Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_cbcc_7_fly_beacon Sixx AM Tile Wearable Technology Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Mother's Day Gifts Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Gift Card Offer starwars starwars starwars  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now SnS

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

AD 381 refers to the year in which Emperor Theodosius I announced a new law requiring his subjects in the Roman world to believe in the Trinity. In promulgating this law, the Emperor hoped to settle a vexatious issue and restore law and order in his realms. Law and order was restored, after a fashion, but at the cost of massive persecutions not just of non-believers but also of Christians who held different views on the nature of Christ and his relationship to God and the Holy Spirit than those codified at the Council of Nicaea. This more hostile religious climate, very different from the tolerance which prevailed before Christianity became the dominant Roman religion, prevailed through the next millenium and beyond and still has an impact on us today.

Charles Freeman has done an excellent job of describing the confusing theological climate which prevailed in the centuries after Jesus' death and the beginning of Christianity. Christians agreed on little or nothing, it seemed, until their religion gained legal acceptance and then official status. Then political leaders, aided and abetted by sometimes unscrupulous bishops and priests, sought to make sense out of the confusion and come up with a single theology which all Christians were bound to accept. Freeman recreates the personalities of politicians like Constantine, Theodosius, and the many other Emperors, as well as those of Church leaders like Ambrose and Augustine, and helps us understand how they contributed to what became established Christian dogma on the Trinity. I found particularly interesting his final chapters, in which he traces the official Christian teachings through the European Middle Ages. I was intrigued, as well, by his chapters in which he traced connections between Christianity and Plato and Aristotle.

This is a scholarly work which is accessible to non-specialist readers. It helped me better understand some of the underpinnings and rationales behind Chrstianity as we know it today, and the "other" Christianities which were pushed to the sidelines.
11 comment|85 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon July 13, 2010
_A.D. 381_ takes its name from the Second Ecumenical Council (the Council of Constantinople) which confirmed the Nicene Creed. It was also a major step in the consolidation of relations between the Christian church and the Roman state. Freeman convincingly argues that this council (and the Roman Emperor, Theodosius who convened it) conscienciously began to narrow not only Church dogma, but the intellectucal life of Europe as well, with profound and long-lasting consequences.

That there were wildly differing interpretations of Christianity in the late Roman Empire is hardly news to any historian worth their salt. What Freeman does is explain cogently what many of these interpretations (and their related sects) were, why they were considered "heretical" ("heresis" in Greek was not a pejorative, but rather simply meant "choice" - as in choice of philosophical school to which one subscribed), and how they were evenually snuffed out. At the root of the challenge presented to those who wished to impose orthodoxy was a legacy of 1500 years of independent, critical thought in the Mediterranean world, and a culture of lively theological discussion on matters relating to Christianity as a result. Central to these debates was the question of the trinity and, by extension, the nature of Jesus and the relationship among the trinty relative to the Godhead. (The Nicene Creed, for example, holds that God the Father and Jesus are of the same substance, yet there is no scriptural support for this. Matters are complicated further when one tries to consdier that "substance" raises the question of how can God the Father be material, and whether or not Jesus had always existed alongside God, or whether Jesus was a separate creation - and therefore a later and lesser incarnation.)

Freeman shows how the independent thought of the Classical world was gradually replaced with a more authoritarian attitude towards learning. This, of course, was concurrent with the gradual econcomic decay of Rome (in the West especially) and the accompanying political implosion as Roman adminsitration slowly gave way to "barbarian" control and ecumenical administration. In fact, Emperors saw the Church increasingly as a basis of support in an increasingly chaotic world just as early Church fathers saw Rome as the force of law to impose thier version of Christianity. An example of this (and an irony) is how "Jesus the executed outlaw" became "Jesus leader of legions" - evidence of the growing integration of Church into imperial politics.

In spite of a flurry of edicts by Roman emperors to eliminate paganism and destroy "heretical" interpretations of Christian dogma, it proved a slow and difficult task, particularly so in the more literate East. Nonetheless, by 535 all vestiges of paganism had been destroyed (the last Egyptian temple closed in 526, Plato's Academy shut down in 529) and most of the competing versions of Christianity were done away with. It wouldn't be until the 16th century that a rebirth of and interest in Christian dogma would be so ardently and passionately discussed, with profound consequences for Europe.

