Abstract

Contrary to the position sustained in recent German- and English-language studies, the Author of this note rejects the suitability of using the modern and generic term “Homoianism” to describe the different subordinationist doctrinal positions circulating during the second half of the fourth century. In the case of Eudoxius, Valens, Urascius and Ulfila, among others, it is more appropriate to continue to speak in terms of “Arianism”, as their Nicene opponents had already realized, not without reason.