Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
1980.
III. ABTEILUNG.
Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
Vol. 73,
Issue. 2,
Article contents
Conversion in Constantine the Great
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
The study of church history, in a degree perhaps unparalleled among the various branches of historical study, combines both the analysis of flux and change and also the continuities and constants that somehow remain through the vicissitudes and disasters of human history. Without needing to have any prefabricated pattern imposed upon it, in Marxist or other style, church history discloses startling continuities, so that to talk about Constantine or Origen or Augustine is somehow not to indulge in antiquarianism but to be talking about issues which (despite vast changes in the intellectual framework within which the debate proceeds) remain alive for the living community of the church now. The sweat drips from our brows as we make die effort to preserve impartiality and detachment. My subject is Constantine’s conversion and the shift that this brought to the intellectual and religious history of Europe. If we put the story back into its historical context and try to look at it with the eyes of a contemporary, the shift may not seem exactly the kind of shift that at first the modern historian thinks he sees.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1978
References
1 On the crisis of the third century see Alföldy, Geza, ‘Die heilige Cyprian und die Krisedes römischen Reiches’, Historia 22 (Wiesbaden 1973) pp 479–501 Google Scholar; ‘The Crisis of the third century as seen by contemporaries’, Greek Roman and Byzantine Studies 15 (London 1974) pp 89–111 Google Scholar. Some interesting reflections on the identification of’Late Antiquity’ as a period are offered now by Martin, René, ‘Qu’est-ce que l’antiquitétardive?’ in Aion: le temps chez les Romains, ed Chevallier, R. (Paris 1976) pp 261–304 Google Scholar.
2 On Constantino’s legislation, Ehrhardt, A., ‘Constantin d. Gr. Religionspolitik und Gesetzgebung’, ZRG, RAbt 72 (1955) pp 127–289 Google Scholar, argues that the Constantinian laws preserved in the Theodosian Code are mere summaries made by chancery lawyers not’ all of whom were sympathetic to his beliefs. Ullmann, Walter, ‘The Constitutional. Significance of Constantine the Great’s settlement’, JEH 27 (1976) pp 1–16 Google Scholar, interprets Constantine’s adhesion to Christianity in terms of a bid to harness Christian virtues to the rebirth of the empire, with a consequent incorporation of the church within Roman public law (that is, religion and the civil service). This paper has rich bibliographical notes. See also his book, Medieval Foundations of Renaissance Humanism (London 1977) pp 42-3Google Scholar.
3 Ammianus xxx, 4, 11.
4 On Gregorius and Hermogenianus see Schutz, F., History of Roman Legal Science (Oxford 1946) p 287 Google Scholar where his date, 291, for the publication of the codex Gregorianus should, I think, be amended to 297.
5 Paneg Lat 10(2), 2; compare 11(3), 3.
6 Ambrose, , de fide ii, 139-42Google Scholar. Compare the letter of the usurper Maximus to Valentinian II, Avellana 39 (CSEL 35, p 88), written about easter 386, observing that the barbarian invasion of Illyricum and the obliteration of the city of Mursa (the great stronghold of western Arianism) are a divine vengeance which should warn Valentinian from encouraging Arianism at Milan. Compare my remarks in Priscillian of Avila (Oxford 1976) pp 117-18.
7 Lactantius MP 7, 10 ‘Ita semper dementabat Nicomediam studens urbi Romae coaequare’.
8 Chron Pasch pp 284-5 (PG 92 (1865) cols 708B-12A = Mommsen, Chronica Minora i, 233-4); Malałaś XIII, 321 (PG 97 (1865) col 480). Lydus, de Mensibus 4, 2 (pp 65 seq Wünsch) says Praetextatus the hierophant and Sopater also took part in the dedication of the Tyche of Constantinople. Compare Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed Preger, T. (1901) p 56 Google Scholar. According to Socrates, HE i, 17, 8, followed by the tenth century Patria of Constantinople (ed Preger, p 174), the radiate crown on the statue was formed by the nails of Calvary (similarly Zonaras 13, 3; iii p 183 Dindorf; the story is known to Gregory of Tours, Gloria Martyrum 6, PL 71 (1879) col 711).
