Constantine the Great and Christianity: Three Phases: the Historical, the Legendary, and the Spurious 9780231880220

Citation preview

STUDIES IN HISTORY, ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC L A W E D I T E D BY T H E F A C U L T Y OF P O L I T I C A L COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Volume L X ]

SCIENCE

OF

[Number 1 Whole Number 146

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT AND CHRISTIANITY THREE PHASES : THE HISTORICAL, THE LEGENDARY. AND THE SPURIOUS

BY

CHRISTOPHER

BUSH

AMS PRESS NEW

YORK

COLEMAN

Originally Published : New York, 1914

Reprinted with permission of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

AMS PRESS, INC. 10003 First AMS Edition : 1968 NEW YORK, N.Y.

Printed in Great Britain

PREFACE IF any defense is necessary for discussing to-day not only the Constantine of history but also the historic g h o s t of Constantine; i. e., the legends and the f o r g e r y which later times produced in his name, it can be found in the fact that starting at one time with a s t u d y of the religious revolution which centered in Constantine, and at another with the " Donation of C o n s t a n t i n e , " f o r g e d in the eighth century, I found myself in both instances without any logical s t o p p i n g - p l a c e short of a consideration of the whole field. If in the present work parts of this field are somewhat imperfectly covered, it is my hope that these imperfections may not too seriously impeach the soundness of this procedure. E v e n the brief summary herein given of the modern critical study of Constantine and Constantinian legends furnishes, in contrast with the early medieval accounts of the e m p e r o r , an interesting illustration of the revolution w r o u g h t by the modern, scientific-historical spirit. It gains peculiar interest when one considers that Constantine was perhaps the greatest promoter of that other revolution, in which the Christian church gained the mastery of the R o m a n and Medieval mind, and that the Constantinian legends were a m o n g the notable p r o d u c t s of the type of piety l o n g p r o m o t e d by that church. T w o of the g r e a t e s t revolutions in E u r o p e a n history thus confront each other, as it were, upon common g r o u n d . I have tried to indicate in the following p a g e s the various items of my indebtedness in the preparation cf

ii

PREFACE

this work. In s o m e c a s e s , however, mere references a r e not e n o u g h . T h e w r i t i n g s of P r o f e s s o r O . S e e c k h a v e n o t only g i v e n m e m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n which I would o t h e r w i s e have m i s s e d , but have p r o v e d stimulating a n d fruitful in s u g g e s t i o n s . T h e " P r o l e g o m e n a " and n o t e s which P r o f e s s o r A . C . M c G i f f e r t and D r . E . C. R i c h a r d s o n c o n t r i b u t e d s o m e twenty-five y e a r s a g o t o the volin the Nicene and Post-Nicene u m e devoted to Eusebius Fathers were a m o n g the first g u i d e s t o introduce me to the field of w o r k in which I have since found m u c h rather u n e x p e c t e d i n t e r e s t . T o L o r e n z o Valla's Libellus de falso credita et emcntita Constantini donatione, with its keen wit and able, t h o u g h defective, historical criticism, I owe m y first interest in s u b j e c t s dealt with in the latter part of m y w o r k . I had originally intended t o add an E n g l i s h translation of Valla's T r e a t i s e a s an a p p e n d i x to this work. It has s e e m e d b e s t , however, t o p u b l i s h the translation, t o g e t h e r with a critical edition of the t e x t , in s e p a r a t e f o r m . T h i s , I hope, may a p p e a r within a s h o r t time. Among the g r e a t e s t o b l i g a t i o n s I o w e for help in the p r e s e n t publication is that t o P r o f e s s o r D e a n e P . L o c k w o o d , of C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , for his r e a d i n g and frequent revision of this t r a n s l a t i o n . T h o u g h the publication of this is deferred, m a n y of his s u g g e s t i o n s have been of value in o t h e r c o n n e c t i o n s . T o P r o f e s s o r J . T . S h o t w e l l , of Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , I am indebted for c o u n t l e s s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of efficient leadership in a field of s t u d y in which he is m a s t e r , for s u g g e s t i o n s b o t h as to the g e n e r a l plan and as to details, which have always been helpful. F o r the time and t r o u b l e which he has freely g i v e n no a c k n o w l e d g m e n t can be t o o g r e a t . I wish also t o e x p r e s s my sense of o b l i g a t i o n to P r o f e s s o r W . W . Rockwell, of U n i o n

PREFACE

111

T h e o l o g i c a l S e m i n a r y , for r e a d i n g my m a n u s c r i p t and s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n of a n u m b e r o f j points b y his c o m m e n t s . A m o n g o t h e r s w h o have c o n t r i b u t e d , either by direct s u g g e s t i o n s o r by m a k i n g it possible for me to o b t a i n b o o k s o t h e r w i s e inaccessible, a r e P r o f e s s o r s J . H . R o b i n s o n and M u n r o S m i t h , of C o l u m b i a U n i versity, P r o f e s s o r G e o r g e L . B u r r , of Cornell U n i v e r s i t y , and m y colleagues, H . M . G e l s t o n and E . H . H o l l a n d s , now of the U n i v e r s i t y of K a n s a s . T o the e d i t o r s of t h e S e r i e s in which this w o r k appears my t h a n k s are due f o r c o u r t e o u s and effective c o - o p e r a t i o n and for help which has made t h e burden of publication c o m p a r a t i v e l y easy. CHRISTOPHER B.

/iul/er College, Indianapolis, April, 1914.

COLEMAN.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TAGS

INTRODUCTION

9

PART C O N S T A N T I N E T H E

ONE

A N D

CHRISTIANITY

HISTORICAL

FACTS

CHAPTER I THE

PROBLEM

17

CHAPTER THE

IMPRINT

OF

CHRISTIANITY

UPON

INSCRIPTIONS A N D

1. 2. 3. 4.

II CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS,

WRITINGS

Laws Coinage Inscriptions Writings

25 45 47 S3 CHAPTER

III

I M P E R I A L P A T R O N A G E OF C H R I S T I A N I T Y ; A T T I T U D E T O W A R D P A G A N I S M

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Church building Constantine's actions at Rome Personal favor shown churchmen and the church Attitude toward paganism Constantine's activity in church af&irs, and his motives CHAPTER

56 61 62 63 67

IV

T H E " C O N V E R S I O N " OF C O N S T A N T I N E , A N D REVOLUTION OF H I S

THE

RELIGIOUS

TIME

1. Various early versions 2. Constantine's early paganism 3. Campaign against Maxentius, and adoption of the Christian labanun . . S]

5

ja 73 77

6

CONTENTS

[ 6 TAG»

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Constantine's Christianity Transition from paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire . . . . Constantine's baptism Ethical aspects of Constantine's life Summary

81 82 87 89 94

PART TWO THE LEGENDARY CONSTANTINE AND CHAPTER THE

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

LEGEND

CHRISTIANITY

I

MAKERS

Significance of legends about Constantine Lack of the historical spirit in Constantine's time . . Incentives to legend making Constantine's part in the process Eusebius of Caesarea CHAPTER

99 100 102 105 107

II

L E G E N D S OF C O N S T A N T I N E ' S O R I G I N A N D R I S E TO I M P E R I A L POSITION ; LEGENDS

ABOUT

HELENA

1. Legend of Claudian descent 2. Legends of Helena and the True Cross 3. Later legends of Constantine's birth and rise to imperial position. CHAPTER

. . .

112 116 120

III

T H E HOSTILE, P A G A N L E G E N D o r CONSTANTINE

1. Its meagerness 2. Emperor Julian's version of Constantine 3. Development of the pagan legend CHAPTER

123 124 128 IV

E A R L Y L E G E N D S OF D I V I N E A I D , C O N V E R S I O N , SAINTLINESS

1. 2. 3. 4. j.

Pagan and Christian legends of divine aid Early legends of miraculous conversion Legends of saintliness Legends of church building Legends of the founding of Constantinople

131 135 141 147 148

CONTENTS

7]

CHAPTER

7 V

LATER LEGENDS OF CONSTANTINE'S CONVERSION AND BAPTISM l . L e g e n d s of Constantine's

conversion by

Helena,

of

his

baptism by

Eusebius of R o m e

15a

2. Earliest version of Constantine's leprosy

153

3. Armenian version of this legend

155

4. Connection of the legend with R o m e and with Sylvester

158

5- T h e Vita Silvestri

161

6. Development of the Sylvester-Constantine legend

164

7. General acceptance of the legend

169

PART THE

SPURIOUS

THREE

CONSTANTINE:

CONSTITUTUM

THE

CONSTANTINI

CHAPTER

I

HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTUM CONSTANTINI 1. T h e Constitutum Constantini and the " Donation " it contains

175

2. Acceptance and use of the Constitutum Constantini and its " Donation "

178

CHAPTER

II

EXPOSURE OF THE FORGERY 1. Stcges of criticism

184

2. Criticism of the " Donation " previous to the fifteenth century

184

3. T h e contest against the papacy in the early fifteenth century, and Cusanus' criticism of the " Donation "

188

4. Valla's Treatise

• •

191

5. Other critics in the time of the Renaissance CHAPTER

199

III

THE " DONATION " IN THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.

MODERN

SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM OF THE " DONATION " 1. Hutten's publication of Valla's Treatise

. .

2. Luther's attitude, Protestant attack, Catholic defense

203 204

3. Baronius

206

4. Character of modem, scientific, criticism

208

5. Conclusions as to the origin of the " Donation "

209

8

CONTENTS

("8 P&GI

APPENDIX TO P A R T T K E E E DOCUMENTS CONNECTED WITH THE HISTORY o r THE CONSTITUTOM CONSTANTIN! AND THE " DONATION "

L Vita SilTestri (in part) II. Constitutom Constantini III. Casanas' criticism of the " Donation "

.

217 228 237

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

INDEX

255

INTRODUCTION FEW g e n e r a t i o n s have occupied a position of such decisive i m p o r t a n c e in E u r o p e a n history as did that of Constantine the G r e a t . I t was the crisis in the rise of Christianity t o dominance in E u r o p e a n civilization. The part which the E m p e r o r himself t o o k in this m o m e n t o u s revolution makes him one of the most c o m m a n d i n g figures of antiquity. I t is with this aspect alone of his reign that the following pages deal. T h o u g h his military, financial and political a r r a n g e m e n t s were of c o n siderable significance for subsequent times, I have referred to them only incidentally, and so far as is necessary for my specific purpose. I have, however, attempted to make a fairly full and critical study of Constantine in his relation to Christianity. T h i s study early divided itself into three sections. F i r s t , it was necessary to g e t at the historical facts, so far as ascertainable, of C o n s t a n t i n e ' s attitude toward Christianity and the C h u r c h . S e c o n d , the legendary process had to be taken into a c c o u n t by which Constantine's actual position in religious matters was distorted, and in this distorted form influenced subsequent generations. In the third place, consideration had t o be given to the e x t e n s i o n of this legendary process in a great forgery, the so-called D o n a t i o n of Constantine. T h e first Christian e m p e r o r may thus be said t o have had in European history t h r e e distinct spheres of influence, occupied respectively by the real, the legendary, and the spurious C o n s t a n t i n e . T h e latter t w o have their 9] 9

JO

CONSTANT1NE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[IO

o w n intrinsic i m p o r t a n c e as well as t h e first.' T h e y are of i n t e r e s t also as i l l u s t r a t i n g t h e h i s t o r y of t h e intellectual d e v e l o p m e n t of E u r o p e . N o t e s t s of this develo p m e n t are m o r e i l l u m i n a t i n g t h a n t h e f u n c t i o n played in various g e n e r a t i o n s by l e g e n d a r y p r o c e s s e s and t h e r e a c t i o n of d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s of m e n t o w a r d m i s t a k e n traditional conceptions. T h e " h i s t o r i c a l " rather than the " r e a l " Constantino, h o w e v e r , m u s t be o u r p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e . E v e n in fields w h e r e vast f u n d s of o r i g i n a l s o u r c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n are at h a n d and w h e r e an e n o r m o u s a m o u n t of critical w o r k has been d o n e , it is p r e s u m p t u o u s t o claim k n o w l e d g e of m e n and of facts as t h e y would a p p e a r t o t h e eyes of o m n i s c i e n c e . T h e best t h a t we can d o u n d e r t h e m o s t f a v o r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s is t o a p p r o x i m a t e t o w a r d t h e real m e n and t h e real facts ; b e t w e e n us and t h e m t h e r e always r e m a i n s a m a r g i n of i g n o r a n c c , if n o t of e r r o r , which we may well call the " h i s t o r i c a l e q u a t i o n . " This does n o t m e a n t h a t we are left with merely " lies agreed u p o n , " for m o d e r n scientific m e t h o d s arc r i g o r o u s guides t o w a r d the t r u t h , and t h o u g h lies remain, even t h e m o s t superficial r e a d e r k n o w s h o w far h i s t o r i a n s are from a g r e e i n g u p o n t h e m . In d i s c u s s i n g men of the f o u r t h c e n t u r y , h o w e v e r , it m u s t be a d m i t t e d t h a t a n y t h i n g 1 iIce c o m p l e t e t r u t h s e e m s u n a t t a i n a b l e . I n f o r m a t i o n on most i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s o f t e n fails us entirely, and, as will be seen, m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t we possess is o p e n t o grave suspicion. Y e t with r e f e r e n c e t o C o n s t a n t i n e , it can be said t h a t we possess a m a s s of evidence which has been m a d e available in critical e d i t i o n s of sources, and which >Cf. Dunning:

"Truth in History."

American

Historical

Review,

x x i x ( 1 9 1 4 ) , pp. 217-229. T h e point is that primary importance often attaches not so much to what happened, as to what later ages believe:! to have happened.

ji]

INTRODUCTION

j]

is being augmented and sifted to such an e x t e n t that a reliable historical discussion of his religious position is possible. T h i s I attempt to give in P a r t One. L e g e n d s about Constantine have for the most part been approached from a mistaken point of view. They have been used by some as reliable sources and by o t h e r s have been scornfully rejected as not worth consideration. B o t h attitudes are w r o n g . T h e time has passed for the kind of history that is made up of unsupported traditions or that fills in its vacant spaces and o b s c u r e origins with untested stories. L e g e n d usually throws little light upon the actual course of events, and what light it does throw is generally misleading, so that in r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the past the investigator often does well to ignore it entirely unless he has some test by which to sort out its genuine basis from its fable. Instead of trying to sift out truth from e r r o r by making allowances for probable distortions, he usually does better if he looks for o t h e r sources of information in documents, in m o n u m e n t s and in traces of earlier conditions surviving in later institutions. Scientific research has not only destroyed mistaken legends, but has been able to displace so many of these by more reliable facts that the validity of this method can no l o n g e r be doubted. B u t though legendary history is doomed, the history of the legend remains. T h e story it contains may not throw much light upon the subject about which it has grown up, but it reveals the working of the minds of the people who consciously or unconsciously created it. A legend may often be the most direct approach to the spirit of the time in which it gained currency, and the clearest illustration of its ideals and its modes of t h o u g h t . Its deviation from historical fact is here the most important thing about it.

