Synopsis: Theodosius responds to Licinia Eudoxia’s Letter LVII to express his customary delight in her letters and his readiness to grant all her petitions, while indicating that the most reverend archbishop Leo has been fully and perfectly informed of what followed in the Flavian case, all contention having been examined by sacred judgment and Flavian, found guilty of harmful novelty, having received his due — so that with this removed all peace and concord reign in the churches and nothing other than truth flourishes.
To my lady Eudoxia, venerable Augusta — Theodosius.
Theodosius Affirms Leo Has Been Fully Informed; Flavian Received His Due; All Peace Now Reigns in the Churches
We are always delighted by the letters of your desire and embrace them with all the sweetness of our soul, and we are accustomed to grant all your petitions gladly, my lady, most sacred daughter and venerable Augusta. But regarding the present cause — that is, concerning Flavian who was bishop — what followed in this case has been communicated fully and perfectly to the most reverend archbishop Leo.
All contention has therefore been examined by sacred judgment. Flavian, who was found guilty of harmful novelty, received his due. With this removed, all peace and all concord reign in the churches, and nothing other than truth flourishes.
Letter LXIV is the briefest of Theodosius’s three counter-letters — a polite but firm closure addressed to his own daughter-in-law. Compared with the response to Valentinian (Letter LXII), it is noticeably more compressed: Theodosius does not repeat his defense of Ephesus II’s proceedings in detail, does not invoke the Nicaean precedent, and dispenses with the extended claim of canonical soundness. He simply reports that Leo has been informed and that the matter is settled. The tone is warmer in address — “most sacred daughter” — but briefer in substance. The implied message is that Licinia Eudoxia’s petition, however affectionately received, does not carry the same diplomatic weight as her husband Valentinian’s.
The phrase “Flavian received his due” — debitum recepit — is deliberately ambiguous. By the time this letter was written, Flavian had died, apparently from injuries sustained during the violence at Ephesus II. Theodosius’s phrasing can be read as referring either to his deposition or to his death — and the ambiguity is unlikely to be accidental. The same Chrysaphius-dominated court environment that shaped Theodosius’s handling of the entire Latrocinium affair was not inclined to treat Flavian’s fate as anything other than justice served. Within months, Theodosius himself was dead, Chrysaphius disgraced and executed, and the court that had sustained this verdict dissolved.
Theodosius responds to Licinia Eudoxia's Letter LVII to express his customary delight in her letters and his readiness to grant all her petitions, while indicating that the most reverend archbishop Leo has been fully and perfectly informed of what followed in the Flavian case, all contention having been examined by sacred judgment and Flavian, found guilty of harmful novelty, having received his due — so that with this removed all peace and concord reign in the churches and nothing other than truth flourishes.
Letter LXIV is the briefest of Theodosius's three counter-letters — a polite but firm closure addressed to his own daughter-in-law. Compared with the response to Valentinian (Letter LXII), it is noticeably more compressed: Theodosius does not repeat his defense of Ephesus II's proceedings in detail, does not invoke the Nicaean precedent, and dispenses with the extended claim of canonical soundness. He simply reports that Leo has been informed and that the matter is settled. The tone is warmer in address — "most sacred daughter" — but briefer in substance. The implied message is that Licinia Eudoxia's petition, however affectionately received, does not carry the same diplomatic weight as her husband Valentinian's.
The phrase "Flavian received his due" — debitum recepit — is deliberately ambiguous. By the time this letter was written, Flavian had died, apparently from injuries sustained during the violence at Ephesus II. Theodosius's phrasing can be read as referring either to his deposition or to his death — and the ambiguity is unlikely to be accidental. The same Chrysaphius-dominated court environment that shaped Theodosius's handling of the entire Latrocinium affair was not inclined to treat Flavian's fate as anything other than justice served. Within months, Theodosius himself was dead, Chrysaphius disgraced and executed, and the court that had sustained this verdict dissolved.
Letter LXIV, from Emperor Theodosius to Empress Licinia Eudoxia
Theodosius responds to Licinia Eudoxia's Letter LVII to express his customary delight in her letters and his readiness to grant all her petitions, while indicating that the most reverend archbishop Leo has been fully and perfectly informed of what followed in the Flavian case, all contention having been examined by sacred judgment and Flavian, found guilty of harmful novelty, having received his due — so that with this removed all peace and concord reign in the churches and nothing other than truth flourishes.
Letter LXIV is the briefest of Theodosius's three counter-letters — a polite but firm closure addressed to his own daughter-in-law. Compared with the response to Valentinian (Letter LXII), it is noticeably more compressed: Theodosius does not repeat his defense of Ephesus II's proceedings in detail, does not invoke the Nicaean precedent, and dispenses with the extended claim of canonical soundness. He simply reports that Leo has been informed and that the matter is settled. The tone is warmer in address — "most sacred daughter" — but briefer in substance. The implied message is that Licinia Eudoxia's petition, however affectionately received, does not carry the same diplomatic weight as her husband Valentinian's.
The phrase "Flavian received his due" — debitum recepit — is deliberately ambiguous. By the time this letter was written, Flavian had died, apparently from injuries sustained during the violence at Ephesus II. Theodosius's phrasing can be read as referring either to his deposition or to his death — and the ambiguity is unlikely to be accidental. The same Chrysaphius-dominated court environment that shaped Theodosius's handling of the entire Latrocinium affair was not inclined to treat Flavian's fate as anything other than justice served. Within months, Theodosius himself was dead, Chrysaphius disgraced and executed, and the court that had sustained this verdict dissolved.
Letter LXIV, from Emperor Theodosius to Empress Licinia Eudoxia
Historical Commentary