marcus, who was intelligent as well as hardworking and serious-minded, that he grew impatient with the unending regime of advanced exercises in Greek and Latin declamation and eagerly embraced the Diatribai (Discourses) of a religious former slave, Epictetus, an important moral philosopher of the Stoic school. Henceforth, it was in philosophy that Marcus was to find his chief intellectual interest as well as his spiritual nourishment.

Meanwhile, there was work enough to do at the side of the untiring Antoninus, with learning the business of government and assuming public roles. Marcus was consul in 140, 145, and 161. In 145 he married his cousin, the emperor’s daughter Annia Galeria Faustina, and in 147 the imperium and tribunicia potestas, the main formal powers of emperorship, were conferred upon him; henceforth, he was a kind of junior coemperor, sharing the intimate counsels and crucial decisions of Antoninus. (His adoptive brother, nearly 10 years his junior, was brought into official prominence in due time.) On March 7, 161, at a time when the brothers were jointly consuls (for the third and the second time, respectively), their father died.

Roman emperor

The transition was smooth as far as Marcus was concerned; already possessing the essential constitutional powers, he stepped automatically into the role of full emperor (and his name henceforth was Imperator Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus). At his own insistence, however, his adoptive brother was made coemperor with him (and bore henceforth the name Imperator Caesar Lucius Aurelius Verus Augustus). There is no evidence that Lucius Verus had much of a following, so a ruthless rival could have easily disposed of him, though to leave him in being as anything less than emperor might have created a focus for disaffection. It is most probable, however, that Marcus’s conscience impelled him to carry out loyally what he believed to have been the plan by which alone he himself had eventually reached the purple. For the first time in history, the Roman Empire had two joint emperors of formally equal constitutional status and powers, but, although the achievement of Lucius Verus has suffered by comparison with the paragon Marcus, it seems probable that the serious work of government was done throughout by Marcus and was the more arduous in that it was done during most of his reign in the midst of fighting frontier wars and combating the effects of plague and demoralization.

For constructive statesmanship or the initiation of original trends in civil policy, Marcus had little time or energy to spare. The field most congenial to him seems to have been the law. Numerous measures were promulgated and judicial decisions made, clearing away harshnesses and anomalies in the civil law, improving in detail the lot of the less-favoured—slaves, widows, minors—and giving recognition to claims of blood relationship in the field of succession (see inheritance). Marcus’s personal contribution, however, must not be overstated. The pattern of ameliorating legislation was inherited rather than novel, and the measures were refinements rather than radical changes in the structure of law or society; Marcus was not a great legislator, but he was a devoted practitioner of the role of ombudsman. Moreover, there was nothing specifically Stoic about this legal activity, and in one respect the age of Antoninus Pius and Marcus signalizes a retrogression in the relationship of law to society, for under them there either began or was made more explicit a distinction of classes in the criminal law—honestiores and humiliores—with two separate scales of punishments for crime, harsher and more degrading for the humiliores at every point.

Marcus’s claim to statesmanship has come under critical attack in numerous other ways—for example, in the matter of Christian persecution. Although Marcus disliked the Christians, there was no systematic persecution of them during his reign. Their legal status remained as it had been under Trajan (reigned 98–117) and Hadrian: Christians were ipso facto punishable but not to be sought out. This incongruous position did little harm in times of general security and prosperity, but when either of these were threatened, the local population might denounce Christians, a governor might be forced to act, and the law, as the central authority saw it, must then run its course. The martyrdoms at Lyon in 177 were of this nature, and, though it appears that Christian blood flowed more profusely in the reign of Marcus the philosopher than it had before, he was not an initiator of persecution.

In 161 Syria was invaded by the Parthians, a major power to the east. The war that followed (162–166) was nominally under the command of Verus, though its successful conclusion, with the overrunning of Armenia and Mesopotamia, was the work of subordinate generals, notably Gaius Avidius Cassius. The returning armies brought back with them a plague, which raged throughout the empire for many years and—together with the German invasion—fostered a weakening of morale in minds accustomed to the stability and apparent immutability of Rome and its empire.

