One of the earliest surviving verdicts on the emperor Theodosius was pronounced in (probably) 382, by the recent bishop of Constantinople, Gregory of Nazianzus, some two-thirds of the way through his vast poetic apologia, De vita sua. Emperors were never to be judged casually, least of all when they were potentially within earshot – as Theodosius must have been, of a poem intended for the Christian elite of Constantinople. Yet Gregory begins in a resoundingly minor key: Theodosius was “not a bad man, in respect of faith in God” (DVS 1282), at least “as far as the simpler sorts [can] grasp” this (1283); and he was “exceedingly overcome by the Trinity” (1284). Defeat is not usually expected of rulers, but Theodosius's submission was acceptable as “the principle for all hearts which operate on a solid basis” (1285–6). This modest praise is then opened to question, as Gregory begins to weigh the emperor on a balance that is calibrated with elaborate (and surely deliberate) obscurity. Theodosius was not so great in fervor of spirit as to equate the present to what was past by using the opportunity to heal completely the misfortunes inflicted by opportunists past (1287–9). Or rather (and only gradually do we realize that Gregory has here played his favorite trick of rehearsing conventional wisdom in order to pick it apart), Theodosius was equal to the task in fervor, but not in – and here Gregory pauses, wondering aloud whether what the emperor lacked was “bravery” or “brazenness” (1290–1).