For such an abtruse subject that addresses deep philosophical questions, this is a remarkably accessble work. Freeman is clear and easy to understand, providing a wealth of additional information (about, for example, imperial Roman provincial adminstration) that helps clarify the evidence he is presenting. Of additional benefit is the bibliography, which is both current and (via his end notes) annotated. Highly recommended for those interested in Christian theology, late Classical history, or the early Middle Ages.
77 comments|35 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 22, 2010
Charles Freeman's "A.D.381" is an interesting and engaging historical examination of the relatively over-looked period during which Christianity consolidated its hold over the Roman Empire. It is unfortunately marked by an ideological debt to Edward Gibbons' thesis that the Fall of Rome was the triumph of barbarism and Christianity.

"A.D. 381" is quite excellent in looking at the players and events that often remain obscure in most histories of the late Roman Empire, namely, how Christianity went from a tolerated religion under Constantine to the only lawful religion within a century. Most people with a basic familiarity of the subject can identify Constantine, the Council of Nicea and 325, but probably don't know that Council of Nicea under Constantine was only the beginning of Christian influence over the Roman Empire. But it was not until the last decades of the Fourth Century that both paganism and heretical - i.e., non-Nicene Christianity - were outlawed and one form of Christianity, which defined the persons of the Trinity as being "consubstantial," emerged as the only legal religion in the Empire. Hence, the date 381 marks the date of the Council of Constantinople which was called by the Emperor Theodosius to confirm the Nicene Creed and put an end to the dispute between followers of the Nicene Creed and those Christians who viewed Jesus Christ as a lesser, created, divinity, including the Arians and other "subordinationists."

Freeman's valid thesis - which he establishes in detail - is that theological developments can not be removed from the brute social facts in which the theology developed. So, as he remarks in the close of "381," while some theologians want to treat the development of Christian doctrine as the bloodless, intellectual development of conclusions from core Christian premises, the historical fact is that the development of Christian doctrine involved politicking, trickery, bullying and just plain chance.

A key example of chance is found in the life of Theodosius himself. Prior to Theodosius, Roman Emperors had been generally content not to take a too pious view of their jobs as Christian emperors and to hold off on baptism, which might require that they become pious carrying out their duties as Christian emperors, until they were facing death itself, the "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" clause being the ultimate "get out of jail" card. Theodosius seemed to be following this script until 38 AD, when after being baptized in the face of a life-threatening illness, something messed up the script - he lived. At that point, he had a problem; he was a baptized Roman emperor who could not turn a pragmatically blind eye to the problem of heresy.

Because of this historical accident, Nicene Christianity became hegemonic as Theodosius outlawed paganism and called the Council of Constantinople in 381 to ratify the Nicene Creed. Once the Nicene Creed was ratified by the Council, Theodosius then put an end to the long Nicene-Arian controversy that had divided Christianity in the Roman Empire by removing Arian bishops from the seats of power.

What followed, according to Freeman, was the "closing of the Western Mind," which is the title of Freeman's better-known, earlier book. This was the result, according to Freeman, of the repudiation of the ancient Greek ideal of free speech, something which Freeman drops in periodically as a chorale note throughout the book, at which point, presumably, the reader is supposed to nod his head in agreement, knowing that Christianity was a victory for the forces of "faith" against that of "reason."

Unfortunately, those Gibbons-like notes are where Freeman's book went off track for me. I had to wonder where the discussion of the ascendancy of the Arian emperors during the period between 325 and 381 was to be found. I wondered what Freeman's explanation was for Theodosius' ability to so thoroughly win the day for the Nicene Creeds, when earlier emperors were not able to put their Arian Creed into a hegemonic position in Christianity. I also wondered what Freeman's explanation would be for the inability of Imperial power to deal with the Monophysite schism in the same way that it had dealt with the Arian schism.