In 167 or 168 Marcus and Verus together set out on a punitive expedition across the Danube, and behind their backs a horde of German tribes invaded Italy in massive strength and besieged Aquileia, on the crossroads at the head of the Adriatic. The military precariousness of the empire and the inflexibility of its financial structure in the face of emergencies now stood revealed; desperate measures were adopted to fill the depleted legions, and imperial property was auctioned to provide funds. Marcus and Verus fought the Germans off with success, but in 169 Verus died suddenly, and doubtless naturally, of a stroke. Three years of fighting were still needed, with Marcus in the thick of it, to restore the Danubian frontier, and three more years of campaigning in Bohemia were enough to bring the tribes beyond the Danube to peace, at least for a time.

The Meditations

A more intimate contact with the thoughts pursued by Marcus during the troubling involvements of his reign, though not what would have been historically most valuable, his day-to-day political thoughts, can be acquired by reading the Meditations. To what extent he intended them for eyes other than his own is uncertain; they are fragmentary notes, discursive and epigrammatic by turn, of his reflections in the midst of campaigning and administration. In a way, it seems, he wrote them to nerve himself for his daunting responsibilities. Strikingly, though they comprise the innermost thoughts of a Roman, the Meditations were written in Greek—to such an extent had the union of cultures become a reality. In many ages these thoughts have been admired; the modern age, however, is more likely to be struck by the pathology of them, their mixture of priggishness and hysteria. Marcus was forever proposing to himself unattainable goals of conduct, forever contemplating the triviality, brutishness, and transience of the physical world and of humanity in general and himself in particular; otherworldly, yet believing in no other world, he was therefore tied to duty and service with no hope, even of everlasting fame, to sustain him. Sickly all through his life and probably plagued with a chronic ulcer, he took daily doses of a drug; the suggestion has been made that the apocalyptic imagery of passages in the Meditations betrays the addict. More certain and more important is the point that Marcus’s anxieties reflect, in an exaggerated manner, the ethos of his age.

The Meditations, the thoughts of a philosopher-king, have been considered by many generations one of the great books of all times. Although they were Marcus’s own thoughts, they were not original. They are basically the moral tenets of Stoicism, learned from Epictetus: the cosmos is a unity governed by an intelligence, and the human soul is a part of that divine intelligence and can therefore stand, if naked and alone, at least pure and undefiled, amid chaos and futility. One or two of Marcus’s ideas, perhaps more through lack of rigorous understanding than anything else, diverged from Stoic philosophy and approached that Platonism that was itself then turning into the Neoplatonism into which all pagan philosophies, except Epicureanism, were destined to merge. But he did not deviate so far as to accept the comfort of any kind of survival after death.

At the same time that Marcus was securing his trans-Danubian frontiers, Egypt, Spain, and Britain were troubled by rebellions or invasions. By 175, the general Avidius Cassius, who earlier had served under Verus, had virtually become a prefect of all of the eastern provinces, including control of the important province of Egypt. In that year, Avidius Cassius took the occasion of a rumour of Marcus’s death to proclaim himself emperor. Marcus made peace in the north with those tribes not already subjugated and prepared to march against Avidius, but the rebel general was assassinated by his own soldiers. Marcus used the opportunity to make a tour of pacification and inspection in the East, visiting Antioch, Alexandria, and Athens—where, like Hadrian, he was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries (though that esoteric religious cult does not seem to have impinged at all upon his philosophical views). During the journey the empress Faustina, who had been with her husband in the Danubian wars as well, died. Great public honours were bestowed upon her in life and in death, and in his Meditations Marcus spoke of her with love and admiration. The ancient sources accuse her of infidelity and disloyalty (complicity, in fact, with Avidius Cassius), but the charges are implausible.

Commodus: marble bust of Commodus as Hercules [Credit: Anderson—Alinari/Art Resource, New York]In 177 Marcus proclaimed his 16-year-old son, Commodus, joint emperor. Together they resumed the Danubian wars. Marcus was determined to pass from defense to offense and to an expansionist redrawing of Rome’s northern boundaries. His determination seemed to be winning success when, in 180, he died at his military headquarters, having just had time to commend Commodus to the chief advisers of the regime.

Assessment

Marcus’s choice of his only surviving son as his successor has always been viewed as a tragic paradox. Commodus (reigned as sole emperor 180–192) turned out badly, though two things must be borne in mind: emperors are good and bad in the ancient sources according as they did or did not satisfy the senatorial governing class, and Commodus’s rapid calling off of the northern campaigns may well have been wiser than his father’s obsessive and costly expansionism. But those who criticize Marcus for ensuring the accession of Commodus are usually under the misapprehension that Marcus was reverting to crude dynasticism after a long and successful period of “philosophic” succession by the best available man. This is historically untenable. Marcus had no choice in the matter: if he had not made Commodus his successor, he would have had to order him to be put to death.