12

CGNSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[12

After t h e l e g e n d b e c o m e s crystallized its h i s t o r y is significant. T h e m o s t o b v i o u s value is the influence which it e x e r c i s e s w h e r e it is a c c e p t e d . F o r an a c c e p t e d l e g e n d has j u s t as m u c h influence as an a c c e p t e d h i s t o r ical t r u t h . T h e m i s t a k e n belief of A m e r i c a n s t a t e s m e n a b o u t the b o u n d a r i e s of L o u i s i a n a d e t e r m i n e d t h e i r a t t i tude toward the l i m i t a t i o n of F l o r i d a and of M e x i c o precisely as if this belief w e r e c o r r e c t . Unfounded pagan stories a b o u t the early C h r i s t i a n s , and unfounded Christian s t o r i e s a b o u t t h e J e w s , had all the p o t e n c y of verified facts. A less o b v i o u s , b u t an i m p o r t a n t value of the h i s t o r y of a crystallized l e g e n d a t t a c h e s t o t h e attitude t a k e n t o w a r d it by t h o s e w h o m t h e i r g e n e r a t i o n e s t e e m s its s c h o l a r s . T h e i r a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n of it, t h e t e s t s they apply t o it, and the way in which they fit it i n t o t h e i r g e n e r a l fund of k n o w l e d g e s h o w s vividly t h e intellectual level of t h e i r a g e . A wide study of l e g e n d s would be one of the m o s t illuminating c h a p t e r s in the h i s t o r y of h i s t o r y . P a r t T w o , dealing with legends a b o u t C o n s t a n t i n e , is an a t t e m p t t o c o n t r i b u t e t o this end. T h e D o n a t i o n of C o n s t a n t i n e t a k e s us into the study of a different field of intellectual activity. L e g e n d s are t h e s p o n t a n e o u s c r e a t i o n of m a n ' s fancy. T h e y are often t h e e c h o of his own deepest c o n v i c t i o n s and h i g h e s t ideals p r o j e c t e d into the past and c o m i n g back t o him as the voices of the dead. B u t n o t all the men of the M i d d l e A g e s w e r e satisfied t o let their i m a g i n a t i o n play a b o u t the t o m b of the first C h r i s t i a n e m p e r o r . They b r o u g h t him at l e n g t h o u t of his g r a v e and put i n t o his m o u t h a legal g r a n t of vast p o w e r s t o the R o m a n C h u r c h and the R o m a n b i s h o p . P e r h a p s in the mind of the f o r g e r this was n o t an essentially different act f r o m the earlier legendary p r o c e s s e s . Scheffer-Boichorst argues

INTRODUCTION

13]

13

that his chief m o t i v e w a s t h e g l o r i f i c a t i o n of C o n s t a n t i n e and P o p e S y l v e s t e r , t o w h o m t h e g r a n t w a s a s s u m e d t o be made." T h e late D o c t o r H o d g k i n even s u g g e s t e d , hesitatingly, that t h e D o n a t i o n m i g h t have b e e n originally c o m p o s e d as an e x e r c i s e in r o m a n c i n g . ' B u t in f o r m at least it was plainly a f o r g e r y , and e v e n in the e i g h t h and ninth c e n t u r i e s s u c h f o r g e r i e s w e r e punishable with death. 3 It w a s t a k e n s e r i o u s l y and g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d as a legal d o c u m e n t f o r nearly s i x h u n d r e d years. It filled so l a r g e a place in the t h o u g h t of E u r o p e that w e can justly call it the m o s t f a m o u s f o r g e r y in h i s t o r y . D r . H o d g k i n even g o e s s o far as t o say, " T h e s t o r y of the D o n a t i o n of C o n s t a n t i n e fully told w o u l d a l m o s t be the history of the M i d d l e A g e s . " 4 O n the o t h e r hand, the u n r a v e l l i n g of this skein of f o r g e r y is o n e of the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g phases of the dev e l o p m e n t of the m o d e r n scientific spirit. T h e proof advanced b y L o r e n z o V a l l a that the d o c u m e n t was spuri o u s c o n s t i t u t e s in t h e R e n a i s s a n c e an event emphasized b y many w r i t e r s . I n m o r e r e c e n t times discussion of v a r i o u s p r o b l e m s c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e f o r g e r y has e n g a g e d the e n e r g y of many of the f o r e m o s t h i s t o r i a n s of Italy, F r a n c e , E n g l a n d , and especially of G e r m a n y , and has p r o d u c e d an e x t e n s i v e and i m p o r t a n t historical literature. A careful and s y s t e m a t i c s t u d y of this w h o l e d e v e l o p m e n t , such as is a t t e m p t e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s in P a r t T h r e e , will t h r o w c o n s i d e r a b l e l i g h t u p o n the w o r k i n g s of both t h e m e d i e v a l and t h e m o d e r n mind. xCf.

infra, p. 211 et seq.

'Italy

and Her Invaders,

vol. vii., (1899) p. 135 et seq.

* Cf. Brunner : Das Constitutum Constantini, in Festgabe fir von Gneiti, 4

pp. 34-35.

Op. cit., vii., p. 135.

Rudolf

CON ST ANTINE AND CHRISTIANITY PART ONE THE HISTORICAL FACTS

CHAPTER THE

I

PROBLEM

was the precise part of Constantine in the revolution by which Christianity became the dominant religion of European civilization ? T h e question and its answer have many ramifications. Of little importance for us is the much-discussed matter of the sincerity of his motives. Plausible motives are easily manufactured to fit any point of view and aid immensely in the construction of an interesting, consistent narrative; but the purposes actually controlling a man's conduct are often obscure to himself and, save by means of self-revelation, not often ascertainable by others. Only novelists may postulate a set of motives and develop conduct accordingly; the historian may infer them, but he is not at liberty to reconstruct the course of events upon such inferences. T h e important questions are really those of conduct and of public influence, and these are matters of record and of fact. If the public policy of Constantine and the course of his religious life, so far as it was in the open, can be ascertained, we shall know all that is here essential. And this knowledge will take us to the very heart of the reciprocal process by which the Roman Empire assumed Christianity, and the Church assumed, so far as in it lay, the control of the future of Europe. WHAT

Both phases of this process seem at first sight utterly revolutionary. Under Constantine's immediate predeB i7] 17

l8

C0NSTANT1NE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[J8

c e s s o r s the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t bent itself t o the task of e x t e r m i n a t i n g Christianity as an alien and hostile power. U n d e r him and his immediate successors the resources of the state were often put at the disposal of the church. T h e empire, in addition to its already crushing burdens, t o o k up the support of the church and made itself the vehicle upon which the o n c e persecuted religion rode in triumph to its task of establishing the " City of God " upon the earth. T h e church presents an equally startling c o n t r a s t in its progress. Not l o n g before this the disciples of J e s u s had been a powerless minority, under the control of a political and social system which outraged their religion. M o s t of them, in the first days in Palestine, and afterwards for several generations, saw no o u t c o m e for the hopeless conflict of the new life with the old order e x c c p t in some great cataclysm in which the e x i s t i n g world-order itself should be utterly destroyed and Christ should reign with his saints in a new heaven and a new earth. In the third century they still t h o u g h t of their hope and their true citizenship as in heaven, for this world seemed hopelessly hostile and evil. W i t h i n a single generation, however, this was, for the leading churchmen, all changed. " A new and fresh era of e x i s t e n c e had begun to appear and a light hitherto unknown suddenly to dawn from the midst of darkness on the human r a c e . " ' W h e n that apparent impossibility, a Christian emperor, came upon the scene, and invited into his council-chamber bishops who b o r e upon their bodies the marks of jail and torture, at least one of those present thought " that a picture of Christ's k i n g d o m was thus shadowed f o r t h . " ' W h i l e the future heaven has never passed out of the 1

Eusebius, Life of Conslantine,

'Ibid,,

iii, 15.

iii, I.

19]

THE

PROBLEM

19

thought of the church, this shadowing forth of it upon earth speedily absorbed the energy of a large proportion of churchmen. T h e world was no longer hopelessly hostile; the church was at home in it, and contemplation of the speedy and hoped-for destruction of the earth gave place to an age-long struggle to control and g o v ern it in the name of him whom it had once crucified. This double transformation, one of the greatest in the history of the world, was, however, wrought by forces which can be, to a large extent, historically analyzed and estimated. Many of them had long been working slowly and almost imperceptibly. They converged in Constantine, and it is this that gives importance to the question of the part he had in them. His career is an illustration of the process, and his reign marks its crisis. It is of great importance, therefore, to find out, so far as the emperor was concerned, how the government accepted Christianity and how Christians accepted the governance of the world. The answer to these questions is not ready at hand. There is, to be sure, much material, and most of it has been critically examined from one point of view or another. Literature upon Constantine has been almost steadily produced ever since the beginning of his reign, and has been recently stimulated by various official celebrations of the sixteenth centennial ( 1 9 1 3 ) of the Edict, or Rescript, of Milan. T h e main facts of his career seem fairly well established, but historical complacency is always subject to jolts such as that received from O t t o Seeck's attempt in 1891 to prove that there had never been any Edict of Milan. T h e prevailing views of Constantine's religious position, developed out of many variant opinions and. considerable controversy, must still be held subject to review and revision.

20

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[20

Until modern times historians generally accepted as an established fact that he openly and sincerely professed Christianity from the time of his victory over Maxentius ( 3 1 2 ) . Gibbon, in " The Declinc and Fall of the Roman Empire," looked upon him as a supporter of the church, and thought that his conversion may perhaps have been genuine.' Niebuhr, however, saw in Constantine a " r e pulsive phenomenon " of mingled paganism and Christianity, a superstitious man pursuing his own selfish ends.* Burckhardt in " Die Zcit Consiantins der Grossen," an epoch-making work and for years the standard life of Constantine, started with the bold (and unhistorical) proposition that " in the case of a man of genius, to whom ambition and desire for mastery give no rest, there can be no question of Christianity or paganism ; such a man is essentially unreligious." 3 H e even characterized Constantine as a " murdering egoist," and ascribes to him as his only religion, a belief in his own conquering genius. His laws accordingly were held to indicate not even a desire to advance the interests of Christianity, but only his use of that religion as part of the political machinery of the empire. After Burckhardt, the tendency ran strongly toward acceptance of the view that Constantine professed to adopt Christianity for political motives and used it for political purposes, but did not commit either himself or the empire to it. Theodor Keim 4 while contending that Constantine was affected somewhat by Christianity and 1

Chap. xx.

' Lectures on the History p. 318. 3

of Rome.

Third ed., Eng. trans., 1853, iii,

P. 369 (this work appeared first in 1853).

' Der Uebertritt

Constantins

des Grossen zum Chrislenthum,

1862.

21]

THE

PROBLEM

21

c a m e o u t o p e n l y as a C h r i s t i a n at the e n d ' i n t e r p r e t e d his official actions as h e d g i n g b e t w e e n p a g a n i s m and C h r i s t i a n i t y . T h e o d o r Z a h n ' p i c t u r e d him as c h a m p i o n of a v a g u e m o n o t h e i s m , n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y C h r i s t i a n , till his c o n t e s t w i t h L i c i n i u s , t h e r e a f t e r he w a s d e f i n i t e l y C h r i s tian. M a r q u a r d t 3 a f f i r m e d that C o n s t a n t i n e e r e c t e d heathen t e m p l e s in C o n s t a n t i n o p l e and that he n e v e r b r o k e w i t h R o m a n r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n s ; it w a s u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r he e v e r w a s a C h r i s t i a n . B r i e g e r * inferred f r o m C o n s t a n t i n e ' s c o i n a g e and o t h e r r e c o r d s that he had a s o r t of C h r i s t i a n s u p e r s t i t i o n w h i c h y e t did n o t s u p p l a n t his o r i g i n a l heathen ideas. V i c t o r D u r u y 5 f o u n d C o n stantine's e m b l e m s and r e l i g i o u s d e l i v e r a n c e s a m b i g u o u s , and the e m p e r o r ' s a c t i o n s the r e s u l t of c a l c u l a t i o n , n o t of r e l i g i o u s c o n v i c t i o n o r even p r e f e r e n c e . Herman 6 Schiller e n d e a v o r e d t o p r o v e a g r a d u a l f a v o r i n g of C h r i s t i a n i t y at least t o the e x t e n t of p u t t i n g it on a l e g a l level with the old p a g a n i s m , and c o n c l u d e d that C o n s t a n t i n e ' s p o l i c y w a s t o f o r m an official r e l i g i o n b a l a n c i n g the b e t t e r e l e m e n t s of p a g a n m o n o t h e i s m w i t h C h r i s 1 Keim rendered the phrase with which Constantine prefaced the announcement of his decision to be baptized, as given by Eusebius in his Lite of Constantine (iv, 62), " let all duplicity be banished," thus implying that the emperor had previously been two-faced. The Greek term used, ¿/«¿'/W«, means merely doubt, or uncertainty, and Eusebius, of all men, would not have implied any hypocrisy on the emperor's part. ' Constantin der Grosse und die Kirche, 1876. * Römische Staatsverwaltung (1878), iii, 113. ' Constantin der Grosse als Religionspolitiker, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte iv (1880), ii, 163. * Histoire des Romains, 1870 and later, vol. vii, p. 127 ff . : " I.es Premières années du regne de Constantin" in Compte rendu de l'Académie des Sciences morales ei politiques, xvi, 737-765 (1881), and " L a politique religieuse de Constantin," ibid., xvii, 185-227 (1S82), and Revue archaeologiquc, xliii, 9Û-110, 155-175 (1882). ' Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, 1883-7.

C0NSTANT1NE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[22

tianity. V i c t o r S c h u l t z e , 1 Grisar, * and G. Boissier 3 defended his essential Christianity. The remarkable work of O. Seeck, 4 which has almost superseded earlier writings 011 the subject, has at length reshaped historical opinion about Constantine. Seeck's conclusion, from a most exhaustive study of all the sources, is that Constantine was favorably inclined to Christianity from the first, that he was definitely converted to adherence to the God of the Christians as his patron and luckbringer during the campaign against Maxentius 5 and that thereafter he supported the Christian church even to the point of subserviency, and introduced Christianity as the state religion so far as conditions permitted. In many of his contentions Seeck has been vigorously attacked by F . G ö r r e s 6 and others, yet he and Schultze have exercised dominant influence and have been very generally followed. 7 Duchesne 8 looks upon Constantine as a gen1

Geschichte des Untergangs des griechischen

römischen

Heidentums,

1887-03. • " D i e v o r g e b l i c h e n B e w e i s e g e g e n die C h r i s t l i c h k e i t Constantins des

G r o s s e n " , in Zeitschrift

für katholische

Theologie vi (1882) 585-607.

" ' E s s a i s d ' h i s t o i r e religieuse " in Revue des deux pp. 5 1 - 7 2 , " L a Fin du Paganisme" (1891). 4

Geschichte des Untergangs

der antiken

Mondes

J u l y 1886

Welt 1895 et seq., sccond

edition 1897 et seq., third edition 1 9 1 0 ^ seq., and numerous articles in historical r e v i e w s , especially in Zeitsch. f . K. C. '312 A. D.

• Zeitschrift

für wissenschaftliche

Theologie (1892), p. 282 et seq.

' E g . , J . B . B u r y in his edition of Gibbon : Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ( 1 8 9 6 ) , vol. ii, append. 19, pp. 5 6 6 - 5 6 8 ; W . K . B o y d :

The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code, Columbia University Studies in Histo>y, Economics and Public Law vol. xxiv (1905), pp. 1 6 - 2 1 . A n interesting illustration of this transformation of historical opinion is seen in the r e v i s i o n of current text-books for ancient history in line with S e e c k s ' c o n t e n t i o n s . Cf. G . W . B o t s f o r d : Ancient History

for Beginners

(1913),

• Histoire 45-71.

(1902), pp. 422-43, and his History of the Ancient

World

PP. SI4-S>S-

ancienne

de l'Eglise,

vol. ii, English trans. (1912), pp.

T h e first edition was dated 1905.

23]

THE

PROBLEM

23

uine convert and patron of the church. Ludwig Wrzol 1 emphasizes Constantine's ascription of victory-giving power to the Christian God and looks upon most of the emperor's actions after the battle at the Milvian bridge as an expression of his desire to be on the right side of this power. Ed. Schwartz 2 finds in him sincere attachment to Christianity in its organized form, but far from admitting his subserviency to the Christian bishops which Seeck describes, he pictures Constantine as the ambitious seeker of supreme power and dominating master of the church. In the first proposition he is thus in agreement with Seeck, but in the latter with Burckhardt. One recent writer 1 turns against the present tendency, to substantial agreement with Burckhardt's view of the emperor's character and describes him as utterly irreligious and taking up with Christianity for merely political purposes. But in this Geffcken stands almost alone. On the other hand, the contributors to the most pretentious of the books called out by the centennial of the Edict of Milan, Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit* reproduce in large part that view of the relations of Constantine and the church most favorable to both. 5 While, as has been said, the main facts of Constantine's career now seem clear, the very bulk of this literature, as well as the differences and contradictions it expresses, 1 Konstantins des Grossen persönliche Stellung Weidenauer Studien, I (1906), pp. 227-269. x

zum

Christentum.

Kaiser Constantin und die christliche Kirche (1913). ' Johs. Geffcken, Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums (1904), p. 97 et seq. 4 Edited by F . J . Dolger, 1913. 1 For other recent discussions see Gwatkin in Cambridge Medieval History, vol. i ( 1 9 1 1 ) p. 10 et seq., and J . B . Carter: The Religious Life of Ancient Rome ( 1 9 1 1 ) , p. 117 et seq.

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[24

calls for a general restatement of his attitude in religious matters, and f o r a revaluation of its significance. Such restatement must take into account the k n o w l e d g e which recent years have b r o u g h t of the general religious condition of Constantine's times. I t is possible only on the basis of an examination of all the original evidence. A n d in this the emphasis must be put upon legal and monumental sources, such as are contained in the T h e o dosian C o d e and in coins and inscriptions; f o r , as will be shown later, the writers of the fourth century had little comprehension of pure historical truth and less devotion to it. Partisanship, e u l o g y , and defamation were all too c o m m o n , and these were then, as now, more apt to create legends than to produce adequate appreciation of men and events.

CHAPTER

II

THE IMPRINT OF CHRISTIANITY UPON

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS, INSCRIPTIONS AND WRITINGS I.

Legislation1

CONSTANTINE was a v o l u m i n o u s l a w - m a k e r ; fragments of nearly 300 of his laws are in existence, and we have information about others issued and now lost. 1 H e was not a systematic nor a careful l e g i s l a t o r ; many of his laws are not clear, many are trivial, and many are badly e x 1 F o r various phases of this subject cf. S e e c k ' s discussion of Constantine's laws in Zeitschrifl der Savigny Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichle, Romanische Abteilung, x , p. I et seq., p. 177 et seq. A l s o B o y d , op. cit. Many of C o n s t a n t i n e ' s laws, but by no means all that are extant, are printed in M i g n e : J. P . , Patrologiae Cursus Computus Series Latina viii, cols. 93-400. Most of the extant ones have been preserved in the Theodosian Code and the Constitution of Sirmondi printed with it. M a n y not found elsewhere, as well as some duplications, are given in Eusebius' Church History and' in his Life of Constantine. Many of these latter, h o w e v e r , are questioned, cf. infra, pp. 38, 109. S o m e laws are found in A u g u s t i n e ' s w r i t i n g s against the Donatists, and others are referred to by Jerome and other ecclesiastical writers. U n d e r the title of Legislation I have included rescripts (rescripta) as well as edicts (edicta, decreta). Strictly speaking, rescripts were answers to inquiries. T h e y w e r e cited as decisions, rather than as legislation. Constantine seems to have begun the custom of issuing laws in rescript f o r m , i. e., in letters to praefects. S e e c k dates the custom from D e c e m b e r 1, 318. Cf. op. cit., x , pp. 199, 221. A number of C o n s t a n t i n e ' s laws bearing on Christianity are translated in A y e r , J. C . , Jr., A Source Book tor Ancient Church History ( N e w Y o r k , 1913), pp. 263-265, 277-296.