In short, I formed the impression that Freeman was cherry-picking his facts and arguments to favor his thesis that Christian theology was dictated and enforced from the top down. It seems to me that this other perspective on history suggests that the "grass roots" did have a lot of influence over how history played out. For example, in his discussion of Augustine, Freeman reveals the thesis of his book as the proposition that the Nicene doctrine became orthodox only because it was enforced by the state. But in order to prove that thesis, then a discussion of why the Arian emperors were unable to impose Arianism, or the Chalcedonian emperors were unable to Chalcedonianism on the Monophysite areas of the Empire seems required. Freeman doesn't discuss these counter-examples, which seem to allow the conclusion that the Nicene doctrine may have been successfully enforced by the state because it was orthodox.

In short, it seemed that Freeman was adopting a strategy that unfortunately plays out in too many books where someone has an antipathy for history as it turned out, but they don't deal with inconvenient counter-facts. When an author fails to deal with such counter-examples, it leaves the impression that he is engaged in polemics and propaganda aimed at taking advantage of readers who don't already know all the facts. That conclusion is reinforced by some of the polemical reviews of this book that, for example, equate Athanasius with "Rush Limbaugh."

Likewise, although I'm sure that Freeman has developed the theme of how the "Western Mind" became "closed" in his prior book, I have to wonder what he meant by that term in the context of this book. He quotes pagan panegyrics to emperors which had spoken out in favor of free speech as an example of how there was a tradition of free speech and free debate in the ancient world. However, does he really expect us to believe that there were not some issues that were off limits in the ancient world, such as whether emperors were really divine, or whether emperors were really the font of all grace and wisdom? One rather doubts it.

Also, are we supposed to believe that free speech and debate came to a complete close after the Council of Constantinople decided in re-affirmed the Nicene position? If so, why were there all those controversies in the following centuries over Monophystism, Nestorianism, Monergism, etc., etc.? Did those controversies not involve a high order of logic and reason?

But Freeman doesn't discuss those issues, choosing instead to leave the reader to believe a caricature of the intellectual life of late antiquity that could have been picked out of any book on the fictional war of religion against science. Again, that approach does the reader a disservice.

My sense was that by emphasizing the facts of politics and personalities, Freeman was able to play up the discontinuity and contingency of history. However, while Freeman was very good with the details of the politics and personalities - albeit with a generally hostile interpretation of historical characters such as Ambrose and Augustine - he ignored his own prescription that the actual facts of history be examined in their historical context. Among those facts are certainly the principles and logic that the historical characters believed that they were applying to the theological disputes that they were involved with. Freeman rarely discussed why the historical figures that he analyzed believed what they believed. By ignoring the elements of the theological principles and logic, Freeman seems to have inappropriately underemphasized the element of theological continuity and the deep roots of the theological doctrines at issue in the theological disputes of late antiquity.

I do recommend "381." It is an engaging read and does provide the reader with an excellent overview of, and insight into, a bit of history that we often overlook and may not understand as well as we should. For example, I knew about the story of Ambrose's confrontation with Theodosius over the slaughter of citizens of Thessalonica, but Freeman's book is the first time I ever learned about the details surrounding that historical event, even if Freeman manages to "tee up" this historic moment when a Roman Emperor was forced to acknowledge a power greater than himself as an example of Ambrose's megalomania.

I would, however, recommend The Spirit of Early Christian Thought: Seeking the Face of Godby Robert Louis Wilkens to see the elements of continuity and reason that informed early Christian theology.
1010 comments|85 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 1, 2012
This is an interesting and well written book about Christianity in its early years as a dominant religion. I learned a lot from it, and found many of its arguments convincing, though there are some points on which the author may overstate his case. All in all, well worth reading.

The book argues a) that the Emperor Theodosius imposed a single version of Christianity at the Council of Constantinople in 381, and that b) this imposition was a critical turning away from freedom of thought, and from a reliance on reasoned argument.

The author's argument about Theodosius' key role make sense: Christianity had vaulted very suddenly to its place as Rome's dominant religion, and it is not surprising that the emperor tried to shape its direction. It was just 68 years earlier, in 313, that Constantine issued an edict of toleration for the faith: before then Christianity was a persecuted religion, existing in many separate congregations, and developing many different approaches to key problems of the faith. Once the faith came out into the open -- and, indeed, came to a central role -- fissures and divisions became vividly clear. These contributed to civil disorder, and Theodosius did not like disorder.