9 Philostorgius, HE 2, 17; compare Theodoret, HE 1, 34. Compare Dölger, F. J., Sol Salutis (Münster 1925) p 67 Google Scholar; Ebersolt, Jean, Sanctuaires de Byzance (Paris 1921) pp 72-3Google Scholar; Janin, R., Constantinople Byzantine’ (Paris 1964) p 79 Google Scholar. Preger, T., ‘Konstantin-Helios,’ Hermes 36 (Berlin 1901) pp 457-69Google Scholar, argued that Constantine intended the statue to be interpreted syncretistically. This opinion is opposed by Karyannopulos, I., ‘Konstantin der Grosse und der Kaiserkult,’ Historia 5 (1956) pp 341-57Google Scholar. The texts of Philostorgius and Theodoret demonstrate that, whether or not it was Constantine’s intention, the statue was soon venerated with lights and incense in the manner of pagan emperor-cult.
10 Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio vi, 4. I discuss this document in a paper on ‘The Relativity of Moral Codes’ in the volume of essays in honour of Robert M. Grant (1978).
11 For example, his letter to Aelafius, perhaps vicarias Africae (313), in Optatus, App III (ed Ziwsa), expressing fear lest contentions in the church may move the highest God ‘not only against the human race but against me personally to whose care he has committed by his celestial assent the rule of all earthly affairs.’
12 Lactantius MP 10-11. On the role played by the oracle at Didyma near Miletus at this period see Robert, L. in Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (Paris 1968)Google Scholar.
13 Augustine, , ad Donatistas post gesta 31, 54 Google Scholar; 33, 56 (CSEL 53 PP 156, 158).
14 Aurelius Victor 39, 18; Lactantius MP 52, 3; Paneg Lat 8(5), 4, 1; 10(2), 11, 6. The titles also appear in inscriptions: Dessau ILS 621-3, 634.
15 Ammianus xv, 5, 18.
16 Paneg Lat 11(3), 11, 1-3.
17 See W. Ensslin in PW 7A, sv Valerius (142), col 2436.
18 Paneg Lat 8(5), 4, 2.
19 Adv Haereses III, 11, 8.
20 Macrobius, Sat i, 18,18 seq; 19, 15. Compare Dio Chrysostom 36, 39 seq on the Iranian myth of the four horse chariot of the god of time. Nigidius Figulus’ fourth book ‘On the Gods’ (cited by Servius, ad Eel iv, 10) attributed to Orpheus the association of Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto with the four seasons ( Swoboda, A., P. Nigidii Figuli Reliquiae 1889, reprinted Amsterdam 1964, p 83 Google Scholar). These texts are brilliantly discussed by Peterson, E., ΕΙΣ ΘΕΟΣ (Göttingen 1926) pp 241-53Google Scholar.
21 Dio Chrys 1, 42 seq.
22 Seneca, , de dementia 1, 19, 2–4 Google Scholar. For me bees as a model for human society see Celsus in Origen, c. Cels iv, 81. It lies in the background of Vergil’s fourth Georgic.
23 There are excellent remarks on these themes by Dihle, A., ‘Antikes und Unantikes in der frühchristlichen Staatstheorie’, in the transactions of the sixth international congress of classical studies at Madrid 1974: Assimilation et Résistance à la Culture gréco-romaine dans de monde ancien (Bucharest/Paris 1976) pp 323-32Google Scholar. Much material is collected in Dvornik, F., Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy (Washington, D.C., 1966)Google Scholar.
24 E. Peterson has argued to this conclusion.
25 de Unitate 4-5; Ep. 43, 5.
26 Chadwick, H., ‘The Silence of Bishops in Ignatius’, HTR 43 (1950) pp 169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar seq. Iranian cult of the god Silence is mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus xxi, 13, 4.
27 Compare Lactantius MP 8, 4 (Maximian’s purge of senate); 17, 2 (Diocletian’s unpopularity on his brief stay in Rome). Detailed examples are given by Arnheim, M. T. W., The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford 1972) pp 39 Google Scholar seq. Mr O. P. Nicholson points out to me how both Maxentius and, at least in his early days, Constantine bid for the support of the Roman senate by emphasising the status of old Rome.
28 Athanasius, Historia Arianorum 33, proves his thesis that the Arians have no king but Caesar by quoting Constantius II’s claim that the emperor is also the source of authority for canon law, an opinion for which Constantius could appeal to ‘the Syrian bishops’. Compare Ammianus xv, 1, 3; 6, 37; he has a notable comment at xvii, 12, 17 on some who believed that Fate can be overcome by an emperor’s will.
29 I, 15B; V, 64B; XVI, 212D; XIX, 228A.
30 Tertullian, Apol 32, 1; 39, 2; ad Scapulam 2, 6.
31 Origen, , in Matt comm series 70, ed Klostermann-Benz, , 2 ed Treu, U., 1976, p 165 Google Scholar.
32 Eusebius HE iv, 26, 8.
33 Origen, c. Cels ii, 30 compare Selecta in Psalmos xii p 332 Lommatzsch.
34 Tertullian, Apol 21, 24 ‘Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent necessarii saeculo aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares’. Origen, c. Cels vii, 71.