Marcus was a statesman, perhaps, but one of no great calibre; nor was he really a sage. In general, he is a historically overrated figure, presiding in a bewildered way over an empire beneath the gilt of which there already lay many a decaying patch. But his personal nobility and dedication survive the most remorseless scrutiny; he counted the cost obsessively, but he did not shrink from paying it.

Theodosius I

Theodosius I, byname Theodosius the Great, in full Flavius Theodosius   (born January 11, 347 ce, Cauca, Gallaecia [now Coca, Spain]—died January 17, 395, Mediolanum [now Milan, Italy]), Roman emperor of the East (379–392) and then sole emperor of both East and West (392–395), who, in vigorous suppression of paganism and Arianism, established the creed of the Council of Nicaea (325) as the universal norm for Christian orthodoxy and directed the convening of the second general council at Constantinople (381) to clarify the formula.

 

Background and youth

Theodosius was born in the province of Gallaecia in northwestern Spain. His father was to become the general Flavius Theodosius; his mother’s name is unknown. His grandparents, like his parents, were probably already Christians. Theodosius, who grew up in Spain, did not receive an extensive education but was intellectually open-minded and acquired a special interest in the study of history.

While on his father’s staff, he participated in campaigns against the Picts and Scots in Britain in 368–369, against the Alemanni in Gaul in 370, and against the Sarmatians in the Balkans in 372–373. As a military commander in Moesia, a Roman province on the lower Danube, he defeated the Sarmatians in 374. When his father was sentenced to death and executed as a result of political intrigues by enemies at court, Theodosius withdrew to his Spanish estates. At the end of 376, he married Aelia Flacilla, also a Spaniard. His first son, the future emperor Arcadius, was born in 377, and his daughter Pulcheria in 378.

Immediately after the catastrophic defeat of the emperor Valens, who perished at the hands of the Visigoths and other barbarians on August 9, 378, near Adrianople, the emperor Gratian unexpectedly summoned Theodosius to his court. When Theodosius had once again proved his military ability by a victory over the Sarmatians, Gratian proclaimed him co-emperor on January 19, 379. His dominion was to be the Eastern part of the empire, including the provinces of Dacia (present-day Romania) and Macedonia, which had been especially infiltrated by barbarians in the preceding few years.

Early years as emperor

In 379 and 380 Theodosius resided chiefly in Thessalonica. He sought first to rebuild the army, the discipline of which was considerably impaired, and to consolidate Rome’s position on the Balkan Peninsula. Military unpreparedness could not be overcome by conscription alone, which applied only to certain classes. Theodosius therefore directed that large numbers of Teutons, who had been barred from military service, be accepted by the army. By 379, however, when foreigners had already intermingled extensively with the rest of the army, both among the troops and in all ranks of the officer corps, Theodosius did no more than many of his predecessors to encourage this process. In contrast to the West, in Theodosius’s provinces both Romans and Teutons were among the leading generals.

Recognizing that the barbarians, who had invaded the provinces as early as 375, could no longer be expelled by force and that he could count on Gratian for only limited assistance, Theodosius sought new possibilities for coexistence. This resulted in the friendly reception of the Visigoth Athanaric in 381 and the conclusion of a treaty of alliance, or foedus, with the main body of the Visigoths in the fall of 382. The Goths, who pledged themselves to lending military assistance, were assigned territory for settlement between the lower Danube and the Balkan mountains. Under this novel arrangement, an entire people was settled on imperial soil while retaining its autonomy. Theodosius may have hoped that the Goths would become integrated, as had a group of Goths who had settled near Nicopolis in Moesia circa 350; their leader, Bishop Ulfilas, undertook missionary work among the parties to the foedus of 382.

Some historians have regarded Theodosius as biased in favour of the Goths. He has even been accused of having contributed decisively, through the treaty of 382, to the downfall of Rome. Yet, it should be noted that the policy of that treaty, which was undertaken in the justified expectation of raising Roman military strength and recultivating tracts of wasteland, by no means became customary. Instead, the emperor took strict measures against further invasions by Teutonic bands and did not permit any doubts to arise as to Roman claims of superiority over the barbarians.