The argument that this specific decision shut down a free-wheeling culture of debate is perhaps too narrow. I haven't read the author's "Closing of the Western Mind", but I intend to. My impression from reviews is that "Closing" focusses on Constantine's support of the Church, which moved it from outsider status towards a role as state religion. This process was intensified under Thodosius, and the logic of an imperial autocracy pushed the Church towards a single, codified set of beliefs. It seems to me that the process, the politicization of the Church and the sacralization of politics, was well underway before Theodosius. I will be better able to comment after reading Freeman's earlier book.

Be that as it may, this is a very valuable book. First, it clarifies key issues in the development of Christianity. Secondly, it underlines the interaction between political forces and systems of faith -- something that not begin in 381, and hasn't ended today. Finally, it's a good read. I read it right after "Jesus Wars", which is a more nitty-gritty discussion of a slightly later phase in the intra-Christian conflicts that were addressed, but not resolved, in 381.
0Comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 2, 2013
Sometimes too detailed. Very important reading. It leads to no doubt that the monotheistic state was formed by man whether the dogma that came forth was truth or fiction. It didn't matter to the emperors because they wanted peace and would agree to anything or the fighting bishops as long as their ideas won out. It laid the seeds for the divine right of kings and the inquisitions. It stopped rational thinking and discussion for centuries to come. And still prevails in many religious sects leading to wars over the millennium.
0Comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 18, 2015
Historian Charles Freeman here details the story behind the players of credal Christianity and how it evolved. This book is a great work that exemplifies how unfounded a "trinitarian primacy" view is in light of proper historical analysis.
Here a a few brief examples that gives a flavor of Freeman's recounting of the early developing "orthodoxy."

In the years of developing dogma, a different (than that found in their scriptures), more metaphysical terminology was needed in order to clearly define the increasingly complex theological creations of numerous groups, imperial coercion and Greek philosophers turned “Christian” etc. Amidst the rhetoric, one such story involved a group called the Eunomians who in Freeman's words argued that “scripture should be interpreted in its plain sense, without the use of allegory. If the Old Testament talked of a piece of wood, that was what it meant, not necessarily a symbol prefiguring the cross. Similarly, one could not use the word ‘begotten’ and then expect it to be used in a completely different way when talking of God. The Nicenes, the Eunomians argued, were being disingenuous of, when presented with objections to their use of terminology, they avoided the issue by claiming that the words they used had a different meaning in a theological context. In other words, they could not use ‘begotten’ in a sense where it was clearly inappropriate and then claim a special meaning for it when challenged. If there was not a definable act of ‘begetting’ in the normal sense of the word, then surely the world should not be used at all.” pp. 84-85

This became a problem for some interpreters, as it had to be concluded that “one” did not mean one, “begotten” did not mean begotten in the natural sense, and firmly established rules of grammar and mathematics have no place, nor can they be trusted. If the plain and intelligible words in the Scripture are to be discarded (notwithstanding translation bias that exists) what is the point? Can it still be claimed that the “faith” is derived from Jesus and the Apostles who where Jews worshiping and obeying the God of the Hebrews in the way which he had commanded them? Such was the case with the Cappadocian Gregory of Nazianzus. During this period of theological unrest and downright violence and hostility, Christian intellectuals (according to Freeman) “had shown themselves to be well read and highly sophisticated and ingenious in argument. It is true that some participants, such as Athanasius, used invective rather than reason in their dealing with rivals, and both sides felt able to threaten their opponents with the certainty of hell fire. However, this was not the first, or certainly the last, academic debate in history where personal emotions have transcended reflective argument.” p. 74

Gregory fought against the subordinationalist views of his opponents in favor of the Nicene theology. They argued against him that the “act of begetting must have involved the will of the Father and the formulation of that will must have preceded the act itself…the pre-existence of the Father to the Son must be assumed.” p. 84

