Jump to content

Talk:Ambrose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments on recent expansion

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Avilich I shortened it, is that better? Fixed the ref. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Just checked. I think the current version it's very good, you did great work here. Avilich (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit war 24.154.55.106 recent edits; please respond

[edit]
  • 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.[1] 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.[2][3][4] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jedin 1980, p. 87.
  2. ^ Herrin, pp. 63–4.
  3. ^ Brown 2003, p. 80.
  4. ^ Jedin, p. 88.

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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


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.[1]

References

  1. ^ Herrin 1987, p. 64.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LucasR52 I am out of town and away from my computer right now but I agree with your reasoning and this statement and support its insertion. I recommend adding an "Even so..." in front of it to connect it to the final paragraph. It was the "demands" part that made the previous version unacceptable, but this is accurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking your sentence and using the Herrin reference which supports it and inserting it in the Theodosius section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
LucasR52 Herrin's is interpretation that is not upheld by other scholars studying the same letter. Others evaluate Ambrose as "unusually tactful" and I would support including both points of view or just going with the 'behest' as you have above.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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).
LucasR52 This is in the character section now, but if you want to move it that's also okay with me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
LucasR52 All of this last section is excellent. It's alluded to in the character section, but I would support adding more on it if you think more is needed. He was a fighter and that does need to be conveyed. Thank you so much for these wonderful additions and the careful documentation. That is an aid and a blessing! Happy holidays! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777 Thanks for the affirmative response and the kind words. After the Holidays I'll craft the content you support. In the meantime, joys of the Season to you too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasR52 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I cannot access that particular Jedin.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I found the quote and it isn't in that book!! I am fixing it now! Jenhawk777 (talk)
Jedin is now Kempf. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
ActivelyDisinterested I have moved Herrin as her statement only covers Theodosius. Fixed the refs to Liebeschutz.  Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed YAY!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Referencing questions 17 Dec

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Checked that reference to be sure, but the volume # is actually there, it's just in Roman numerals: XIII, so it's volume 13. Checking the isbn indicates it's the 1970 version. I can't currently access it so I will have to go to resource exchange and come back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one is actually correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is not actually a citation to the book which I could not access. It is a citation to the web where a section is posted and there are no page numbers, but the reference is there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There were 4 other refs so I just took the lazy way out and removed him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Fixed ActivelyDisinterested I can't say thank you enough. Bless you my friend! Hope you had a great holiday season. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jenhawk777, I had a great time. Unfortunately January has been less kind. I'll be back to this isn the next week or so. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ActivelyDisinterested If anyone is being unkind to you, tell me, and I will go Hulk out (as per my user page). :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music, writings and Augustine

[edit]

Jenhawk777, glad to see you working on this again, and happy new year! As we talked about last year, I will plan to write a new music section for it. The more I'm reading about it, the more I'm realizing that this article is using some very old research and conclusions in that realm. Thankfully scholarship on Ambrose's hymns is vast, so it shouldn't be a huge deal to update.

As far as I can tell, the writings section is rather incomplete, so I'm considering making a full bibliography of his writings. I'm thinking the modern editions sections should be subsections of the writings section, thoughts? Also, the Augustine section seems weirdly placed in the article, and I suspect it can be integrated into his biography (or maybe the theology section) at some point. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aza24 and a belated Happy holidays to you and yours as well! I had a wonderful vacation, but I have to admit I am glad to be back at work here. I am especially glad to hear you have not changed your mind about writing a better music section. Please consider writing a detailed sister article that you can summarize here because it sounds to me like both the music and writing sections should be articles of their own.
I moved one paragraph from the section on Arianism that actually talked about Augustine. There is more to be said, but at least this is a beginning step toward organizing this a little better.
My thoughts? My thoughts are that all of this sounds exceptionally wonderful! Proceed anon! Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! So far I did some reorganizing, and added a full writings section. Though I am a bit concerned that it looks somewhat messy with all of the links to modern editions. Also, I am beginning to think the lead painting by Veneziano makes the infobox overly long, and might work better in the imperial relations section where there is much room for images. It could perhaps be replaced with this one by Claude Vignon? Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proceed with BOLDness Aza24! I like what you've done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 I love what you've done with the place!! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have quite a few other ideas... but need to get on that music section first! Aza24 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Church

[edit]

@Aza24, the cited source reads ...distinguished by a vigorous defense of the Church against both Arianism and the authority of the Empire. Are you referring to another source? The concept of the Latin Church was not developed in the 4th century and really not a thing until the East-West Schism took shape. Our own article does not mention any historical references to it, nor does the Catholic Encyclopedia mention any sort of early references, although scholars may retcon this, there was no distinction between "Latin Church" and the Eastern formulation of the faith that Ambrose would've been defending against Arianism and paganism. We certainly don't anachronize Popes in this way. Elizium23 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I see that you WP:OWN that passage as you wrote it and included the McKinnon source. It's also interesting to see the history of the Infobox where Latin Church crept in completely unsourced (It was previously "Latin-Rite Catholic" and "Ambrosian Rite" which are good and accurate.)

I don't know if you're reading a different edition of McKinnon other than what's on Google Books, but McKinnon didn't write "Latin Church" anywhere I can see. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you?—I already reverted myself so what point are you trying to prove now? Are you proud of pulling up the list of diffs—did it make you feel special? Go, report me to ANI (for whatever you think I did), or stop wasting my time. This talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM.
By the way, he does use the term, many times; my now deleted comment: "the sentence immediately before says "Together with Augustine and Jerome he is acknowledged as one of the three great Latin Church Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries", implying that the next mention of "Church" refers to the Latin Church. Further references "the introduction of antiphonal psalmody into the Latin Church" and "Ambrose may well have been an innovator as regards the psalmodic practices of the Latin Church", affirm this". So, not only are you pointlessly rude and accusatory, you're also just... wrong? Aza24 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely unable to find anything resembling those quotes in McKinnon 1999, so your edition must be greatly revised. The references also all make sense from a modern scholarship: the psalmody was practiced and retained exclusively in the Latin Church/Roman/Ambrosian Rites as they developed, so it is distinguishable in retrospect from the Eastern and Oriental liturgies. But Ambrose defending the Latin Church or an infobox describing him as a member, sets up anachronisms. The Latin Church had not developed as a separately identifiable entity by the time of Ambrose's death. I understand that your topical expertise is in music, so this is the trouble with using a modern scholarly reference on music for Ambrose's non-musical identity. Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try McKinnon 2001, i.e. the source that is actually cited? Log in to the Wikipedia library and go to Grove Music Online... Aza24 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ambrose&oldid=1216967074"