35 c. Cels viii, 72. Lactantius (Div Inst 5, 8, 6-11) says that if polytheism were ended and God alone worshipped, the acknowledgement of universal brotherhood would end wars and dissensions; knowledge of divine law would end sedition, fraud, robbery, sexual immorality; indeed, laws themselves would become unnecessary.
36 See the Greek office in the Menaion for 21 May; or Severas of Antioch’s hynm, edited and translated by Brooks, E. W. in PO 7, 5 (1911) 663-4Google Scholar.
37 After Themistius’ oration for Jovian of I January 364 (or. V, 70 D) this became a ceremonial greeting for Byzantine emperors; compare the acclamations for Marcian at the council of Chalcedon (Act Chalc vi, 5, ACO 2, i, p 336) or at the accession of Justin I in 519 (Constant Porphyrog de Caerim I 93, CSHB p 430). At the eighth session of the second council of Nicaea (787), Constantine and his mother Irene are acclaimed as New Constantine and New Helena: Labbe-Coleti, Concilia 8, cols 1243-4. In the West Gregory of Tours hails Clovis as a New Constantine (HF ii, 31); Pope Adrian I similarly greets Charlemagne (ep 60, PL 98 (1862) col 306B). The Genoese annals say that after the recovery of Constantinople in 1261 Michael Palaeologus was styled New Constantine; see D. J. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West (1959) P 121. It would be surprising had it not been so.
38 Julian 336AB; Zosimus ii, 29; the refutation of this pagan thesis is in Sozomen, HE i, 5, and Evagrius, HE iii, 40 seq. Compare Paschoud, F., ‘Zosime, 2, 29 et la version païenne de la conversion de Constantin’, Historia 20 (1971) pp 334-53Google Scholar. The evidence for the poisoning of Crispus at Pola in 326 is examined by Guthrie, P. in Phoenix 20 (1966), 326-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; he thinks Constantine’s motive was to be rid of a bastard son (by the concubine Minervina) and so to preserve the legitimate dynastic succession on his death. It would then remain obscure why he needed to be rid of Fausta.
39 Libanais, or 30, 6. Julian (335B) also thinks Constantine wanted money to spend on the gratification of himself and his friends. Compare Ammianus xvi, 8, 12: Constantine first excited the avarice of his followers, but Constantius took their greed further.
40 See Straub, J., Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike (Stuttgart 1939)Google Scholar; and his paper ‘Konstantins christliches Sendungsbewusstsein,’ Regeneratie Imperil (Darmstadt 1972) pp 70–88 Google Scholar.
41 This suggestion was made by Kraft, H., Konstantins religiöse EntwicklungÇ(Tübingen 1955)Google Scholar. See also Drake, H. A., In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and new translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Orations, University of California Publications, Classical Studies 15 (1976) pp 46–79 Google Scholar.
42 See Constantine’s letter to Arius in Athanasius, , de Decretis 40, 19 (ed Opitz)Google Scholar and Oratio ad sanctos 18 and 21.
43 Chadwick, H., ‘Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea’, HTR 53 (1960) pp 171-95CrossRefGoogle Scholar. To the evidence there adduced on the Alexandrian struggle to control Libya I should have added Basil, ep 61, on Athanasius’ excommunication of a civil governor of Libya; and on the final victory there is explicit seventh-century evidence in Sophronius, PG 87 (1865) col 3548.
44 Eusebius HE x, 5, 4; Lactantius, MP 48, 2.
45 Eusebius HE viii, 17.
46 Minucius Felix 6; Augustine de Comensu Evang 1, 12, 18–19.
47 Eusebius VC ii, 48-60.
48 Eunapius, VS 5, 1, 5, p 458; 6, 2, 1 p 462; compare pseudo-Julian, epp 184-5 Bidez; Zosimus ii, 40, 3.
49 This is implied by Alföldi, A. in JRS 37 (1947) p 14 Google Scholar. When Eusebius (VC iv, 62) reports Constantino as saying in his last sickness that his deferment of baptism has been motivated by a desire to be baptised in Jordan but there is now to be no ‘hesitation’ (amphibolia), I take the hesitation to be exclusively his fear of post-baptismal sin, not a hesitation about the faith. Compare Greg Naz or 40, 26 on the desire to be baptised in Jerusalem as an excuse for postponement of baptism. On liberty of conscience in the fourth century compare my article ‘Gewissen’ in RAC (1978).
- 1
- Cited by