Gregory tried to combat it, but had to accept that it was a mystery, and thus questions were raised. During his final oration he tackled the nature and purpose of the Holy Spirit. There was opposition from ‘Macedonians’ who were in favor of keeping the original Nicene Creed of 325 where the Holy Spirit was given special status. However, Gregory had to accept that “among our own [Christian] experts, some took the Holy Spirit as an active process, some as a creature, some as God. Others were agnostic on this point.” Gregory accepted that the theologian Origen believed the Holy Spirit to be limited in power. This made his task of proving the Spirit to be not only fully divine but also consubstantial all the more difficult. “At this point a number of objections were raised…what is the biblical evidence for the divinity of the Spirit? Where is the evidence that it has been worshiped as divine in the past? Does divinity automatically imply consubstantiality? If God the Father is ‘unbegotten’ and Jesus is his ‘begotten’ Son, then how does the Holy Spirit relate to them both? In answer to the last question, Gregory introduces the idea of ‘procession’, as in John 15:26, ‘the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father’. Irritated by an interaction from the congregation enquiring how he can explain ‘procession’, he retorts: ‘You explain the unbegotten nature of the Father and I will give you a biological account of the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s proceeding – and let us go mad the pair of us for prying into God’s secrets.’ In effect, he was opting out of the argument. Dealing with another objection - that if one adds the Spirit to the Father and Son, then one risks having three gods – he became entangled in explaining why mathematics is not an appropriate way of dealing with the Trinity.” p. 87

Quite unnaturally then, in order to explain Jesus’ relationship to the Father, the word homoousios was suggested, which was not overly popular. “Homoousios was a term taken from Greek philosophy, not from scripture. It had been used by pagan writers such as Plotinus to describe the relationship between the soul and the divine. Even the most ingenious biblical scholars combing their way through the Old and New Testaments could find no Christian equivalent. Quite apart from this the word had actually been condemned by a council of bishops meeting in Antioch in 268 on the grounds that it failed to provide sufficient distinction between Father and Son, and users of the term risked being associated with a view that had already been condemned in the third century, Sabellianism...the word homoousios was a clear embarrassment and was to be condemned for years to come.” pp. 55-56

So then, the Eunomians (among others) rejected homoousios because “God the Father was ‘unbegotten’ – he had existed without cause from the beginning of time – while Jesus the Son was ‘begotten’…the distinction between an ‘unbegotten and a ‘begotten’ being is such that one cannot possibly argue that the two are of the same substance.” p. 64

Freeman made a comment that I thought to be particularly interesting, because it’s not unlike the attitude observed among some today: “Fundamental to Gregory’s preaching was the belief that only a few, very committed, thinkers were able to tackle theological issues, and that they alone could discern and preach what was the unassailable truth (which Gregory believed, of course, was the Nicene faith). Here were shades of his mentor Plato: the select few ascend to a deeper understanding of the immaterial world, whose ‘reality’ they alone have the right to interpret for others.” p. 80

When faced with the argumentation of his challengers, Gregory challenged the view that “through the application of rational thought to the scriptures it is possible to know God…by believing that they could understand God...his opponents would invariably get a false and limited perception of the Almighty, and it was not surprising, therefore, that they came up with false doctrines – such as that Jesus is not fully God but a later creation.” p. 83, 84

Again, this accusation is one that has found its place in the pages of history. What he espoused were ideas and rhetoric that would be repeated ad infinitum. Pertaining to the same difficulties, he addressed the question as to why the Spirit was not seen or recognized as God in the Gospels: “His answer was that the doctrine of the Trinity has been subject to progressive revelation. First, God the Father has to be revealed, in the Old Testament; then, through the gospels, Jesus the Son; and finally the Holy Spirit, who appears to enthuse the disciples after the Passion and though the fiery tongues at Pentecost. ‘God meant it to be by piecemeal additions…by progress and advance from glory to glory, that the light of the Trinity should shine upon more illustrious souls’. During Jesus’ time on earth there had simply been too much for the disciples to take in, and the Godhead of the Spirit was retained until they were able to absorb it.” p. 87

Whether or not theological views of trinitarianism, a high Christology or otherwise are maintained is not the point. What’s astounding is that some proponents of traditional orthodoxy are under the erroneous impression that it comes directly and explicitly from the Scripture. One only needs a small amount of ecclesiastical history to see the numerous factions and opinions at war, which over time developed into what is now accepted as “orthodox”. To claim there was always a clear distinction and progression of orthodox belief (derived solely from Scripture) against the nasty heretics (no matter who they were, Ebionites, Marcionites, Arians, Gnostics, Docetists, Eunomians etc.) is to misunderstand (or ignore) what actually happened.