Theodosius’s situation was complicated by the sharp antagonism that arose about 379 between disciples of the Nicene Creed (according to which Jesus Christ is of the same substance as God the Father) and several other Christian groups in his part of the empire. Theodosius himself, the first emperor who did not assume the title of pontifex maximus (supreme guardian of the old Roman cults), believed in the Nicene Creed, despite his baptism only after a serious illness in the fall of 380.

Out of political as well as religious motives, he energetically undertook to bring about unity of faith within the empire. His position was improved by the fact that during 379 the followers of the Nicene Creed gained ground, whereupon Theodosius on February 28, 380, without consulting the ecclesiastical authorities, issued an edict prescribing a creed that was to be binding on all subjects. Only persons who believed in the consubstantiality of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were henceforth to be considered Catholic Christians, a designation that here appears for the first time in a document.

There is no doubt that the principle of religious intolerance was proclaimed in this edict. When assessing the edict, however—which should not be viewed simply as an isolated measure—it must be remembered that to the Christians Theodosius was emperor by the grace of God. While thus committed to defend the true faith, he by no means carried out his stated intention by force. The creed, prescribed in 380, was again defined at the beginning of 381 and ecclesiastically sanctioned, as it were, by a church council summoned to Constantinople by Theodosius in the summer of 381. That gathering is considered the second ecumenical council.

The Symbolum Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum (i.e., the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed [or Symbol]), which is still used by most Christians, along with the ranking by the council fathers of the bishop of Constantinople directly after the bishop of Rome, can thus be traced back to Theodosius. Henceforth, the emperor’s authority in matters of faith was to be recognized by the bishops of the East. There is no ground, however, for speaking of a rigidly organized imperial church controlled by the emperor.

The period when Theodosius stayed mainly in Constantinople, dating from the end of 380 to 387, is that to which most of his measures to improve the capital may be attributed. The plan for the Forum Tauri, the largest public square known in antiquity, designed after the model of Trajan’s Forum in Rome, is outstanding. It is unclear, however, to what extent the emperor encouraged the flowering of art and literature in his time.

The middle years

In 383 Maximus, a Spaniard who had been proclaimed emperor by the troops in Britain, asserted himself as ruler in the Western provinces (praefectura Galliarum). Suspicions that Theodosius was in collusion with the usurper and thus implicated in the death of Emperor Gratian in August 383 are unfounded. Theodosius, who had to acknowledge the sovereignty of Gratian’s stepbrother Valentinian II, born in 371 and the nominal ruler in Italy since the end of 375, could not interfere with Maximus, for he lacked both sufficient military strength and secure borders. Yet, when Maximus invaded Italy in 387 and Valentinian was forced to flee to Thessalonica, Theodosius soon decided upon countermeasures. His decision was perhaps hastened through the influence of Valentinian’s mother, whose daughter Galla he had married at the end of 387, having been a widower since 386.

Theodosius’s position by that time had become stronger. Long-standing negotiations with the Persians over the division of power in Armenia had resulted in a treaty that was to become the basis for a long period of peace on the eastern border. Having ordered one army division from Egypt to Africa and sent Valentinian with a fleet to Italy, Theodosius set out in the spring of 388 with the main body of troops to move against Maximus’s army, which had invaded Pannonia in the Balkans. By July the enemy was defeated. When Maximus surrendered at the end of August, he was branded as a usurper, but his followers were generally treated with leniency.

In the same year, Theodosius again relinquished the West to his co-emperor Valentinian but secured his own influence by placing the Frankish general Arbogast, a man he trusted, at Valentinian’s side as principal adviser. By remaining in Italy until the spring of 391, where he resided mostly in Milan, Theodosius emphasized his claim to supreme authority throughout the empire. In 389 he visited Rome, where, accompanied by his four-year-old son Honorius, he made a triumphant entry.

In Milan, Theodosius found in Bishop Ambrose an ecclesiastic who was intent upon cooperating effectively with the emperor and even upon forming a friendship with him, although Ambrose pointed out to Theodosius the limits of the power of temporal rulers more clearly than had others. A conflict had already arisen between them in 388 over Theodosius’s punishment of orthodox fanatics who had set fire to a synagogue and to the shrine of a sect. As a devout Christian, Theodosius finally acceded to the bishop’s wishes in the matter but took pains to make him understand that he was not willing to grant the bishop greater influence in affairs of government.

A new conflict arose in 390 when, following the murder of one of his generals in Thessalonica, Theodosius issued an order for brutal retaliation. It was rescinded too late, so that a horrible massacre resulted among the population there. Ambrose had the emperor’s action condemned in a church council and bade him do public penance. After a prolonged hesitation, Theodosius complied with the order and was readmitted to communion at Christmas 390.

His penance should not be construed as a victory of the church over the emperor but only as a demonstration of the power of atonement over the penitent sinner. The claims that arose in future centuries that the church had been placed above the temporal power derived not from Theodosius’s act of penance but only from the myth generated by it. Although Theodosius had gained an important ally in Ambrose, he continued intent on preserving the emperor’s authority in the face of Ambrose and other bishops.

While maintaining an entirely friendly attitude toward the church, Theodosius still took care in his legislation to see that the material interests of the state were sacrificed only to a very limited extent to church or clergy. In addition, Theodosius decided to enforce more strongly against the pagans the religious policy he had pursued since 379. In February 391 he prohibited sacrifices and the visiting of temples. Up to that time, he had basically tolerated the pagans and had entrusted adherents of the old cults with the highest offices.

Quarrels between his second wife, Galla, and his son Arcadius, as well as his own view of the Eastern capital as the centre of the empire, prompted Theodosius to move his residence back to Constantinople, where he arrived in November 391.

Victory over pagan usurpers

A new crisis arose for Theodosius three months after Valentinian’s death on May 15, 392. Arbogast treacherously proclaimed as emperor of the West a former rhetoric teacher, Eugenius, who had close connections with the pagan aristocracy of the Senate. Theodosius, who did not yet dare to risk a civil war, delayed reception of a legation requesting recognition of Arbogast’s puppet. On November 8, 392, he made his edicts of 391 more stringent by completely prohibiting the worship of the pagan gods. He left no further doubts as to his position when he elevated his son Honorius to Augustus in January 393 and thereby demonstrated that he would no longer tolerate any emperor other than himself and his sons. Because he still refrained from military action, his enemies occupied Italy in the spring of 393. Led by Nicomachus Flavianus, the forces striving to preserve the pagan cults gathered around Eugenius.

The now inevitable struggle for power was thus at the same time a struggle that would decide whether pagan religions would once again be tolerated within the empire alongside Christianity. Theodosius did not set out from Constantinople until May 394. As in 388, he made his way toward the Danube and then the Sava with his powerful army. His force consisted largely of barbarians and their allies, one of whose leaders was Stilicho, a Vandal who had been married since 384 to the emperor’s niece Serena. Theodosius’s sons Arcadius and Honorius stayed behind in the capital. Arcadius, who had been given the right to promulgate laws independently, was supposed to direct the government in the East.

Theodosius first met the enemy at the Frigidus River on the eastern border of Italy. Although Theodosius’s advance guard, composed almost entirely of Visigoths, suffered heavy losses during an attempted breakthrough on September 5, 394, the emperor ventured to attack the following day and was victorious. Later Christian tradition, emphasizing Theodosius’s piety and trust in God, essentially interpreted the victory as a divine judgment: the god of the Christians had triumphed over the old Roman gods. Following the deaths of Eugenius, Arbogast, and Nicomachus Flavianus, Theodosius showed himself lenient and strove to achieve the settlement between opposing forces that was necessary to strengthen imperial unity.

Probably as a result of the exertion of the campaign, Theodosius fell ill. He went to Milan, where he summoned Honorius in order to present him formally as Augustus of the West. Because Theodosius had appeared to recover, his death in January 395 was generally unexpected. On his deathbed he had entrusted Stilicho, promoted to generalissimo after the victory at the Frigidus, with the care of his two sons. From Ambrose’s funeral oration, filled with praise for the Christian ruler, it is evident that contemporaries had no doubt as to the continuing unity of the empire, for the question of succession seemed to have been settled in the best possible way. Yet, all too soon it was to become apparent that Theodosius had not chosen his advisers with sufficient care and that the men who were guiding the sickly Arcadius were unwilling to cooperate with Stilicho, who remained loyal to the dynasty. After his death, Theodosius’s body was borne in state to Constantinople and interred in the mausoleum erected by Constantius II.