' Cf. S e e c k , Untergang 25]

der an liken

Welt, i, 54. 25

26

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[26

pressed. Decadence of legal style had already set in by his time. T h e laws of Constantine show a p r o g r e s s i v e l y favorable attitude t o w a r d the Christians. N o n e of his legislation while he was in control of Gaul and Britain alone has c o m e d o w n to us e x c e p t references to his religious toleration. W h i l e he ruled the entire W e s t , but not the East (that is, from his v i c t o r y over M a x e n t i u s in 312 till his victory over Licinius in 323) his legislation involved complete toleration t o w a r d s Christians, and, in general, establishment of equality between Christianity and paganism. A f t e r he became sole emperor, that is from 324 to his death in 337, his legislation became more definitely Christian and anti-pagan.' S e e c k , w h o maintains Constantine's complete adherence to Christianity after 312, r e c o g n i z e s this distinction. 1 A somewhat detailed analysis of the t w o periods, 3 1 2 - 3 2 3 and 323336, is necessary to a full k n o w l e d g e of the facts. Before the final v i c t o r y over Licinius (323) w e have n o direct legislation against essential pagan institutions. 3 L e g i s l a t i o n friendly to the Christians, h o w e v e r , is in evidence from the time of the victory o v e r M a x e n t i u s ( 3 1 2 ) . V e r y soon after that event Constantine and Licinius, doubtless at the initiative of the former, reached an agreement at Milan t o establish general and complete religious toleration, and issued a comprehensive edict or rescript to that effect, specifically p u t t i n g Christianity 1 Cf. Bury's summary of Schiller's description of Constantine's laws in Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Bury, vol. ii, P- 5671 He ascribes the absence of a more positively Christian attitude in the earlier legislation to motives of policy.

' F o r legislation limiting magic and the consulting of haruspices, cf. infra, pp. 35-36.

27]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

on a level with other legal religions. 1 This is the famous and lately controverted Edict of Milan. T h e controversy was begun in 1 8 9 1 by O. Seeck, who denied that the document given by Lactantius and by Eusebius was in any respect the work of Constantine, that it was issued from Milan, or that it was an imperial edict.' H e maintained that these authors g a v e merely copies of a rescript issued by Licinius after his victory over M a x i minus (or Maximin) Daza, probably as soon as he entered Nicomedia, the capital of the first conquered province, reinstating and enforcing the Edict of Toleration of Galerius ( 3 1 1 ) which Maximinus had not observed. There would thus be only one edict of toleration, that putting an end to the Diocletian persecution; and this reissue of it should be called simply the Rescript of Nicomedia. Seeck supported his opinion by arguments drawn from the informality of the so-called edict, from the chronological difficulty involved in the accepted account, and from the reference, " all conditions being entirely left out which were contained in our former letter," etc. ( " q u a r e scire dignationem tuam convenit * * * placuisse nobis ut amotis omnibus omnino conditionibus * * * contendant). Seeck's article was answered by F . Gorres and by Crivelluci. 3 T h e former's ' Eusebius, Church History, ix, 9, 12. Our knowledge of its provisions is obtained from two documents, Lactantius, De Mortibus persecutorum, xlviii, and Eusebius, op. cit., x, 5, 2-14. Each of these has its champions as a copy of the original rescript, and by others both are denied that rank. ' " Das sogennante Edikt von Mailand, " in Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichle, xii, p. 381 et seq. In his later Geschichte des Untergangs der Antiken Welt, he assumed that he had proved his point and merely remarked in a note that he had not spoken of the Edict of Milan because in his opinion such an edict never existed. Vol. i (Anhang), p. 4Q5. (Berlin, 1897). ' T h e former in Zeitsch. f . wissenschaftliche Theol., x x x v (1892), pp. 282-95; the latter in Studi storici, i, p. 239 et seq.

28

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[28

answer consists largely of ridicule and invective, interspersed freely with exclamation points, but he rightly emphasizes the o b v i o u s fact that there are essential differences between the E d i c t of Galerius and this later edict or letter, the former b e i n g polytheistic in tone and g i v i n g bare toleration to the Christians, whereas the latter is rather monotheistic and provides for a large measure of general religious liberty t o g e t h e r with restoration of confiscated Christian property to its former owners. T h e original edict of Milan he thinks has been lost, but Eusebius and L a c t a n t i u s reproduce it in g i v i n g respectively a translation and a copy of rescripts published by Licinius in their provinces. T h e latter writer also maintains that there was an edict of Milan. T h e ablest discussion of the question is that by H e r mann Hülle.' H e accepts an edict of Milan but limits it to complete religious toleration and ascribes the policy of restitution of Christian property to later rescripts, such as that of Constantine t o Anulinus in Africa. In his opinion L a c t a n t i u s probably gives a rescript issued afterwards by Licinius for Bithynia, and Eusebius, a later Palestinian version of this, both being amplifications and extensions of the brief Milan edict. Valerian Sesan* a r g u e s at g r e a t length that Eusebius gives a Greek translation of the original rescript of Milan, and L a c tantius a form of it issued by Licinius from N i k o m e d i a . H e holds, however, the untenable ground that both allude to a lost edict of Constantine's dating from 312. Die Toleranzerlasse römischer Kaiser für das Christentum, ( B e r l i n , PP- 80-106. T h e same conclusions are reached by V . Schnitze in the articles on Constantine in the Real-Enzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, x , 757-773 (1901). 1

i89S)>

1 Kirche und Staat im römisch-byzantinischen Reiche seit Konstantin dem Grossen und bis zum Falle Konstantinopels, vol. i (1911), pp. 128-237.

29]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

29

Another investigator, Joseph Wittig, 1 arrives independently at the same general conclusions as Sesan, combating, however, the assumption of a lost edict of 3 1 2 . The meeting of Constantine and Licinius at Milan in 3 1 3 and the promulgation there of an edict or rescript of religious toleration are established by adequate evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Lactantius undoubtedly gives, according to his own statement, not this original edict, but a rescript of Licinius' based upon it and issued at Nicomedia. I cannot see in the arguments of Sesan and Wittig sufficient reason for putting Eusebius' version upon a different basis from that of Lactantius and calling it a translation of the original Milan edict. 1 M o r e probably Eusebius gave the version of the rescript which was published in his part of the Empire. How far this rescript reproduces the edict or rescript of Milan it is impossible to say. Hiille's limitation of the latter to religious toleration seems not altogether warranted. It probably not only ordered the recognition of Christianity on exactly the same standing as to toleration as that of the established religions, and not only involved 1 " Das Toleranzreskript von Mailand 3 1 3 , " in Konztantin und seine Zeit, ed. Franz J . Dolger ( 1 9 1 3 ) , pp. 40-65.

der

Groste

' W i t t i g ' s comparison of differences between the texts is specious rather than convincing. E . g . , where Eusebius is briefer, this proves his form to be the original; where he is lengthier, this proves that Lactantius condensed. Where Lactantius represents Licinius as using phrases less vaguely monotheistic and more specifically Christian than Eusebius gives, this shows that Licinius, not being a Christian (cf. E u sebius x , 5,4-5, and Lactantius xlviii,4~5), was eager to proclaim his voluntary recognition of Constantine's god, so as to avoid the reproach of being overborn by Constantine ! The omission of an introductory section in Lactantius and of the possessive pronoun where Eusebius' version cites former orders as " o u r former letters " may be significant but furnishes no argument for W i t t i g ' s position (cf. Eusebius x , 5, 2 - 3 , omitted in Lactantius; cf. Eusebius, $ 6 and Lactantius, 2 6).

3o

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[30

the principle of religious liberty, but also directed the restoration of church property which had been confiscated from the Christians." The rescript given by Lactantius differs in a number of places from the translation given by Eusebius, but both are monotheistic in tone, the latter rather more vaguely so than the former. What could be more vague than the phrase quoted by Eusebius, " that so whatever divine and heavenly power there is may be propitious to u s " (bwus b ri norl ion htioT7}To{ nai ovpavtov npAyfiarnf, iftilv . . . . ivutvif elvat

ivvrfii/, for Lactantius' " quo quidem divinitas in sede coelesti nobis . . . propitia possit e x i s t e r e " ) ? ' Both versions concur in ascribing the previous success of the rulers to divine aid and in assigning as the motive of the law desire for continuance of divine favor. " S o shall that divine favor which, in affairs of the mightiest importance, we have already experienced, continue to give success to us, and in our successes make the commonwealth happy. " 3 These may well have characterized the original edict or rescript and have represented Constantine's religious status in 3 1 3 , for his influence, rather than that of Licinius, must in this have been dominant. The policies of complete religious toleration and of the restoration to Christians of their property formerly confiscated were in any case adopted by Constantine soon after he became sole emperor in the west. Eusebius places immediately after the rescript discussed above, a rescript to Anulinus in Africa, ordering the immediate restoration to the Catholic church of all property which had been confiscated from it.4 This rescript makes no 1

Cf. Eusebius, Life of Constantine,

' E u s e b i u s , Church History

x , 5, 4.

' E u s e b i u s , op. cit., x , 5, 13.

i, 14. Lactantius, op. cit., xlviii, 4.

Cf. Lactantius, op. cit.,

' E u s e b i u s , op. cit., x , 5, 1 5 - 1 7 .

xlviii, 13.

3i]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS AND

WRITINGS

31

provision for the compensation of the purchasers and holders of this property, whereas both the Eusebian and the Lactantian version of the rescript of Licinius provide for the compensation from the public treasury of legal holders of confiscated Christian property. The rescript to Anulinus is generally supposed to have been issued after the edict of Milan, but Wittig argues plausibly that it antedated the latter and represents a less matured plan of dealing with the problem." If so, whether at Milan or elsewhere, Constantine soon provided for reimbursing the losers, for he was always very free with public moneys. A m o n g the laws which Constantine issued between 3x3 and 323 in favor of the church, beyond complete toleration, the following may be noted. The clergy were exempted from all state contributions. * H o w substantial this concession was may be seen from the rush which ensued toward the clerical status. It was so great that by 320 another edict was issued limiting entrance to the clergy to those classes whose exemption would not make much difference either to the state or to themselves. This was not retroactive and did not disturb those who were already clerics. 3 Great as was the concession however, it was not an exaltation of Christianity above other religions, for such exemptions were commonly made to priests of acknowledged religions. 'Op. tit., pp. s i , 52' Codex Theodosianus, x v i , 2 , 2 ( 3 1 9 ) . " Qui divino cultui ministeria religionis impendunt, id est hi, qui clerici appelantur, ab omnibus omnino muneribus excusentur, ne sacrilego livore quorundam a divinis obsequiis a v o c e n t u r . " Cf. earlier letter of Constantine's instructing Anulinus to exempt the clergy of the Catholic church, over which Caecilian presided, from public duties. Eusebius, Church History, x , 7. %

Cod. Tkeod., xvi, 2, 3. (326)

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[32

Constantine himself extended substantially the same e x emptions to the patriarchs and elders of the J e w s , to whom in general he was not friendly.' A law published soon after the victory over Maxentius shows Constantine to be interested in protecting the machinery and the routine of church life from annoyance at the hands of heretics, but more than a friendly interest of this sort can hardly be inferred from it. * In 3 1 3 (or 3 1 5 ) the church was freed from " annona " and " t r i b u t u m . " In 320 the laws from the time of Augustus, disqualifying those not of near kinship w h o remained unmarried or childless from receiving inheritances, were changed, probably in deference to the celibacy of the clergy, allowing celibates to inherit and releasing them from all penalties. 3 In 3 2 1 manumission in churches in the presence of the bishop and clergy was made legal and valid. 4 In 321 wills in favor of the Catholic church were permitted. 5 Constantine's laws on Sunday are of great interest. In 321 he raised it to the rank of the old pagan holidays (feriae) by suspending the work of the courts and of the 1

Cod. Theod. xvi, 8, 2 (a. 330, Nov. 29) and 4 (Dec. 1, 3 3 1 ) . ' Cod. Theod. xvi, 2, 1 (313 (?) Oct. 31). " Haereticorum factione conperimus ecclesiae catholicae clericos ita vexari, ut nominationibus seu susceptionibus aliquibus, quas publicus mos exposcit, contra indulta sibi privilegia praegraventur. Ideoque placet, si quem tua gravitas invenerit ita vexatum, eidem alium subrogare et deinceps a supra dictae religionis hominibus hujusmodi injurias prohiberi. " 'Cod. Theod. xi, 1, 1 (June 17, 3 1 5 ) : viii, 16, 1 (Jan. 3 1 , 320) ; Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iv, 26. * Cod. Theod. iv, 7, I, cf. Codex Justinianus, i, 13, 2. 'Cod. Theod. xvi, 2, 4 (321). " habeat unusquisque licentiam sanctissimo catholicae [ecclesiae] venerabilique concilio, decedens bonorum quod optavit relinquere," etc. This recognizes the corporate character of the church.

33]

CONSTANTINOS

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

33

city population on that day, agricultural work, as was usual, being expressly excepted. * In June, of the same year, Constantine published an amendment to the law, keeping the way open for the manumission of slaves on Sunday. 1 These laws are not positively Christian or pagan, nor are they necessarily ambiguous as to the emperor's religious position. The worship of the sun, "sol invictus," and the observance of Sunday were integral parts of Mithraism and the religion of the Great Mother generally. The laws, therefore, might have been issued by a worshipper of the sun. The designation of the day as the venerable day of the sun, " venerabili die Solis" and " diem solis veneratione sui celebrem," has sometimes been cited as proof of Constantine's seeking at the time to do honor to Mithras, or the sun. Such phrases, however, were common to Christians as well as to pagans. The oriental, probably at first Babylonian, system of a week of seven days, each named from a heavenly body, had very generally supplemented and even supplanted in popular 1 Cod. Just, iii, 12, 3. " O m n e s judices, urbanaeque plebes, et cunctarum artium officia venerabili die Solis quiescant. R u n tamen positi agrorum culturae libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vineae scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti provisione concessa." I t is surprising that this law is not embodied in the Cod. Theod., as it is presupposed by the law of Constantine in Cod. Theod. ii, 8, i . It may have been included and have been lost in the copies handed down to us. The supposition that it originally included non-Christian terms and was an expression of sun-worship and was therefore omitted from the Cod. Theod. occurs to one, but is without any support whatever.

*Cgd. Theod. ii, 8, I. " Sicut indignissimum videbatur diem solis veneratione sui celebrem altercantibus jurgiis et noxiis partium contentionibus occupari, ita gratum ac jucudum est eo die quae sunt maxime votiva compleri. Atque ideo emancipandi et manumittendi die festo cuncti licentiam habcant et super his rebus acta non prohibeantur." C

34

CON ST AN TINE AND CHRISTIANITY

[34

u s e the c u m b e r s o m e R o m a n n u m b e r i n g of d a y s b y kale n d s , n o n e s and ides, l o n g b e f o r e this t i m e . ' Justin M a r t y r at R o m e , in the second c e n t u r y , u s e d the p h r a s e , " d a y of the sun " in d e s c r i b i n g the w o r s h i p of the C h r i s t i a n s on the first day of the w e e k . ' T e r t u l l i a n in N o r t h A f r i c a used it ( d i e s soli's) in s u c h a w a y as to s h o w that it w a s c o m m o n l y e m p l o y e d at the end of the s e c o n d century.3 N o d o u b t the c o r r e c t , specifically C h r i s t i a n u s a g e w a s to r e f e r t o the first day of the w e e k as the L o r d ' s D a y (dies Domini o r dies dominions), a u s a g e still p r e v a lent in r e l i g i o u s s p e e c h ; but the n a m e of the sun w a s u s e d v e r y g e n e r a l l y b y the C h r i s t i a n s f o r the first d a y of t h e w e e k even t h o u g h this h e a v e n l y b o d y w a s a u n i v e r s a l o b j e c t of a d o r a t i o n a m o n g the heathen. A s s u m i n g that C o n s t a n t i n e w a s a t h o r o u g h g o i n g C h r i s t i a n in 3 2 1 , h e w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e p r o c l a i m e d the day u n d e r the n a m e of " dies solis." T h e w o r d s " vevcrabili" and " veneratione stii celebrcm " m i g h t be c o n s t r u e d as s a v o r i n g of s u n - w o r s h i p , but they m a y r e f e r as w e l l to the w o r s h i p w h i c h f r o m a v e r y early time c h a r a c t e r i z e d the C h r i s t i a n o b s e r v a n c e of the first d a y of the w e e k . T h e s e c o n d law with its e m p h a t i c a p p r o v a l of, and p r o v i s i o n f o r m a n u m i s s i o n of slaves, certainly g i v e s the w h o l e piece of l e g i s l a t i o n the a t m o s p h e r e of C h r i s t i a n i t y r a t h e r than of M i t h r a i s m . 1 Cf. Zahn : Geschichie ties Sonntags, pp. 25, 26, 60, 61 ; Mommsen, Uebcr den Chronographer von 354, pp. 566, 568 ; Dio Cassius 37, 19. In various European languages the days of the week still perpetuate this oriental influence upon the West through Rome, though German gods and Christian sentiment have wrought some changes. The names of the days originally commemorated were, in order: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn.