Lastly, this is clearly seen in the work of Thomas Torrance, who on the sixteen hundredth anniversary of the council of Constantinople of 381 gave lectures at the Princeton Theological Seminary which were then written up and published in 1988 as The Trinitarian Faith. Freeman gives a good amount of detail regarding this: "“Torrance's thesis is that the relationship between Father and Son as expounded at Nicaea, 'is the supreme truth upon which everything else in the Gospel depends...It is on the ground of what God has actually revealed of his own nature in him [Jesus Christ] as his only begotten Son that everything else to be known of God and of his relation to the world and to human beings is to be understood.' The bishops meeting at Nicaea confirmed a doctrine that had always been inherent in the Church's teaching. Torrance is therefore one of those theologians who sees the Nicene Trinity not as a new concept hammered out in the specific context of the fourth century, but as an eternally living truth that needed defending from those who tried to subvert it...The case of Torrance highlights how an alternative theological tradition has come to supplant the historical reality...This approach is strengthened by the assertions that the bishops were in consensus and that there was no possible theological alternative to Nicaea as it was developed in 381. It is to be found in most standard introductions to theology and omits any reference to the role of Theodosius...Yet can one obliterate the historical factors that shaped the making of Christian doctrine, in favor of doctrine being 'revealed' by God? pp. 197-201

This book is well written and researched and is a must read for any who seek to understand the conflicts that gave rise to the dogma that the Church came to call Orthodoxy.
11 comment|3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 17, 2014
The first few chapters are an explanation and description of the issues of doctrine and orthodoxy for early Christian religion in the Roman Empire. For me, this was kind of slow going, but necessary for the rest of the book. Once the author begins to cover the history of Christianity as the recognized religion of the Roman Empire, and how the church then gained power and enforced orthodoxy across the empire, it becomes engrossing. The fall of the Roman Empire, the end of reasoned debate, and the descent of Europe into the Dark Ages is all right here.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 2, 2014
As a semi-practicing, baptized Lutheran I was shocked to learn how large a role politics and power-grabbing played in the design and adoption of the Nicene Creed, which we faithfully recite as if it were gospel. Particularly sad to learn how so many early Christians were edged out of the Roman and Byzantine church for specious reasons.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 12, 2016
I thoroughly enjoy reading the historic narrative and research by Charles Freeman, having read most of his outstanding works. I am rather perplexed as to why the author has a grievance with Richard Dawkins who is a world famous scientist as the author is a historian. Richard Dawkins has honestly attempted to reveal the factual reality of life and that religion is irrational, man-made beliefs based on faith, faith which is blind trust or belief without any evidence which has and is presently causing immeasurable human suffering and misery worldwide! As to “A.D. 381” it describes the historic development of the religious authoritarianism of the Christian church resulting in centuries of European theocracy reflecting the anti-humanistic teachings of Augustine that has so tortured the human psyche. Abrahamic religions as Roman Catholicism strike at the heart of human nature, repressing and distorting human sexuality in a manner that causes tremendous psychological and emotional harm. Roman Catholic Church has usually been on the wrong side of history for 2,000 years and complicit in supporting authoritarian oppression and worldwide and anti-democratic racist and anti-Semitic fascism in Europe, in the 20th Century, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler and Pavelic of Croatia, which I assume St. Augustine would approve! The convoluted evolution of Nicene Creed and nature of Christ while of historic importance is reminiscent of the ancient debate of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" All religions are based on myth, misogyny, fear, and guilt, they just have different holidays! Voltaire said “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities!”
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 19, 2015
Having recently written a novel about the 4th Century and Rome's marriage to the Christian Church, the subject matter was right up my alley. Professor Freeman has written a thoughtful analysis of how orthodoxy became Roman law and the effects that marriage had on the 900 year old tradition of Greco-Roman philosophy. Important knowledge for anyone who wants to know who we (Western Civilization) got to where we are.
0Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse