Talk:Eutharic

Whose bizarre reasoning is this?
"However there were also signs of increasing resentment from the Arian Goths towards Catholics in Italy. For instance, following disturbances in Ravenna, Catholics burnt down a number of synagogues in the city, citing Eutharic's siding with the Jewish people of Ravenna as the reason." Catholic logic. Why is this laid to Arian resentment of Catholics rather than to Catholic resentment of Arian tolerance? Citing a source (Jordanes?) would make this a report, rather than appearing to be Wikipedia's observation. --Wetman (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wetman, thank you for taking a look over the article. The source for the Catholic/Jewish/Arian relations is the book by Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy. See pages 215-216 for the most pertinent section. I originally had that there was general resentment towards Catholics, whereas another editor changed it to specifically Arian resentment. I suppose it would be prudent to discuss intolerance from both sides (which led to flare ups such as the one in Ravenna in 519) rather than attributing any specific feelings? Nick Ottery (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I changed "Goths" to "Arian Goths" because that was simply the case: the native Roman Italians were Chalcedonian Catholics, the Goths were Arians. The antagonism that existed between the two is attested. However I have to agree with Wetman, if the Catholics burned down synagogues, why is this somehow made to be the Goths' fault? This incident ought to be better explained, as well as the claims of Eutharic's chauvinism and bigotry, which seem to be more the result of (later?) Catholic polemics... Constantine  ✍  09:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It did not specify Goths at all to begin with, but simply said that there were "signs of increasing resentment towards Catholics". Being more specific is what we should be striving for, but any specifics do need to be sourced. Was it Gothic Arian resentment or Jewish resentment to pick just two possible candidates?
 * The article lead summarises the main sections of the article. Later in the article we have "A disagreement concerning a Jewish synagogue in Ravenna prompted a conflict between the Arians and Catholics as the Arian Eutharic chose to side with the Jewish people. It is thought that the outrage expressed by the Catholics at this action was in reference to Eutharic being a symbol of the earlier reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Churches brought about under the direction of Theodoric." both of which are sourced to Amory, p. 215. This section should be worked on first if further explanation is needed and then the lead changed to suit. Your input on developing this section would be most welcome. Nick Ottery (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the summary that's at fault. Is the historical nugget of fact that a synagogue was burnt by Catholics in 519 and the congregation's rights to the site contested? Rather than interpreting the Catholic violence as an instance of "increasing resentment from the Arian Goths towards Catholics", permit me to reedit in light of Patrick Amory's context, which reads, "The Italian Catholic clergy had a tradition of intolerance towards the Jews that stretched back to Ambrose; the Arians, as represented by the king, probably supported general tolerance because it was in their own interests as a minority religion." (Tolerance is an aberration among pre-modern Christians of any stripe, and does need a motivation, even a belittling one; Amory's better point is that Eutharic was the local consul of the tolerant Theoderic, as a result of the "union" of churches after the schism, and that toleration was not in the Ambrosian tradition. Amory's sole source, he avers, is the Anonymous Valesianus (not "Valesii"). Am I right to remove the assertion, cited to Amory, of "pro-Arian reprisals against the Catholics"? Please vet my edits. --Wetman (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "There has been much discussion", according to Bernard S. Bachrach, Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe (University of Minnesota, 1977), 31 and nn., citing Anon. Vales., II, xiv, ll. 80ff., over the line that reads Quare Judaei baptizatos nolentes, dum ludent frequenter oblatam aquam in aquam fluminis iactaverunt. So the Christians, according to the source, burned the synagogues in retaliation for Jewish mockery (they threw either the baptismal water of the baptised into the river). Theodoric came down hard on them, but the same source shows the Catholic Archbishop of Ravenna, then Peter II, supporting Theodoric's punishments. This happened in 525, according to Bachrach, but a similar incident took place at Rome in 519. The whole thing appears to have nothing to do with Arian–Catholic relations. It just happens that the king and his agents were Goths and thus Arians, while the Christian inhabitants of Ravenna were Romans and thus Catholics, but even the local Catholic hierarchy sided with Theodoric. Clearly there was bad blood between the Jews and Christians in Gothic Italy generally. In contrast to Amory, Bachrach would chock the Goths' pro-Jewish policy up to the support the Jews could lend them directly: they were wealthy, and thus armed, educated, and tended to live in the cities (p. 32). —Srnec (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Key facts missing refs
lack references. Is this information sourced to any of the books cited? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "...Theodoric's patronage that led to Eutharic's rise to prominence in the early 6th century and his move to the Ostrogoth court in Italy."
 * Everything after "Theodoric outlived Eutharic, and Eutharic's son Athalaric,..."
 * Hello hamiltonstone. Thank you for taking a look at the article. Hopefully I've addressed the issues you highlight above. I've completely removed the first sentence as I cannot find a source(s) that directly supports it. In the second case I have removed the section you describe and replaced it with text cited to Heather's book on The Goths. Any comments on the changes would be appreciated. Thanks again for your input. Nick Ottery (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)