''Apology i, 67. 'Apology,

The phrase is used twice here.

xvi ; ad Nationcs, i, 13.

CON ST A N TINE'S LAWS AND WRITINGS

35

Eusebius, in hi? Life of Conslantinegives a long list of provisions enacted by Constantine for the most pious observance of Sunday, which are there given as specifically Christian, though the prayer which he says was enforced on that day in the army was merely monotheistic. Allowing for the edifying and eulogistic tone of this source, it seems more probable that Eusebius at most exaggerated the piety of the emperor than that he entirely distorted the object of that piety, and while much of the passage refers to the latter part of Constantine's reign, it unquestionably includes a summary of his first law on Sunday. Taken in connection with this and other evidence these laws seem to have been issued with especial regard for the Christians. Constantine's laws on the subject of magic and divination, mostly in this period of his legislation ( 3 1 2 - 3 2 3 ) , give no decisive indication of his relation to Christianity. They show indeed his belief in the efficacy of these practices. 1 It was only the private consulting of haruspices and the practice of magic arts against chastity or life, or for other harmful purposes that were forbidden. 3 Rites 1

iv, 18-20.

*Cf. Cod. Theod. ix, 16, 3 (May 23, 321-324). The law of Dec. 17, 320-321, Cod. Theod. xvi, 10, 1 . permits and even in some circumstances encourages the public consultation of haruspices. " Si quid dc palatio nostro aut ceteris opcribus publicis degustatum fulgore esse constitcrit, retento more veteris obscrvantiae quid portendat, ab haruspicibus rcquiratur et diligentissime scribtura collecta ad nostram scicntiam referatur ; ccteris etiam usurpandae hujus consuetudinis licentia tribuenda, dummodo sacrifices domesticis abstineant, quae specialiter prohibita sunt. Earn autein denuntiationem adque interpretationem, quae dc tactu amphitheatri scribta est, de qua ad Heraclianum tribunum et magistrum officiorum scribseras.ad nos. scias esse pcrlatam. " Cod. Theod. ix, 16, 3, shows belief that charms could affcct the weather for the public benefit. ' Cod. fheod. ix, 16, 1, 2 and 3 ; xvi, 10, 1.

36

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[36

w h o s e object was t o prevent disease and d r o u g h t were not prohibited.' B u t permission and even e n c o u r a g e m e n t of superstitious rites for certain e x t r a o r d i n a r y o c c u r r e n c e s do not show devotion to p a g a n religions and absence of any c o n n e c tion with Christianity as some writers on Constantine have inferred. If they did, a large p o r t i o n of the church 1 Boyd : op. cii., p. 19 misses the mark when he says " A s his panegyrist declares that Constantine fought Maxentius against the counsel of men, against the advice of the haruspices, this legislation [referring especially to commands to collect and transmit to court the replies of the haruspices] does not signify a belief in the divinatory arts, rather an effort to forestall any attempt to make use of divination in any political conspiracy against the fortunes of the Flavian f a m i l y . " The Anonymous panegyric (313) referred to (Migne : P . L . , viii col. 655, c. ii), in its " contra haruspicum m o n i t a " implies rather that Constantine consulted the augurs, but was not discouraged by an unfavorable answer, and the direction of the law in cases of public buildings struck by lightning, " retento more veteris observantia:, quis portendat, ab haruspicibus requiretur " etc., refer to the observance of accepted practises. Belief in the power of such practises was common among the Christians themselves: they merely asserted the superior magical power of Christian observances. Cf. Lactantius, de Mori. Pers. chap. x. It is barely possible that there may be a connection between the burning of Diocletian's palace, at the beginning of the Diocletian persecution, and Constanti ne's law in 321 {Cod. Theod. xvi, 10,1). Lactantius it will be remembered (de Mori. Pers. cxiv) says that Galerius hired emissaries to set the palace on fire and then laid the blame on the Christians as public enemies. In the Easter " Oration of Constantine to the Assembly of the Saints " reproduced by Eusebius, Constantine is reported as saying (chap. 25) that he was an eye-witness of the occurencc, that the palace was consumed by lightning, and that Diocletian lived in constant fear of lightning. For an interesting note upon the beginning of the Diocletian persecution, which still remains obscure, see McGiffert in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series ii, Volume i liusebius, pp. 397-400. If, as Professor McGiffert suggests, there was a Christian conspiracy against Galerius, this might establish a connection in Constantine's mind between lightning, haruspices, and plots such as D r . Boyd assumes. Otherwise, Constantine may have thought that as the Christian God sent lightning against Diocletian the pagan deities or demons might send lightning against him.

37]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

would, in many different ages, have to be counted out of Christendom. J u d g i n g from Constantine's legislation in the west discussed thus far, the inference would naturally be that he was friendly disposed toward Christianity, and sought to put it upon a full equality with former official religions of the empire. There was no effort to suppress paganism, or even to make Christianity the one legal religion of the empire. 1 But with his final conflict with Licinius and his victory in 323,* Constantine's legislation seems to become more specifically and completely Christian. A law of 323 e x pressly forbade any attempt to force Christians to take part in pagan celebrations and gave redress for abuses of this sort. 3 Several general statements of the greatest importance, chiefly covering the period 3 2 3 - 3 3 6 , have come down to us from approximately Constantine's time, which if they could be accepted in full would leave no question but that Constantine accomplished a legal revolution, entirely substituting Christianity for paganism in R o m a n life. One, a law of E m p e r o r Constans in 341, 4 in pro1

For a general summary of Constantine's laws in force in the west before the victory over Licinius and put in operation in the east at that time, from the pen of a Christian panegyrist, see Eusebius, Life of Constantine, ii, 20 and 21. ' Or 324, according to Seeck. ' " Quoniam comperimus quosdam ecclesiasticos et ceteros catholicae sectae servientes a diversarum religionuni hominibus ad lustrorum sacrificia celebranda compelli, hac sanctione sancimus, si quis ad ritum alienae superstitionis cogendos esse crediderit eos, qui sanctissimae legi serviunt, si conditio patiatur, publice fustibus verberetur, si vero honoris ratio talem ab eo repellat injuriam, condemnationem sustineat damni gTavissitni, quod rebus publicis vindicabitur." Cod. Theod., xvi, 2, s (May 25, 323[?])4 Cod. Theod., xvi, 10, 2. " Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum abo-

CONSTANTINE

38

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[38

hibiting sacrifices to the g o d s implies that Constantine had earlier m a d e the s a m e sweeping prohibition. If such an edict was issued, however, it has been lost. J e r o m e 1 tells of a law for the general destruction of pagan temples. This, t o o , if issued, has been entirely lost. E u s e b i u s refers t o many laws, which, if his statements are correct and his quotations genuine, would have put a legal end to many essential features of paganism.' V i c t o r S c h u l t z e 3 has ably defended these particular summaries of Constantine's laws, but they cannot be taken as conclusive, in view of E u s e b i u s ' probable e x a g g e r a t i o n s about laws which have been preserved 4 as well as in view of the general character of his Life of Constantine. E v e n the combined testimony of C o n s t a n s ' law, J e r o m e , and E u s e b i u s cannot be accepted as final. It is contradicted by Libanius, 5 who g o e s so far as to say that Constantine did not at all change the legal religion ; by Zosimus, 6 who says that Constantine tolerated heathen w o r s h i p ; by later exhortations of Christians a s k i n g for such l a w s ; 7 and by laws expressly allowing leatur insania. N a m q u i c u m q u e c o n t r a l e g e m divi p r i n c i p i s p a r e n t i s n o s t r i et h a n c n o s t r a e m a n s u e t u d i n i s j u s s i o n e m nusus fuerit s a c r i f i c i a c e l e b r a r e , c o n p e t e n s in e u m v i n d i c t a et p r a e s e n s s e n t e n t i a e x e r a t u r . " 1

Chronicle,

under year 335.

' Oration

in Praise

of Constantine,

2 ; 8; 9.

Life

of Constantine,

ii,

4 4 ; 45; >ii, 55-58; iv, 2 3 ; 25. ' I n Zeitsch

f . K.

G.,

vii ( 1 8 8 5 ) , p. 3C9 ct

scq.

Cf. Life of Constantine, i v , 18, w i t h C o n s t a n t i n e ' s a c t u a l l a w , Cod. iii, 1 2 , 3 ; s e e a b o v e , p. 77. F o r in'1'heod., ii, 8, 1, a n d Cod. Just., s t a n c e s , h o w e v e r , in w h i c h E u s e b i u s ' s t a t e m e n t s a r c c o n f i r m e d by the l a w s w h i c h h a v e c o m e d o w n to u s , cf. Cod. Theod., viii, 16, 1, with Life of Constantine, iv, 26; Cod. Theod., iv, 4, 3 , a n d ii, 24, 1, a n d iv, 4, 1, with Life of Constantine, i v , 26, 5. 4

'Pro

'Pemplis,

• Roman

cd. R e i s k e (1784).

History,

ii, 29, 3.

' E g . , F i r m i a n u s , de Errore,

p . 39.

39]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

39

divination in the pagan temples.' These last may, of course, have been abrogated by later laws such as Eusebius and Jerome claim were issued, but there is no proof of it other than the partisan statements of those writers. It seems clear, however, that though Constantine's later laws may not have gone to the extent assumed by Eusebius, Constans and Jerome, they show at least an anti-pagan tendency, in the light of which the statements of these three authorities must be interpreted as, at most, exaggerations and not utter misstatements. There seems to be no doubt that heathen temples suffered severely from adverse imperial influence;" and as early as 326, in a law looking toward the completion of old buildings before new ones were begun, it was expressly provided that temples might be left unfinished. 3 Several long and rhetorical edicts of Constantine, notably the " Edict to the Inhabitants of the Province of Palestine," and tl le " Edict to the People of the Provinces concerning the E r r o r of P o l y t h e i s m " are given in Eusebius' Life of Constantine,* both purporting to be from 1

Cod.

Theod.,

' Cf. infra,

x v i , 10, 1 ( 3 2 1 ) ; i x , 16, 2 and 3 ( 3 1 9 ) .

pp. 63-64.

*Cod. Thcod., x v , 1 , 3 (326 [ 3 6 2 ] J u n e 2 9 ) . " P r o v i n c i a r u m j u d i c e s c o m m o n c r i p r a e c i p i i n u s , ut nihil se n o v i o p e r i s o r d i n a r e ante d e b e r e c o g n o s c a n t , q u a m ea c o i n p l e v e r i n t , q u a e a d e c e s s o r i b u s i n c h o a t a s u n t , exceptis dumtaxat templorum aedificationibus." • i i , 2 4 - 4 2 , and ii, 48-60, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e s e w i t h the o t h e r docum e n t s in this w o r k w e r e labeled f o r g e r i e s by C r i v c l l u c c i , M o t n i n s c n , P e t e r , B u r c k h a r d t , S e e c k and o t h e r s : S e e c k later accepted t h e m as g e n u i n e , c h i e f l y on the g r o u n d that they a r e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h w o u l d naturally be in E u s e b i u s ' c h a n c e r y , a n d w i t h the specific f o r m of add r e s s w h i c h o n e w o u l d e x p e c t in c o p i e s sent to C a e s a r e a in P a l e s t i n e . Zeitsch. f . K. G., x v i i i , ( 1 8 9 8 ) p . 321 it seq. T h e y are held by S c h u l t z o : Zeitsch. f . K. G., x i v ( 1 8 9 4 ) , p . 527 et seq., to be f o r g e r i e s by a later hand than E u s e b i u s ' , l a r g e l y because ( 1 ) the f o r m e r does not c o r r e s p o n d

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[40

authentic copies, the f o r m e r w i t h the e m p e r o r ' s signature and the latter entirely in his o w n handwriting. If these are genuine they show that Constantine was at this t i m e ' a most zealous Christian, filled with missionary zeal, but determined not to use legal force in the conversion of pagans. M a n y laws were undoubtedly issued after 323 conferring special privileges upon Christian churches and Christian priests. 1 F r o m all these special privileges heretics were expressly debarred. 3 Cities which became with what one would expect it to be from the context, ii, 20-23; ( 2 ) the latter misstates Constantine's age (Constantine says he was a boy, i. e. under 14, at the beginning of the Diocletian persecution in 303, which in spite of S e e c k ' s contrary opinion seems impossible, cf. Eusebius, op. cit., ii, 51; i, 8, 1; (3) both contain many improbabilities, contradicting other information and other parts of Eusebius' writings; (4) both are of a nature and style foreign to imperial decrees. It is hard to see how they can safely be used as authoritative documents. 1

After his victory over Licinius.

" Neque vulgari consensu neque quibuslibet petentibus sub specie clericorum a numeribus publicis vacatio deferatur, nec temere et citra modum populi clericis connectantur, sed cum defunctus fuerit clericus, ad vicem defuncti alius allegetur, cui nulla ex municipibus prosapia fuerit neque ea est opulentia facultatum, quae publicas functiones facillime queat tolerare, ita ut, si inter civitatem et clericos super alicujus nomine dubitetur, si eum aequitas ad publica trahat obsequia, et progenie tnuniceps vel patrimonio idoneus dinoscetur, exemptus clericis civitati tradatur. Opulentos enim saeculi subire necessitates oportet, pauperes ecclesiarum divitiis sustentari." Cod. Theod., xvi, 2, 6 (June 1. 326). " Lectores divinorum apicum et hypodiacone ceterique clerici, qui per injuriam haereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt, absolvantur et de cetero ad similitudinem Orientis minime ad curias devocentur, sed immunitate plenissima potiantur." Cod. Theod., xvi, 2, 7 (Feb. 5, 330). 1

" " Privilegia, quae contemplatione religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observationibus prodesse oportet. Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non solum ab his privileges alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et subjici." Cod. Theod., x v i , 5, 1 (Sept. 1, 326).

4i]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS AND

WRITINGS

41

exclusively Christian w e r e granted special imperial favors. 1 A law of 326, o r about that year, conferred remarkable civil functions on the church organization, and m a r k s one of the most important of the steps by which, in the Middle A g e s , it came to dominate and o v e r s h a d o w the state. L i t i g a n t s were allowed to bring suits before bishops and even to transfer them thither f r o m the civil judges. T h e decision of the bishop was to be recognized by government officials as legal and binding. T h e law thus made the bishop a final court, open apparently to any one, whether Christian or not, w h o chose to cite his opponent before him. I t not only g a v e legal authority to the j u d g m e n t which ecclesiastical authorities m i g h t pronounce in quarrels between Christians, quarrels which, from the days of S t . Paul they had been u r g e d to keep within the church so as to avoid the scandal of suits in pagan c o u r t s , 7 but it went far beyond that. It created episcopal courts with far-reaching powers, parallel to, and independent of, the secular courts. I t was a recognition of the church, f r a u g h t with tremendous consequences f o r the future. 3 '' Novatianos non adeo comperimus praedamnatos, ut his quae petiverunt crederemus minime largienda. Itaque ecclesiae suae domos et loca sepulcris apta sine inquietudine eos firmiter possidere praecipimus, ea scilicet, quae ex diuturno tempore vel ex empto habuerunt vel qualibet quaesiverunt ratione. Sane providendum erit, ne quid sibiusurpare conentur ex his, quae ante discidium ad ecclesiae perpetuae sanctitatis pertinuisse manifestum e s t . " Cod. Theod., xvi, 5, 2 (Sept. 25, 326). 1

Corpus Inscriptionum Constantine, iv, 37-39.

Latinarum,

iii, 7000.

Cf. Eusebius, Life of

* 1 Cor., vi, 1 -7. ' " J u d e x pro sua sollicitudine observare debebit, ut, si ad episcopate judicium provocetur, silentium accomodetur et, si quis ad legem Christianam negotium transferre voluerit et illud judicium observare, audiatur, etiamsi negotium apud judicem sit inchoatum, et pro sanctis

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[42

A considerable b o d y of humanitarian legislation shows probably an increasing Christian influence upon C o n stantine." In his earlier rule in Gaul, t h o u g h he was extolled by his heathen panegyrist, Eumenius," as one so habeatur, quidquid ab his fuerit judicatum: ita t a m c n , ne usurpetur in eo, ut unus ex litigantibus pergat ad supra dictum auditorium et arbitrium suum enuntiet. Judex enim praesentis causae integre habere debet arbitrium, ut omnibus accepto latis p r o n u n t i e t . " Cod. Theod., i, 27, 1 (June 23, * * * ) . T h i s law of C o n s t a n t i n e ' s , though the absence of one of the consuls' names leads to the year being omitted in the edition of M o m m s e n and M e y e r , must have been issued about 326, as it is dated at Constantinople, and Crispus was one of the consuls. The building of Constantinople could hardly have been begun much before this, and Crispus was executed that year. Cf. also Constitutiones Sirmondianae for law of May 5, 333. " * * * Itaque quia a nobis instrui voluisti, olim promulgatae legis ordinem salubri rursus imperio propagamus. S a n x i m u s namque, sicut edicti nostri forma declarat, sententias episcoporum quolibet generc latas sine aliqua aetatis discretione inviolatas semper incorruptasque servari; scilicet ut pro sanctis semper ac venerabilibus habeantur, quidquid episcoporum fuerit sententia t e r m i n a t u m . Sivc itaque inter minores sive inter majores ab episcopis fuerit judicatum, apud vos, qui judicio r u m summam tenetis, et apud ceteros onines judices ad exsecutioncni volumus pertinere. Q u i c u m q u e itaque litem hahens, sive possessor sive petitor vel inter initia litis vel decursis tcmporum curriculis, sive cum negotium peroratur, sive cum jam coeperit promi sententia, judicium elcgerit sacrosanctae legis antistitis, ilico sine aliqua dubitatione, ctiamsi alia pars refragatur, ad episcopum personae litigantium dirigantur. Multa enim, quae in judicio captiosa praescriptionis vincula promi non patiuntur, investigat et publicat sacrosanctae religionis auctoritas. O m n c s itaque causae, quae vel praetorio jure vel civili tractantur, episcoporum sententius terminatae perpetuo stabilitatis jure firmcntur, nec liceat ulterius retractari negotium, quod episcoporum sententia deciderit. T e s t i m o n i u m etiam ab uno licet episcopo perhibitum o m n i s judex indubitanter accipiat nec alius audiatur testis, cum testimonium episcopi a qualibet parte fuerit r e p r o m i s s u m , " etc. Cod. 'l'heod., ed., M o m m s e n and M e y e r , vol. i, part 2, pp. 907-908. 1 F o r other contributing factors, ct. A . C . M c G i f f e r t , " T h e Influence of Christianity on the R o m a n E m p i r e , " Harvard Theological Review, ii, pp. 28-49 (Jan., 1909).

' I n 310, Paneg., chap. 14, M i g n e : Patrologia (In Paneg. Vet. this is Paneg., no. vii).

Latinae,

viii, col. 633

43]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS AND

WRITINGS

f o r m e d b y n a t u r e and r e a r i n g t h a t he c o u l d n o t be cruel, lie is p i c t u r e d as e n d i n g b a r b a r i a n w a r s b y the e x e c u t i o n of c a p t u r e d k i n g s and the w h o l e s a l e d e s t r u c t i o n of priso n e r s in g l a d i a t o r i a l s h o w s . ' I n his later c a r e e r , h o w ever, he l e g i s l a t e d a g a i n s t g l a d i a t o r i a l s h o w s , ' and in f a v o r of b e t t e r t r e a t m e n t of p r i s o n e r s . 3 H e also c o m m a n d e d milder t r e a t m e n t of slaves than w a s c u s t o m a r y in earlier l a w s , and e n c o u r a g e d their m a n u m i s s i o n . 4 B r a n d i n g of c r i m i n a l s , f o r i n s t a n c e , w a s t o be u p o n the h a n d , so that the f a c e , m a d e in the i m a g e of heavenly b e a u t y , s h o u l d n o t be m a r r e d . I n the l a w s of the y e a r s 3 1 9 and 3 2 6 , d e a l i n g w i t h s l a v e r y , the d i s t i n c t i o n m a d e b e t w e e n the death of a slave t h r o u g h c r u e l t y and a b u s e and his d e a t h r e s u l t i n g f r o m p u n i s h m e n t of m i s c o n d u c t is the decisive n o t e and an i m p r o v e m e n t o v e r p r e v i o u s l e g i s l a t i o n , even t h o u g h the l a w e x p r e s s l y e x e m p t e d the m a s t e r f r o m p e n a l t y in the latter i n s t a n c e . 5 T h e r e w e r e edicts issued also in f a v o r of w i d o w s and o r p h a n s and the p o o r , 6 edicts e n c o u r a g i n g the f r e e i n g of slaves, and 1 Ibid., chaps. 10, u \ Incerii Paneg. (Treves, 313), chap.23;in Migne, P. L., viii, col. 622 et seq.; 670-671 resp.

' " Cruenta spectacula in otio civili et domestica quiete non placet. Quapropter, qui omnino gladiatores esse prohibemus eos, qui forte delictorum causa hanc condicionem adque sententiam mereri consueverant, metallo magis facies inservire, ut sine sanguine suorum sederunt poenas agnoscant." Cod. Theod., xv, 12, 1 (Oct. i, 325). Cf. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iv, 25. 1

Cod.

Theod., ix, 3, 1 (320); ix, 3, 2 (326); xi, 7, 3 (320).

'Cod.

Theod., ii, 8, 1 (321); iv, 7, 1 (321); iv,8, 5 (322),and 6 (323).

'Cod. Theod., ix, 12, 1 (May n , 319); and 2 (April 18, 326). Seeck: Untergang, etc., i, 468, 478.

Cf.

'Cod. Theod., i, 22,2 (June 17, 334); iii, 30, 1 (Mar. 26, 314); 2 (Feb. 3. 3i6[323]); 3 (Mar. 15, 326); 4 (Aug. 1, 331); 5 (April 18, 333); ix, 21, 4 (May 4, 329); ix, 42, 1 (Feb. 27, 321). Cf. Eusebius, Life of Constantine, i, 43, 2; iv, 28. Athanasius Apologia contra Arium, 18.

CONSTANTINE forbidding

the

AND CHRISTIANITY

exposing

of

children

to

[44 get

rid

of

them. 1 Constantine also issued a number of laws against

im-

morality and immoral religious rites, laws p r o v i d i n g f o r and r e g u l a t i n g the punishment of adultery, and a law prohibiting the c u s t o m of c o n c u b i n a g e , ' at that time not generally church.

condemned These

in s y m p a t h y ,

b y public

sentiment

outside

the

laws m a y reasonably be inferred to be

at

least,

with

the

opinion

of

Christian

specifically

Christian

leaders and advisers of the e m p e r o r . An

interesting

and

apparently

turn is found in s o m e laws directed against the One

edict

early

in C o n s t a n t i n e ' s

reign

decrees

Jews. that

J e w s o r their elders o r patriarchs w h o stone a c o n v e r t t o Christianity

(ad D e i c u l t u m )

or o t h e r w i s e

maltreat

him shall be burned, with all their associates in the act. 3 1

Cod. Theod., v, 9, 1 (April 17, 331); xi, 27, 1 (May 13, 315). 2 (July 6, 322). ' T h e law of 326 (de concub., Cod. Just., v, 26, 1), forbids a man to have a concubine if his wife is alive. Cf. D. S. Schaff, Concubinage " (Christian), in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, iii, 817 (1911). Ct. P. Meyer, Der römische Konkubinat, (1895). Cod. Theod., i, 22, 1 (Jan. n , 316); ii, 17, 1 (April 9, 321 [324]); iii, 16, i (331); iv, 6, 2 (April 29, 336) This law, however, was aimed especially at the illegitimate son of Licinius. iv, 6, 3 (July 21, 336); 8, 7 (Feb. 28, 331); 12. 1 [ = i i . i Haenel] (April 1, 314); 12, 4 [ = 1 1 , 5 Haenel] (Oct. 6, 331); ix, I, 1 (Dec. 4, 316-7); 7, 2 (April 25, 326); 8, I (April 4, 326 [?]); 9, I (May 29, 326); 24, 1 (April 1, 320); 38, I (Oct. 30, 322); xii, 1, 6 (July 1, 319). Judaeis et majoribus eorum et patriarchis volumus intimari, quod, si quis post hanc legem aliquem qui eorum feralem fugerit sectam et ad dei cultum respexerit, saxis aut alio furoris genere, quod nunc fieri cognovimus, ausus fuerit adtemptare, mox flam mis dedendus est et cum omnibus suis participibus concremandus. 1. Si quis vero ex populo ad eorum nefariam sectam accesserit et conciliabulis eorum se adplicaverit, cum ipsis poenas meritas sustinebit." Cod. Theod., xvi, 8, 1 (Oct. 18, 315)A later injunction against Jew s molesting in any way converts to

45]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS AND

WRITINGS

Another law forbade a Jew to hold a Christian in servitude.' Any fair summary of Constantine's legislation during the period of his sole emperorship, that is, during the last thirteen years of his life, would show that it was more favorable to Christianity than his earlier legislation, and more alien to paganism. Much of it seems specifically Christian. None of Constantine's later laws justify the theory of Burckhardt, that to the last he remained disposed to balance favors to the Christians with concessions to the pagan element. The law quoted by Burckhardt in favor of certain sacerdotales and ftamines perpetui in Africa, seems merely to guarantee the continuance of their legal and social privileges even after they had ceased to perform any religious functions.* 2.

Coinage

The extant coinage of Constantine is considerable, even after deducting a large number of spurious coins and medals.3 Many of his coins bear pagan symbols and Christianity is given in Cod. Theod., xvi, 8, 5 (Oct. 22, 335), " E u m , qui ex Judaeo Christianus factus est, inquietare Judaeos non liceat vel aliqua pulsare injuria, pro qualitate commissi istiusmodi contumelia punienda." 1 Cod. Theod., x v i , 9 , 1 (Oct. 21, 335). Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iv, 27. For another law directed toward the Jews, cf. Cod. Theod., xvi, 8, 3 (Dec. 1 1 , 321). "'Sacerdotales et flamines perpetuos atque etiam duumvirales ab annonarum praepositnris inferioribusque muneribus inmunes esse praecipimus. Quod ut perpétua observatione firmetur, legem hanc incisam aeneis tabulis jussimus publicare." Cod. Theod., xii, 5, 2 (May 21, 337). Cf. Aurel. Victor, Caesars, 40. Cf. also, Schultze, Zeitsch. f . K. G., vii, p. 369, where it is shown that men of these orders openly declared themselves in inscriptions to be Christians. 1 For full discussion see Jules Maurice, Numismatique Constantinienne, vol. i, 1908, still in progress, and H. Cohen: Description des Monnaies frappées sous I'Empire romain, communément appelées

46

CON STAN

TINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[46

inscriptions such as " Soli Invicti C o m i t i , " t h o u g h the estimate of these by B u r c k h a r d t 1 and others seems to be a gross exaggeration. "Hercules conservator," " M a r s c o n s e r v a t o r , " " V i c t o r i a , " and similar dedications o c c u r m o r e or less f r e q u e n t l y . 1 T h e title " P o n t i f e x M a x i m u s " occasionally o c c u r s , s o m e t i m e s with a veiled figure representing Constantine as such. B u t inferences from this must not be carried t o o far, f o r s u c c e e d i n g Christian e m p e r o r s also b o r e the title. O n the other hand s o m e coins show Constantine looking up as if in prayer. 3 T h e s e coins first appear about 3 2 5 . T h e y c o r r e s p o n d in a general way with E u s e b i u s ' reference to them as tokens of the e m p e r o r ' s constant practice of p r a y e r 4 and may be u n d e r s t o o d as an indication of C o n s t a n t i n e ' s p r o f e s s e d piety. 5 C o i n s and medals, one minted at C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , with Constantine's name, and the reverse s h o w i n g a veiled figure in a f o u r h o r s e chariot ascending t o w a r d a hand outstretched f r o m a b o v e need not necessarily be taken as a reflection of Medailtes imperiales edited and continued by Feuardent, 8vols., second ed., Paris, 1880-1802. For list of older discussions, cf. Richardson's bibliography in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. i, p. 445 et seg. For shorter discussions see Schiller: Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, vol. ii, 207, 219; O . Sccck in Zeitschrift fur Numismatik, xxi (1898), pp. 17-65, and Schultze in Zeitsch. {. K. G., xiv (1894), pp. 504-510. 1 Zeit Const, d. G . , p. 3 7 1 , " S o l i Invicti C o m i t i " on (our out of five.

' G r i s a r , in Zeitsch. f . Kath. Theol., vi, p. 600 et seq., maintains that many of these figures generally assumed to be gods are mere personifications of Constantine's greatness and victories, and cites one of them which has on the reverse an indubitable Christian emblem. ' F o r prints of these see Cohen, op. cit., vii, pp. 240, 256, 3 1 1 , 400. 4

Life of Constantine,

' S c h u l t z e , in Zeitsch.

iv, 15. f . K. G., xiv (1894), p. 504 et seg.

4 7

]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

47

Elijah's translation." They may represent the apotheosis of the emperor, as similar coins are said to have been made for his father, Constantius, who was not a Christian. Schiller's summary of Constantine's coinage is suggestive, and the gradual development which he finds seems justified, though his insistence upon the ambiguity of signs generally accepted as Christian betrays a strong bias in favor of his theory that Constantine tried to straddle between Christianity and paganism. He shows that in Constantine's western mints coins' appear with Mars, genius pop. Rom. and with Sol invictus\ that the first two ceased in 3 1 5 or earlier, and that the last disappeared, perhaps by 3 1 5 , at any rate before 323. Coins with Juppiter stamped on them were not issued in the west but in the east from the mints of Licinius. Gradually non-commital legends, such as Beata tranquillitas took the place of pagan inscriptions. Finally coins with the monogram were issued, and toward the end of Constantine's life series were issued showing soldiers bearing the labarum with this monogram. 3.

Inscriptions

T w o inscriptions have been the center of controversy in connection with Constantine's position in religious matters, one on his triumphal arch at Rome, and the other at a building in Hispellum. The middle panels of the attic, on both the north and the south side of the Arch of Constantine, above the 1

See Schultze.

* R o m a n imperial coinage usually bore a well-defined clue to the mint that put it out. 1

In some instances this was a sign of the mint. infra, p. 77 et seq.

F o r this sign, cf~

8

CONSTANTINE

4

central

passageway,

AND CHRISTIANITY

bear

the

following

[48

dedicatory

in-

scription : IMP . CAES . FL . CONSTANTINO MAXIMO P . F . AVGVSTO . S . P . Q . R . QVOD INSTINCTV DIVINITATIS MENTIS M A G N I T V D I N E C V M EXERCITV SVO TAM D E T Y R A N N O QVAM DEOMNI EIVS FACTIONEVNOTEMPOREIVSTIS R E M P V B L I C A M V L T V S E S T ARMIS ARCVM TRIVMPHIS INSIGNEM DICAVIT o r in f u l l , m o d e r n f o r m : " Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) F(lavio) Constantino M a x i m o P(io)

F(elici)

R(omanus)

Augusto

quod

S(enatus)

instinctu

P(opulus)

divinitatis

mentis

tudine c u m e x e r c i t u s u o t a m de t y r a n n o q u a m eius factione u n o t e m p o r e

iustis

stantius

" To

the

Maximus,

Emperor,

Pius, Felix,

magnide

omni

rempublicam ultus

armis arcum triumphis insignem dicavit." translated:

q(ue)

est

This may be

Caesar

Flavius

Augustus,

Con-

inasmuch

b y his divine inspiration and his g r e a t

mind, with

h e l p of h i s a r m y , h e h a s j u s t l y a v e n g e d

the republic

as the at

the same time u p o n the tyrant and upon his entire party, the Senate and the R o m a n P e o p l e do dedicate this arch notable for t r i u m p h s . " This

inscription,

Maxentius year

(312),

315, the

title M a x i m u s .

date

commemorating

the

victory

over

is a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y a s s i g n e d t o

the

of C o n s t a n t i n e ' s a s s u m p t i o n of

the

T h e a r c h is g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e d t o

have

b e e n e r e c t e d b e t w e e n 3 1 2 a n d 3 1 5 , in l a r g e p a r t o u t of materials taken f r o m other monumental works, especially f r o m w o r k s of T r a j a n a n d o t h e r e m p e r o r s of t h e s e c o n d century.

T h e theory that the arch was constructed

in

Trajan's time and w o r k e d over for Constantine's benefit h a s b e e n a d v o c a t e d at v a r i o u s t i m e s .

Strong arguments

a g a i n s t t h i s t h e o r y w e r e a d v a n c e d b y s u c h a u t h o r i t i e s as

49]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

Bunsen 1 and Nibby.* D e Rossi, also, who made a careful examination in 1863, when Napoleon I I I had plaster casts made of parts of the arch, reported that the dedicatory inscription quoted above was carved in marble blocks, which were an integral part of the structure itself, and that there was every indication that it was the original and the only inscription ever carved there. 3 Lanciani, after examination of the staircase and rooms in the attic, pronounced the inside of the structure to be built with a great variety of materials taken from monuments belonging to the Fabii and to the Arruntii. H e pronounced the bricks, however, contemporary with Constantine. 4 Recently, A . L . Frothingham, whose Monuments of Christian Rome (1908) described the arch as erected in the time of Constantine, has argued that it was originally erected in the time of Domitian, that it was afterwards " undedicated " and mutilated, that it was used in the third century as a sort of imperial " triumphal bulletin-board," and that its " Odyssey " ended with its final dedication to Constantine. 5 He bases his new opinion (1) on the well-know frequency with which Domitian had arches erected; (2) on the bas-relief from the mausoleum of the Haterii showing an unidentified monument where the A r c h of Constantine now stands— between the Arch of Titus and the Colosseum, and facing the latter; (3) on the decree of memoriae damnatio passed against Domitian after his death; (4) on the fact 1 Beschreibung

der Siadt Rom (1837), vol. iii, part i.

' Roma nell'anno MDCCCXXXVIII

(1838), part i, p. 443 et seq.

*Bullettino di Archeologia cristiana del Cav. G. B. de Rossi ( R o m e ) , I, No. 7 (July, 1863); No. 8 ( A u g . , 1863), Miscellaneous (1863). 4

The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome (1897), pp. 191-192.

'Century Magazine, vol. l x x x v , pp. 449-455 (Jan., 1913). D

50

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[50

that t r i u m p h s w e r e g r a n t e d and arches built f o r victories o v e r f o r e i g n f o e s alone, not f o r victories in civil w a r s ; ( 5 ) on the phrase in the inscription quoted above, " arcum triumphis insignem d i c a v i t , " which he translates, " d o dedicate herewith . . . this arch, f a m o u s f o r its triumphs ; " (6) on his belief that the set of eight medallions o v e r the smaller p a s s a g e w a y s r e p r e s e n t i n g hunting scenes are in the style of D o m i t i a n and w e r e part of the original decoration, while the rest of the ornamentation was inserted l a t e r ; ( 7 ) and on the " s e r i e s of eight niches with half-figures of e m p e r o r s being c r o w n e d by v i c t o r i e s " under the t w o smaller arcades. T h i s a r g u ment as a w h o l e seems plausible, but is by no means convincing. T h e connection of the first three points with the A r c h of C o n s t a n t i n e is purely speculative, the second one b e i n g also w e a k e n e d by the fact that the unidentified arch on the H a t e r i a n bas-relief, which F r o t h i n g h a m identifies as an arch of D o m i t i a n later converted into the A r c h of C o n s t a n t i n e , plainly represents a s t r u c ture with o p e n i n g s on all f o u r sides ( q u a d r a f r o n s ) a f f o r d i n g p a s s a g e w a y not only f r o m north t o south, but f r o m east to w e s t ; quite a d i f f e r e n t structure f r o m the one w e are considering. T h e f o u r t h point, while well taken, is not c o n c l u s i v e ; there may well have been e x c e p t i o n in the fourth c e n t u r y , and the a r g u m e n t would tell as effectively a g a i n s t the dedication of an old triumphal arch as against the erection of a new one. T h e fifth, s i x t h and seventh points involve question of interpretation of literary and archaeological evidence, in which the w e i g h t of opinion is against M r . F r o t h i n g h a m . Moreo v e r , the h i s t o r y of the arch as he reconstructs it would certainly be unique in the R o m a n empire, involving more difficulties than does the g e n e r a l l y accepted account. 1 1

F o r the A r c h of C o n s t a n t i n e , in addition to the w o r k s cited above,

]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

-!

Our interest, however, is in the dedicatory inscription. It will be seen that this ascribes Constantine's victory partly to his army, but primarily to the prompting of divinity and his greatness of mind, " Instinctu Divinitatis Mentis Magnitudine." The phrase is colorless and absolutely indecisive as between paganism and Christianity. It does not even necessarily refer to any special manifestation of providence, pagan or Christian. Victories have in all times been ascribed to divine favor irrespective of the religion involved and even of the circumstances of the battle. Constantine's earlier triumphs in Gaul had long before this been ascribed by pagan panegyrists to something like " instinctus divinitatis, mentis magnitudo." 1 T h e monotheism of the conqueror may be inferred from the inscription, since if Constantine had been a pagan of the old type there would probably have been specific reference to Jupiter, Apollo or some other pagan deity. One would infer, also, that he was not at this time a zealous Christian, nor thought to be such, otherwise some distinctively Christian phrase would have been used. I t is possible, however, that the indefiniteness of the phrase represents the thought of the pagan Senate rather than the emperor's attitude. T h e matter has been complicated by the theory that " instinctu divinitatis " was not the original inscription, but a correction carved later over the original phrase. cf. Jordan, Topographic der Stadt Rom im AMerlum, ed. Huelsen (Berlin, 1907), vol. i, part 3, pp. 45 et seq.; H . Grisar, Geschichte Roms (1901), vol. i, p. 172.; E . Petersen, Vom allem Rom (Leipsic, 1 9 1 1 ) , p. 66 et seq. Photographs of the Arch and other reproductions have been frequently published. Detailed descriptions with excellent photographic reproductions are given by J . Leufkens in Konstaniin der Grosse u. seine Zeit, ed. by Dolger, pp. 161-216, and plates iii, iv, v, vi. 1

Cf. infra,

p. 131 et seq.

CONSTANTINE

52

AND

CHRISTIANITY

It has even been asserted that the original inscription was N V T V . I. O. M . , " " at the nod of Jupiter Optimus Maximus."* This theory, however, seems utterly untenable. The spacing of the inscription would be very peculiar, indeed, if such a phrase had really been a part of it, and close study of the attic of the A r c h seems to afford no grounds for assuming that the inscription ever contained other words than are now to be seen in it. * In the ruins of a building in the little Umbrian city of Hispellum an inscription 3 recites that the emperor granted a petition for the erection of a temple in honor of the gens Flavia to which he belonged, for the celebration there of certain festal performances with the stipulation that the temple was not to be polluted with the frauds of tainted superstition, " ne aedis nostro nomini dedicata cuitisquam contagiosae superstitionis fraudibus polluatur. " In spite of Burckhardt's opinion to the contrary, 4 this probably meant the prohibition of pagan rites, and the building was intended apparently, not as a place of worship, but as a place for game and other celebrations, including, it must be admitted, gladiatorial s h o w s . 5 A third inscription 6 shows that privileges were given to localities on account of all their inhabitants being 1 For full assertion of this theory and references, see Burckhardt, Zeit Constantins d. Grossen, pp. 34.1-344, 475-6. 1 Cf. supra, p. 49; also Seeck, Gesch. d. Untergangs dtr antiken Well., i, p. 491; Dessau, 694; K e i m , Der Uebertritl Constantins, d. G. zum Christentum.

'Ascribed to 336-337 A . D . , Dessau 7 0 5 ; Orelli 5580; printed in Muratori Inscr. iii p. 1791 as spurious, but now generally accepted as genuine. ,

Zeil

5

Constanlins

d. G. p. 382.

C f . S e e c k : Gesch. d. Untergangs

d. antiken

Well, i, 471.

* C. I. L, iii 7000 " quibus omnibus quasi quidam cumulus accedit quod omnes ibidem sectatores sanctissimae religionis habitare dicantur. "

53]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

53

" adherents of ( o u r ) most sacred r e l i g i o n . " Taken with Eusebius' a c c o u n t ' of special honor being shown Gaza and a town in Phoenicia on the same ground, this is proof of the emperor's active interest in, and association with Christianity after he became sole emperor. 4. Writings A s i d e from coins ajid inscriptions a considerable body of direct evidence on Constantine's religion has been preserved, chiefly by Eusebius, in the form of speeches and letters attributed to him. 2 T h e longest of these is the Easter sermon, or " Oration of the Emperor Constantine to the Assembly of the Saints," which Eusebius appended to his Life of Constantine as a sample of the discourses which he says Constantine was in the habit of delivering to the court and even to the public. 3 This is held by Schultze, 4 chiefly on the ground of contradictions which it involves to Eusebius' narrative, and some close, even verbal resemblances to Lactantius, to be not a speech of the emperor's, but some Latin document copied by Eusebius. Since Eusebius did not hear the speech and was only at rare intervals at the court, 5 such a mistake was within the realm of possibility. But I am inclined to think that its obvious dependence upon Lactantius and its variations from Eusebius' own statements, 6 do not militate against the speech being Con1

Life of Constantine,

iv, 37, 38.

• F o r lists, with comments, see Richardson's " P r o l e g o m e n a " in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. i, Eusebius, pp. 436-439. Cf. also infra, p. 109 et seq. For imperfect and uncritical edition of Constantine's Works, cf. Migne, P. L., vol. viii, 93-581. * Life of Constantine, * Zeitsch.

iv, 29-32.

f. K. G., viii (1886), p. 541 et seq.

* Life of Constantine,

iv, 33; 39; 46.

* Eg. Lactantius, Divine

Institutes,

i, 4-7, iv, 18-19, and Constantine,

54

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[54

stantine's. Lactantius, as the tutor of the emperor's sons and a member of his household, probably influenced his religious conceptions as much as any one else, certainly more than Eusebius. Constantine may well not only have read his writings, but also have used them without acknowledgment in his speeches. Indeed, Lactantius may have written the speech for the emperor to deliver. Many letters purporting to be Constantine's have been preserved, some in Eusebius' Church History, more in his Life of Constantine, and a few elsewhere. Those whose genuineness is practically unquestioned, and those which are in doubt, do not vary greatly in tone. They are characterized by a loose, difficult style, in many cases made worse by translation from Latin into Greek. 1 If we restrict ourselves to those whose genuineness there is no reason for questioning, we get a picture of one on terms of official intimacy with the leading bishops, writing as one personally interested in the welfare of the church, and as a believer in its teachings. From a theological point of view they expound a somewhat vague Oration to the Saints, c h a p s , x v i i i - x x i , maintain that the S i b y l and o t h e r h e a t h e n sources foretold the C h r i s t i a n revelation and C h r i s t , w h i l e Eusebius, Oration in Praise of Constantine, chap, ix, e x p r e s s l y declared they did n o t . 1 A m o n g the most i m p o r t a n t in Eusebius, not mentioned in the discussion of l e g i s l a t i o n , are the f o l l o w i n g : Church History, x , 5, 1S-21; 21-24; Life of Constantine, ii, 46; 64-72; iii, 17-20; 30-32; 42; 52-53; 60; 61; 62; i v , 36. A t h a n a s i u s g i v e s several b e a r i n g on himself and the A r i a n c o n t r o v e r s y ; e.g. Apol. contra Ar., l i x ; l x , l x i ; lxii; l x v i i i ; l x x ; l x x x v i . A u g u s t i n e , also, Ep., I x x x v i i i . Gelasius of C y z i c u s g i v e s several letters, the g e n u i n e n e s s of w h i c h is open to question, in his History of the Council of Nicea (in L a b b e , Concilia, 2 ( 1 6 7 1 ) , pp. 103-286). F o r a list of 44 letters, not i n c l u d i n g all the above and g i v i n g some front other sources, cf. R i c h a r d s o n , P r o l e g o m e n a , in Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, S e c o n d S e r i e s , vol. i, Eusebius, pp. 436-439.

55]

CONSTANTINE'S

LAWS

AND

WRITINGS

monotheism linked rather clumsily t o a revelation in Christ which is represented in the organized church. The Christian church, and Christians, are therefore the representatives and the p r o t é g é s of God. Immortality is occasionally emphasized, but there is little a t t e m p t after, or feeling for, those teachings and experiences, which in all ages have constituted the highest types of Christianity. The most characteristic passages, varying phases of the dominant note, are those in which Constantine speaks of the favor of God as the source of his own great achievements and success. " I myself, then, was the instrument whose services he chose, and esteemed suited for the accomplishment of his will. Accordingly, beginning at the remote Brittanic ocean, t h r o u g h the aid of divine power I banished and utterly removed every form of evil which prevailed." ' " B u t now that liberty is restored, and that serpent, [Licinius, Constantine's brother-in-law] driven from the administration of public affairs by the providence of God, and our instrumentality, we must trust that all can see the efficacy of the Divine p o w e r . " 1 " U n d e r thy guidance have I devised and accomplished measures f r a u g h t with blessings : preceded by the sacred sign I have led thy armies to victory. * * * F o r thy name I truly love, while I regard with reverence that power of which thou has given abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith. " 3 1

Eusebius : Life of Constantine,

'Ibid

ii, 28, quoting Constantine.

ii, 46.

1 Ibid ii, 55 Cf. Oration of Constantine to the Assembly of the Saints, (his Easter sermon) appended to the Life of Constantine, chap. 22, 1; chap. 26. Also Eusebius : Church History x, 7, 1 and 2.

CHAPTER

III

I M P E R I A L P A T R O N A G E OF C H R I S T I A N I T Y ; A T T I T U D E T O W A R D PAGANISM

i. Church

Building

ASIDE f r o m legislation and other evidence already cited, many phases of imperial patronage of religion are disclosed by writers of Constantine's time.

T h u s , in the erection of

buildings, in the entourage of the court, and in the attitude of contemporary Christian and pagan leaders, one can trace the dominance of one or another religious influence. Constantine followed the example of many of his predecessors in erecting innumerable buildings.

Early

in his

career, in Gaul, he rebuilt the public structures of A u t u n . 1 N a z a r i u s extolled his building as well as his restoration of order in R o m e immediately a f t e r the victory o v e r M a x e n tius. 1

H i s friendly attitude t o w a r d Christianity w a s , there-

fore, naturally shown in the erection of churches.

Eusebius

abounds in sweeping statements of wholesale erection of Christian memorials, basilicas and churches throughout the empire.' Zosimus, the pagan historian, with characteristic spleen, tells of his w a s t i n g public money on many useless buildings, 1 Cf. the panegyric of Eumenius (310) at Treves, chap. 22, and the oration of formal thanks the following year, Migne, P. L^ viii, cols. 639. 641. 2Panegyricus

of 321, Migne, P. L., viii, col. 60s et seq. (chap. 33).

' Cf. Oration in Praise of Constantine, chaps. 9 et seq.; Life of ttantine, i, 42; ii, 45 and 46; iii, I, 47 and 50. 56 [56

Con-

37]

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF

CHRISTIANITY

some of which were so badly constructed that they had to be torn down. T h e Theodosian Code bears testimony to his zeal f o r building, at the time of the rearing of many structures in Constantinople, by his instructions for establishing schools of architecture. 1 Many important church structures were, beyond reasonable doubt, built by him or through his influence, and by members of his family. 2 Most of our information about churches built in the eastern part of the empire comes from Eusebius' Life of Constantine. Aside from general statements about the zeal of the emperor and of his mother, Helena, in this cause the biographer refers specifically to the following: the Church of the Sepulchre® and its adjacent basilica, in Jerusalem; a church on the Mount of Olives, 4 a basilica in Bethlehem 6 and at Mamre; * a church at Heliopolis, 7 at Antioch, 8 at Nicomedia;* the Church of the Twelve Apostles at Constantinople, 10 in which Constantine's own sepulchral monument was built. Of most of these Eusebius gives a glowing description, and in the case of the Church of the Sepulchre at Jerusalem and the Church of the Twelve Apostles at Constantinople, he gives a detailed and elaborate account. These two, and the church at 1

xiii, 4, i.

3

Ciampini, De sacris aedificiis a Constantino Magno constructis synopiis historia, Rome, 1693, is still one of the chief sources of information about these, though his identifications are not always accepted by modern archaeologists. * iii, 25-40; cf. also Anonymi itinerants 333, Migne, P. L., vol. viii, col. 791.

(Bordeaux pilgrim), A. D.

«iii, 41-43; cf. also Bordeaux pilgrim, loc. cit. 'Ibid. Cf. Bordeaux pilgrim, col. 792. • iii, 51-53; cf. also Bordeaux pilgrim, loc. cit. ' iii, 58. •Ibid.

' iii, 5a 10

iv, 58-60.

58

C0NSTANT1NE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[58

Antioch must have been magnificent and costly structures. One of Eusebius' continuators, Socrates, w h o spent a large part of his life in Constantinople, tells of another church in that city named Irene ( P e a c e ) , which he says Constantine considerably enlarged and adorned. 1 It may originally have antedated Constantine at Byzantium, or may have been built in the first instance by the emperor, perhaps shortly a f t e r his victory over Licinius and the restoration of pcace to the empire. R o m e is the only city in the W e s t in which the erection of any particular churches can be assigned, on any considerable historical evidence, to Constantine and his family. E v e n here much is l e f t uncertain. H e unquestionably g a v e the bishop at R o m e at least the temporary use of the L a t e r a n palace, which had come into his possession through his w i f e , Fausta. In 3 1 3 Bishop Miltiades presided there over the well-known conference called at Constantine's direction to settle the incipient Donatist schism in A f r i c a . In connection with this palace, or out of part of it, Constantine built the basilica (and adjacent baptistery) which, under the name of the L a t e r a n , was to become f o r centuries the " mother and head of all the churches of the city and the w o r l d . " In early days it was called the Basilica of Constantine (not to be confused with the great civil basilica which, begun by Maxentius, was, a f t e r his defeat and death, finished by his conqueror, and became the basilica of Constantine), and in later days became St. J o h n of the Lateran, in honor of J o h n the Baptist. 2 N o vestige of its original features now remain. 1 2

Ecclesiastical

History,

ii, 1 6 ; i, 16, 2.

On this church, cf. Lanciani, Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, pp. 339-343; Frothingham, Monuments of Christian Rome, p. 24. Niebuhr, Vorträge über alte Länden u. Völkerkunde, p. 399, accepted Constantinian origin for the Lateran buildings alone. Gregorovius, Rome

59]

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF CHRISTIANITY

59

In the case of the Lateran, as of other churches which Constantine may have built or enlarged, the ecclesiastical structure must have been overshadowed by the magnificent buildings of ancient Rome with which it was surrounded. The Notitia which was edited about 330 and which enumerated the important public buildings of the city, did not mention a single Christian Church. 1 Eusebius, 'in connection with Rome, mentions only Constantine's benefactions to the churches; he names 110 churches which he built there, but refers only to his " enlarging and heightening " and " embellishing " the sacred structures. 2 Though Eusebius wrote with only a distant knowledge of Rome, his statement counts for something against the later extravagant traditions of Constantine's church building at Rome. The Liber Pontificalis, also, which, though compiled more than two hundred years after Constantine, embodied information from earlier documents, while it is full of descriptions of lavish embellishments and endowments, gives only a very modest list of churches as of Constantinian origin. 3 Another palace within the city walls, the Sessorian, apparently furnished room for an ecclesiastical structure by the conversion of its main hall into a church. This was the Jerusalem church, and later became the " Holy Cross in Jerusalem" (Santa Croce in Gcrusalemme), from the in the Middle Ages, i, pp. 88-95, a f t e r naming seven churches which tradition ascribes to Constantine, added: " W e can ascertain nothing definite of these buildings; and perhaps St. John Lateran alone owes its origin to the Emperor." 1

Cf. Frothingham, Monuments

' Life

of Constantine,

of Christian

Rome,

p. 3 1 .

i, 42.

* Cf. the account it gives of Sylvester's pontificate. Cf. also Duchcsne's discussion in the introduction of his edition of the Lib. Pont., vol. i, p. cxl et seq.

6Q

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[60

preservation in it of the principal relic of the True Cross. 1 A parish church inside the old city, that of Equitius, afterwards ¿"S". Silvestro e Martino at Monti, is claimed by the Liber Pontificalis for the episcopate of Sylvester, Constantine's contemporary, and its remains are so assigned by many archaeologists.2 If this be correct it was probably one of the beneficiaries of the emperor's generosity, even though the bishop of Rome was its builder. Outside the walls, according to the Liber Pontificalis, a large basilica of St. Peter was erected (on the Vatican Hill), a smaller basilica of St. Paul (on the Via Ostiensis), a basilica of St. Lawrence (on the V i a Tiburtina), a basilica of St. Agnes (on the V i a Nomentana), and one of SS. Marcellinus and Peter (on the Via Praenestina). The mausoleum of Constantina (incorrectly called Constantia) near the basilica of St. Agnes, was apparently used as the baptistery of the latter and should therefore be included in the list.3 While it is by no means certain that all of these buildings owed their origin to Constantine, his family, or pontiffs contemporary with him, such is the very general opinion of archaeologists and of church historians.* It is probable also that these and other churches received some, if by no means all, of the ornaments and endowments which later were described in such detail in the Liber Pontificalis. Though tradition has doubtless exaggerated the extent of Constantine's building, adorning and endowing of churches, 1 2

Cf. Frothingham, op. cit., p. 2 4 ; Lanciani, op. cil., pp. 397 et seq. F r o t h i n g h a m , op. cit., pp. 22-23.

* F o r a short account of all these buildings, cf. Frothingham, op. cit., pp. 24-31. 4 F o r short summaries o f Constantine's church building, cf. W . R. Lethaby and C. H . T u r n e r , in Cambridge Medieval History, vol. i, pp. 609-611, and 158 respectively. T h e argument that Constantine w a s at R o m e only at long intervals and f o r short stays does not, as is sometimes assumed, prove that he did not order extensive building there.

61]

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF CHRISTIANITY

61

it is not too much to say that he was in this regard not only the earliest, but one of the most profuse of imperial patrons of the church. 2. Constantine's

Actions

at Rome

In the campaign against Maxentius, Constantine made use of the cross and the monogram among his military insignia, perhaps as a result of a dream. 1 A f t e r his entry into Rome he is said to have erected in the city a statue of himself holding a cross in his hand, and inscribed with the following phrases, " B y this salutary sign, the true proof of bravery, I have saved and freed your city from the yoke of the tyrant," etc.2 These references in Eusebius are our only evidences and they have been questioned,' but their repetition by him in different circumstances, especially in the Church History and in the oration at T y r e in 314, has something of cumulative evidence. The probability of such a statue being erected is great, and is increased by the fact that Maxentius declared hostilities by overthrowing and defacing statues of Constantine at Rome. 4 I am therefore inclined to accept Eusebius' statements. T h e honor of apotheosis granted to Diocletian (soon a f t e r 3 1 3 ) probably by the Senate, is sometimes cited as evidence that Constantine was not a Christian at this time,® but not much weight ought to be attached to it. Rome was 1 F o r discussion of stories of Constantine's conversion in this connection, cf. infra, pp. 78 et seq.; 135 et seq. 2 Eusebius, Church History, ix, 9, 10; 11; x, 4, 16; Oration in Praise of Constantine, ix, 9, 18; Life of Constantine, i, 40.

' Cf. Brieger in Zeitsch. f. K. G. (1880), p. 45* Nazarius, Panegyricus

(321), chap. 12.

Cf. Burckhardt, Zeit Constantins d. G., p. 345. time this was done in the old pagan sense. 5

This was the last

62

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[62

still strongly pagan; the act was very natural, and probably a mere formality. On the other hand, Constantine, in the latter part of his reign, during his last visit to Rome, seems to have taken a definite stand against public ceremonies which involved recognition of the old gods. He refused on this occasion to lead the military procession of the equestrian order and present himself before the Jupiter of the Capitoline hill. 1 Something of a riot is said to have resulted from his defiance of the public sentiment which supported the ceremony. 3. Personal Favor Shown Churchmen and the Church Of great significance is the unquestioned fact that Constantine employed ( 3 1 7 ) a Christian rhetorician, the wellknown writer Lactantius, as the tutor of his sons, especially Crispus. All of his children were given a distinctively Christian education and the sons who succeeded him in imperial power carried out a decisively Christian policy in the government. 1 Christian bishops were continually present at Constantine's court after 3 1 2 . Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, may have been with him in his campaign against Maxentius; he certainly accompanied him on an expedition later, and seems to have been very influential at court. 1 Eusebius of Nicomedia for many years enjoyed the favor of the emperor as well as that of his family. Eusebius of Caesarea delighted to recount expressions of royal appreciation 1 Zosimus, ii, 29. Though Zosimus is not always a reliable source, there is no reason to reject this story. Cf. infra, p. 63, n. 6.

* Cod. Theod., xvi, 10, 2 and 4. Cf. Boyd, op. cit., pp. 21-23. See also Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iv, 52. F o r Lactantius, cf. Jerome, de Vir. 111., 80. ' E u s e b i u s , Church History, x, 6, 2 ; Life of Constantine, rates, i, 2. 1 ; Athanasius, Apol. c. Ar., 75.

ii, 6 3 ; Soc-

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF CHRISTIANITY

63

which he received at his appearance b e f o r e Constantine and in letters f r o m him. 1 A t the Council of Nicea the emperor showered attentions upon the bishops, and especially upon those who had suffered during the persecutions. 2 Making all allowance f o r exaggerations by Eusebius and other ecclesiastics who were dazzled by the eminence thus given them, the direct patronage bestowed upon the church and upon many leading churchmen must have been e x Ammianus Marcellinus complained of ceedingly liberal. his disorganizing the post service by giving Christian bishops free use of it in attending councils. 3 H e granted public money to various clergymen and churches, 4 and spent large sums on church buildings/ So f a r as we know he took little or no part during his later l i f e in pagan ceremonies. 0

4. Attitude Tozvard

Paganism

Reports of the destruction of pagan temples by Constantine's orders and of his approval of their destruction by the people come down to us f r o m nearly all sources. Most, if not all of these, r e f e r to the last ten years of his life. S o m e 1

Life of Constantine, iv, 33-36; 46; iii, 61.

2

Ibid., iii, 15, 22.

Cf. also Theodoret, i, ii, 1.

* xxi, 16, 18. 4 Eusebius, Church History, x, 6, Constantine's letter to Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, informing him of an appropriation, and authorizing him to draw on the treasury. 5 Cf. supra, p. 56 et seq. * For his refusal to take part in the military procession of the equestrian order to offer public vows to Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill, cf. supra, p. 62. Zosimus elsewhere affirms that Constantine tolerated heathen rites, and even took part in them (ii, 29, 3), but his statements to that effect in part refer to the earlier years of Constantine, in part are trivial, and are always under the suspicion of extreme partisanship. It can readily be seen that entire removal of pagan elements in all public ceremonies or absolute refusal to participate in such unpurified occasions would in any case be difficult and unnecessary as well as impolitic.

64

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[64

such cases may be traced to a desire to suppress immoral and licentious rites, a feeling not limited to the Christians. 1 Some were doubtless due to the necessity of replenishing Constantine's notoriously disordered treasury, though Eusebius maintains that the removal of gold, silver and brass ornaments and coverings of statues was effected in order to expose the bare wood to the derision of the multitude. 1 But though the motive was avarice, the process shows no friendship f o r paganism. Many statues, also, and other ornaments were removed from heathen temples f o r the beautification of the new city of Constantinople.' Not only were repairs stopped on old temples, but many such buildings must have been demolished and their materials used f o r other purposes. There can be no doubt but that the emperor's attitude greatly encouraged the process of the destruction of pagan antiquity. 4 Though no general law for the destruction of pagan temples has come down to us from this time, a law of Constans presupposes the gradual destruction of such edifices during the last years of Constantine's reign." Constantine's pro-Christian and anti-Pagan policy, however, does not seem to have been so pronounced as to make 1 Eg., the shrine of the heavenly goddess at Aphaca on Lebanon about 330 (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iii, 55) ; and the temple at Heliopolis, supplanted by a church liberally supplied with almsmoney (ibid., chap. 58).

' Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iii, 54 and 57, copied from his Oration in Praise of Constantine, ch. 8. It may be noted that in chapter 54 Eusebius says this was done not by military force, but by a f e w of the emperor's own friends. This looks like mercenary pillage. 8

Cf. infra,

pp. 65-66.

* C / . Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iii, 54-58; cf. Lanciani, The struction of Pagan Rome (1903), pp. 30 et seq. 8

Cod. Theod., ix, 17. C f . also Eunapius, Vita Aedes, sonade, Amsterdam, 1822.

De-

37, ed., Boise-

65]

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF CHRISTIANITY

65

an open and sharply-defined break. Eusebius himself after summarizing his legislation for the relief of Christians in the west between 312 and 323 adds, " But his munificence bestowed still further and more numerous favors on the heathen peoples and the other nations in his empire. So that the inhabitants of our regions [the East] with one consent proclaimed their own happiness," ctc.1 Pagans continued in the court of Constantine up to the very last.® Yet a story has been preserved of a heathen philosopher, Kanonaris, executed for persistent denunciation of Constantine's destruction of the old religion.® W e are told, also, through Eunapius, Zosimus and Suidas, concerning Sopater, a neoplatonist friend of the emperor's or possibly a magician, who was executed at Constantinople after 330. According to one version this was on the accusation of keeping back by magic the Egyptian grain ships. It may have been brought about by a court intrigue of the Christian faction. 4 There are even some reports of pagan elements in the buildings and dedicatory exercises of Constantinople. Burckhardt" has emphasized the following: Glycas * tells of an astronomer Valens brought there to cast the horoscope of the new city. Sopater, also, is said to have performed mystic symbols as a magician. 7 There are also re4

Life of Constantine,

ii, 22.

* For one of the " self-imagined philosophers " ; cf. Eusebius, Life Constantine, iv, 55.

of

8 Burckhardt, Zeit Constantins d. G., p. 447, on basis of "Anonymus " in Banduri, Imperium orientate, p. 98.

* Cf. Zosimus, ii, 40. ' Zeit Constantins

d. G., pp. 382, 480 et seq.

* Chronicle, part iv. T

E

A poor source, from the twelfth century or later.

This on basis of Joannes Lydus, De Mensibus,

iv, 2.

CON STAN

56

ports of

TINE

the erection of

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[66

heathen temples to the

Divine

M o t h e r , to C a s t o r and P o l l u x , and to T y c h e , and of the p e r f o r m a n c e of an annual ceremony in which the image of T y c h e figured. 1

On the f a c e of the evidence, h o w e v e r , the

first t w o seem v e r y uncertain, while the temples seem to> h a v e been monumental structures built to hold

statuary,

w i t h o u t a n y cults connected with them, and the ceremonies w e r e probably without any religious significance w h a t e v e r . 2 T h e friendliness of Christian writers to Constantine a n d the hostility of subsequent pagan writers is of itself almost conclusive evidence that he took his stand openly with the former.

T h a t he had some pagan panegyrists, especially

early in his reign, is to be accounted f o r by the fact that only l a t e r did he a s s u m e Christianity, and then only g r a d u ally. 3

T h a t there w a s little o r no specifically p a g a n oppo-

sition to him d u r i n g his l i f e is explained by the f a c t that p a g a n leaders do not seem to h a v e been a w a r e that the issue between the two religions w a s being permanently decided in that generation.

It could not have been seen until the

reign of J u l i a n that the attitude of one emperor could be so d e c i s i v e or that a f u t u r e restoration of p a g a n i s m w a s f o r e v e r out of the question.

Diocletian's persecution had not

only f a i l e d to destroy the church, but it had f a i l e d to persuade earnest supporters of pagan religions that Christianity w a s d a n g e r o u s to them.

H o w e v e r , with J u l i a n ' s unsuc-

c e s s f u l attempt to turn the tide back to p a g a n i s m , there c a m e a c h a n g e so noticeable that B u r y uses it as one basis 1

On the basis of Zosiimis, ii, 3 1 ; Philostorgius, ii, 1 7 ; Sozomen, v, 4, and Chrouicon Paschnle, ad. arm. 330. - C f . G r i s a r , Zeitsch. f . Kath. Theol., vi ( 1 8 8 2 ) , pp. 587 et scq., S t r 7 > g o w s k i in Analccta Graeciensia ( G r a z . , 1893). ' C f . E u s e b i u s , Life

of Constantine,

ii, 23, 47.

and

67]

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF CHRISTIANITY

67

f o r determining the date of pagan writings. 1 T h o s e w h o were most in earnest about p a g a n i s m w e r e t h e r e a f t e r apt to be bitter t o w a r d Constantine, even t o the extent of maligning and slandering him. 5. Constantino's

Activity

in Church Affairs,

and his

Motives

T h e friendliness of Christian writers t o w a r d C o n s t a n tine is so evident that it needs no proof nor comment. Eusebius, and his successors, united in extolling C o n s t a n t i n e not only as the first Christian emperor, but as their deliverer and their divinely sent prince. N o n e ventured u p o n serious criticism of him, and, in Christian writings, even the most h a r m l e s s suggestion of any imperfection in him was usually veiled by reference to the evil influence of others. 2 W e may conclude, then, that imperial p a t r o n a g e as well as the legislative power of the emperor was exerted increasingly in f a v o r of the Christians, and that the total effect of his reign was an overwhelming asset to the church. Acts and tendencies to the contrary were only incidental t o a gradual c h a n g e in that direction and to the n a t u r a l survival of earlier conditions. Such, beyond reasonable doubt was the retention by him until his death, and indeed by his immediate successors, of the title P o n t i f e x M a x i m u s , which designated the emperor as h o n o r a r y head of the old official religions. T h e spirit o r p u r p o s e d o m i n a n t in this use of imperial power and p a t r o n a g e is not altogether clear, i m p o r t a n t as this is f o r the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the history of the church. Of two such authoritative historians as Seeck a n d E d . Schwartz, the f o r m e r exhibits Constantine as d o m i n a t e d 1

C f . his edition of Gibbon, Decline and fall ii. appendix 1, p. 534, under P r a x a g o r a s . ' C f . Euscbius, Life

of Constantine,

iv, 29, 3 1 .

of the Roman

Empire,

68

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[68

by religious or superstitious motives and by those whom he looked upon as representatives of the divine power, 1 the latter speaks of " the sovereign high-handedness with which he ruled the church. 2 Neither extreme is warranted. There is no evidence that the first Christian emperor sought to use the church organization f o r any political ends or to impose upon it any task alien to its own conception of its ends. The evidence that he devoted resources of the state to the support of the church is abundant; there is none that he used even the moral resources of the church for the support of the crown. Statements to the latter effect are merely inferences, and f o r the most part based on a priori reasoning. And yet Constantine was f a r from putting himself unreservedly under the control of the church leaders. His attitude toward the whole situation was that of a statesman, not that of a fanatic. Nor did he, apparently look upon the church organization as an institution superior to, and independent o f , the imperial power. H e took an active part in its management' The chief interest he displayed on this score was that the ecclesiastical machinery should run smoothly and that the cult of the supreme God, the God who gave victory, should be maintained in full efficiency. Shortly after he was established in control of the West he took a hand in the troubles in A f r i c a out of which the 1

Seeck throughout represents Constantine as unselfish and not at all ambitious. H e even expounds his military career on the basis that he tried his utmost to uphold Diocletian's system of governing the empire, that he had no desire to increase his own power or territory, and that all his wars were defensive. Cf. Untergang d. antiken Welt, i, p. 112, et passim. This preposterous proposition I can explain only as an extreme reaction against Burckhardt's exposition of Constantine as the embodiment of unscrupulous ambition, and as an instance of Seeck's habit of assuming a motive f o r his characters and then construing everything in accordance with that motive. 2

Kaiser

3

Eg. cf. Eusebius, Life

Constantin

und die christltche of Constantine,

Kirche, i, 46.

p. 70.

69]

IMPERIAL

PATRONAGE

OF CHRISTIANITY

69

Donatist schism developed. H e gave his support from the first to the regular organization, 1 but submitted matters in dispute to Miltiades, bishop of Rome, and three of his colleagues from Gaul. 2 In this and in some subsequent matters Constantine employed the bishop of Rome in the West as a " kind of secretary of state f o r Christian affairs,* and contributed not a little to the growing power of the Roman see. When the vindication which Caecilian, the regular bishop, received from this Roman tribunal failed to quiet the African disturbance, the emperor convoked the famous Synod of Aries ( 3 1 4 ) which also condemned the schismatics and took advantage of the occasion to draw up various rules f o r church discipline.4 A s the schism, instead of subsiding, grew in violence, Constantine tried to settle it himself by summoning leaders of the two factions and hearing them in person. Deciding in f a v o r of Caecilian, he sent commissioners to restore peace in A f r i c a , meanwhile retaining these contestants in Italy. They escaped to Carthage, however, and the struggle continued. For a while Constantine tried forcible expulsion of the Donatists from churches, but later gave this up and contented himself with stating his disapproval of the schismatics and urging the Catholic leaders to have patience." 1

7.

Cf. letters in Eusebius, Church History,

x, 5, 1 5 - 1 7 ; x, 6, 1-5; x,

1-2-

' Ibid., x, 5, 18-20. Fifteen Italian bishops were later joined to these four. •The phrase is from George Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, Book I, iii, sec. 3. * Cf. letters of Constantine: Eusebius, op. fit., x, 5, 21-24, and Migue, Patrología Latina, vol. viii, p. 487. Cf. also the Sylloge Optatiana, in the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. xxvi, p. 206. Seeck, dates the council, 316, Zeitsch. f . K. G., x, 509. * For a clear discussion of this procedure with references to sources, cf. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de FEglise, Eng. trans. Early History of the Church, vol. ii, pp. 92-97.

JO

CONSTANT1NE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[70

Constantine's participation in the next great ecclesiastical controversy of his reign, the A r i a n trouble, ran a course somewhat parallel to the preceding. T h e conflict was in full blast at A l e x a n d r i a when Constantine gained control of the East. H e tried by letters, carried in person by Hosius to Bishop A l e x a n d e r and to Arius, to induce them to restore peace by mutual toleration of differences of opinion. 1 T h i s failing, and in view, also, of a widespread d i f ference in the time of the observance of Easter, Constantine proceeded to summon a great council at Nicea. T h e bishop of Rome, so f a r as we know, did not figure in the preliminaries of the council. T h e r e was no one in the E a s t holding a central position corresponding to his, so Constantine assumed immediate direction of the a f f a i r . A t the first session of the council he made his entrance in state, and replied in a set speech to the oration of thanksgiving with which he was addressed. 2 He followed the debates and occasionally took part in the discussion. The decisions of the council both as to the proper date f o r observing Easter, to which the emperor himself attached most importance, and as to the doctrinal questions raised by the A r i a n controversy were confirmed by imperial letters.' T h e further course of the controversy also •Eusebius, Life letters.

of Constantine,

ii, 63-73; giving a copy of the long

- F o r the part taken by Constantine in the proceedings of the council, c f . Realencyklopddie fiir prot. Theol. und Kirche, xiv, 12, 30-45. * Such, substantially, is Eusebius' account. Cf. Life of Constantine, iii, 6-23; also i, 44. This is the most important contemporary description, but tells little about the debates, about the course by which decisions were reached, or even about the decisions themselves. The literature on the Council of Nicea is extensive, and important points are still obscure. Duchesne's account, of. cit., vol. ii, pp. 98-124, gives clearly the generally accepted version, if indeed there may be said to be such a thing.

jl]

IMPERIAL

substantiates

PATRONAGE

Eusebius'

OF CHRISTIANITY

comparison

of

" general bishop constituted of G o d . "

71

Constantine

essary h e r e to g o into the t e m p o r a r y success o f the reaction,

the

recall

of

Arius

from

to

a

B u t it is n o t n e c -

1

banishment,

Arian

and

the

first t r i u m p h o f A t h a n a s i u s ' e n e m i e s , r e s u l t i n g in his e x i l e and

imprisonment

at

Treves.

Constantine,

lessly at sea as to the t h e o l o g i c a l versy, controlled to those

whom

while

aspects of

the p r o c e e d i n g s and g a v e

the

hopecontro-

preponderance

he f a v o r e d , a n d e x i l e t o t h o s e

whom

he

c o n d e m n e d . 'l C o n s t a n t i n e d i d n o t s u c c e e d in s t i f l i n g e c c l e s i a s t i c a l c o n troversy

by

government

pressure.

But

he

undoubtedly

contributed to the realization of the purpose f o r w h i c h

he

l a b o r e d , t h e u n i t y o f t h e c h u r c h in t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e c u l t u s o f the S u p r e m e G o d .

H i s d i c t u m , " w h a t s o e v e r is d e t e r -

m i n e d in t h e h o l y a s s e m b l i e s o f t h e b i s h o p s is t o b e r e g a r d e d as

indicative of

the divine

will,"

3

involved

in

his

mind

t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n o f s t a t e a n d c h u r c h in w i n n i n g a n d k e e p ing the f a v o r o f this S u p r e m e G o d , the b e s t o w e r o f all success.

It h o w e v e r i n v o l v e d also the subsequent

development

of a state church with intriguing bishops, an iron zation and

thought-confining dogma

linked

to a

organimilitary

absolutism.4 1

Of.

cit., 1, 44.

' O u r chief, but by no m e a n s o u r only, s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n on these matters

is t h e w r i t i n g s o f

Athanasius.

For

a modern account

based

l a r g e l y 011 t h e s e w r i t i n g s , a n d j u d i c i o u s l y f a v o r a b l e t o t h e i r a u t h o r , D u c h e s n e , op. ext., ii, pp. 125-152. to Athanasius, and e x t r e m e l y Untcrgang

d. antikcn

1

E u s e b i u s , op. cit.,

4

Cf.

169-171.

Ed.

IVelt,

cf.

F o r an a c c o u n t almost bitterly hostile

distrustful of

his s t a t e m e n t s , cf.

v o l . iii, pp. 431, et

Seeck,

passim.

iii, 20.

Schwartz,

Kaiser

Constantin

u.

d.

christliche

Kirchc,

pp.

C H A P T E R IV T H E " CONVERSION " OF C O N S T A N T I N E , A N D T H E REVOLUTION

OF H I S

RELIGIOUS

TIME

I. Various Early Accotints C O N S T A N T I N E came into direct contact with the East as emperor only after his final triumph over Licinius. His reign henceforth, as we have seen, was not only favorable to the Christians, but was essentially the reign of a Christian sovereign. It was in this capacity that the historian Eusebius, who lived in Palestine, first came to fully know him. It was very natural, therefore, that Eusebius in his Church History, which he wrote during and almost immediately after Constantine's rise to power,1 should assume that Constantine had been a Christian from the beginning of his career.2 Throughout the work there is no word of a conversion of Constantine, of any miraculous vision instrumental in the process, or of any need of his being converted at all. On the contrary, it tells how, before the campaign against Maxentius in 312, he "took compassion upon those who were oppressed at Rome [the Christians under Maxentius], and having invoked in prayer the God of heaven, and his Word, and Jesus Christ himself, the Saviour of all, as his aid, advanced with his whole army, proposing to restore to the Romans their ancestral lib1

F o r the dates of the v a r i o u s parts of the Church H i s t o r y , cf. the critical apparatus of the edition of S c h w a r t z and M o m m s e n . 2

viii, 13, 1 4 ; i x , g, 2 ; 3 ; 9 - 1 1 . 72

[72

73]

THE

"CONVERSION"

OF CONSTANTINE

73

erty." 1 Eusebius' later version of the matter, which he gives in his Life of Constantine, written some fifteen or twenty years after the passage quoted above, is quite different. It contains a description of the emperor's sudden conversion by a miraculous apparition in the heavens interpreted the following night in a dream. This episode will be discussed l a t e r ; 2 but the question whether a sudden conversion of some sort o r other took place must be considered here. Legends f r o m pagan sources, as well as Eusebius' Life of Constantine, incorporate the view that the emperor underwent such an experience. T h e sources of information examined in our previous chapters do not point to such a conclusion, but w e may well look into other evidence. 2. Constantine's

Early

Paganism

Constantine apparently identified himself with paganism during the time he ruled north of the Alps as the successor of his father, Constantius. Eusebius' early opinion to the contrary is discredited not only by his later contradiction of it, but by his remoteness f r o m Gaul." T h a t he, following in his father's footsteps, extended toleration to the Christians is certain; but various pagan emperors had previously done the same. T h i s is no proof that he himself entertained Christian views. T h a t his father was a Christian and conducted his household as such is implied in Eusebius' Life of Constantine; * but this is, on such a point, questionable authority, and the particular passages conxlbid., ix, 9, 2. It will be noted that this marks the inception of the campaign, and that the opening engagements of the war follow it in paragraph three. 3

Cf. infra, p. 135 et seq.

* The addresses in Lactantius' Div. Inst, implying that Constantine was a Christian in 311 or earlier, have been shown to be interpolations. Cf. Brandt's ed. in C S E L . x i x , 668. * i, 16-18; ii, 49; this latter purporting to quote Constantine.

74

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[74

1

cerned are unquestionably highly overdrawn. Some slight evidence in support of Eusebius' eulogy there may be in the fact that Constantius gave one of his daughters, Constantine's sister, what seems to be a specifically Christian name, Anastasia (Resurrection), though in any case this name may have been proposed by a Christian mother. 2 Eusebius himself, however, in his Church History, speaks of Constantius' being ranked by his subjects among the gods and receiving after death every honor which one could pay an emperor. 4 Lack of substantial evidence f o r Constantius' being a Christian, leads one to accept the general opinion that, while probably a devout monotheist and certainly tolerant toward the Christians, he was not himself one of them. A s f o r Constantine in Gaul, the only local and strictly contemporary evidence we possess is found in the panegyrics of Eumenius and an anonymous orator, generally identified as Nazarius. Eulogistic orators are not unimpeachable historical sources, but these two take at least relatively high rank among those who spoke in honor of Constantine. Eumenius was one of the foremost scholars of his time, the head of a considerable literary circle at Autun, in Gaul,, and enjoying the personal and financial support of the emperor. 4 His panegyrics, and the anonymous one referred to above, show detailed familiarity with Constantine's career in Gaul. There is no reason f o r questioning their statements about his re1

F o r discussion of the reliability of Eusebius' Life cf. infra, pp. 107 et seg. 1

Cf. on this Seeck, Untergang

of

Constantine,

d. antik. Welt, i, pp. 61, 473.

' viii, 13, 12. T h e remoteness of Eusebius from the West would not invalidate his statements about such official matters to the same extent as it would his statements about the personal religious convictions of a Western ruler. 4 F o r a modern account of the school at Autun, cf. G. Block, in L a visse's Histoire de France, vol. i, part ii (1900).

75]

THE

"CONVERSION"

OF

CONSTANT1NE

ligious affiliations, for panegyrists, even though they were otherwise untrustworthy, could be relied upon not to offend the convictions of the subject of their praise.

W h a t they

h a v e to say about their prince's religion, furthermore, is told incidentally, as patent fact, not as argument or p r o o f , but a s basis f o r obviously acceptable praise.

Both orators

represent Constantine as a devout pagan of

monotheistic

belief. Eumenius, in a panegyric delivered in 310, in the presence of his royal patron, r e f e r s to a visit of the latter to the A p o l l o temple at A u t u n b e f o r e a renewed attack upon the F r a n k s , and proceeds to extol the divine qualities of the y o u n g ruler, and to recite the f a v o r of A p o l l o to him. " F o r thou sawest, I believe, thine Apollo, accompanied by V i c t o r y , o f f e r i n g thee the laurel c r o w n s . "

" N o w all tem-

ples seem to call thee to themselves, especially our Apollo, in w h o s e seething waters perjuries, which thou must have hated most of all, are punished."

" Immortal gods, when

will y o u grant that day on which this god most manifest, universal peace restored, m a y go about a m o n g those groves of A p o l l o himself, and a m o n g the sacred abodes, and the breathing m o u t h s of the springs. . . . T h o u wilt assuredly m a r v e l at that abode of thy very d i v i n i t y . "

1

T h e orator

1 Panegyric 310, chaps. 20, 21, 22; in Pan. Vet., no. vii, and in Migne, P. L., viii, col. 637 et seq.

" Ipsa hoc si ordinante fortuna, ut te ibi rerum tuarum felicitas admoneret, -diis immortalibus, ferre quae voveras, ubi deflexisses ad templum [ o f A p o l l o ] toto orbe pulcherrimum, inio ad praesentem, ut veniste, deum. Vidisti enini, credo, Constantine, Appollinem tuum, comitante victoria, coronas tibi laureas offerentem," etc. " Jam omnia te vocare ad se templa videantur, praecipueque Apollo noster, c u j u s ferventibus aquis perjuria puniuntur, quae te m a x i m e oportet odisse." " Dii immortales, quando ilium dabitis diem, quo praesentissimus hie deus omni pace composita, illos quoque Apollinis lucos et sacres sedes et anhela fontiutn o r a circumeat. . . . Miraberis p r o f e c t o illam quoque numinis tui sedem," etc.

76

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[76

closes with a delicately worded, but urgent suggestion that Constantine repair the public buildings and especially the temple of Autun. The formal thanks of that city for its restoration and for the grant of the imperial name, Augustodunum, presented to Constantine by Eumenius in the panegyric of the following year, show that the allusions to Apollo were not ungrateful. The whole episode is reinforced by a reference in Julian's Orations 1 to a special Helios cult of Constantine's, by Eumenius' emphasis upon his relation to Apollo, and by the frequency of the tokens of the Sun-god 1 on Constantine's coinage. The anonymous panegyric of 3 1 3 , usually attributed to Nazarius,3 informs us that Constantine invaded Italy to fight Maxentius against the advice of men, and the warnings of soothsayers ( " contra consilia hominum, contra Haruspicum monita"), showing that he had consulted the omens. This oration was delivered after the return of Constantine to Gaul from his victory over Maxentius, and perhaps the effect of that campaign * upon the religious ideas of Constantine are reflected in the questioning monotheism of the orator in his peroration.1 1

Oration, vii, p. 228 D (ed. Hertlein).

2

Apollo, Mithras, " Soli Invicti Comiti."

l

lncerti Paneg. Constantino Augusto, 313, in Migne, P. L., viii, especially col. 655, chap. ii. Cf. also, supra, p. 36; infra, p. 132, n. 1. 4 5

Cf. infra, pp. 77-79.

Ibid., chap. 26, " Quemobrem te [Jove], summe sator, cujus tot nomina sunt, quot gentium linguas esse voluisti, quem enim te ipse dici velis scire non possumus: sive in te quaedam vis mervsque divina est, qua toto infusus omnibus miscearis elementis, et sine ullo extrinsecus accedente vigoris impulsu per te ipse movearis: sive aJiqua supra omne coelum potestas es, quae hoc opus tuum exaltiore naturae arce despicias: te, inquam, oramus et quaesumus," etc. For light upon this whole subject from another angle, cf. infra, pp. 131-132 et seq.

77]

THE "CONVERSION"

OF

CONSTANTINE

3. Campaign against Maxentius, and Adoption of Christian Labarum In this campaign against Maxentius there took place an episode which an early Christian legend fixed upon as the definite conversion of Constantine to Christianity.1 Modern historians have occasionally denied the occurrence of the episode, and looked upon it as merely the later invention of the emperor or of his pious biographers. There seems, however, to be no reason for rejecting the simple and straight-forward account of the narrator of the earliest version of it which has come down to us. Lactantius (Lucius Caelius Firmianus) was for some years a member of Constantine's household and the tutor of his son Crispus.2 In his De Mortibus Persecutorum he says that "Constantine [encamped in the neighborhood of Rome, opposite the Milvian bridge] was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, 1 A pagan legend dated the conversion much later. On this, cf. pp. 127 et seq.

infra,

• I think we are on safe ground now in accepting Lactantius' authorship of the De Mortibus Persecutorum. Cf. R. Pichon, Lactance (Paris, 1901), pp. 337-360; Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, vol. ii (Leipsic, 1904), pp. 421 et seq. ; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie (Freiburg, 1910), p. 181 ; Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de ïAfrica chrétienne depuis les origines jusqtSà l'invasion arabe, vol. iii (Paris, 1905), pp. 340-342. Brandt, one of the greatest authorities upon Lactantius, attempted to prove what had often been surmised before, that the book is by an imitator of Lactantius, in " Ueber die EntstehungsverhaJtnisse der Prosaschriften des Laot u. des Bûches de mortibus persecutorum," in Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akad., vol. cxxv, Abh. vi (1892), but his case now seems definitely lost For an excellent, brief summary of the matter, see Bury, in his edition of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1896), vol. ii, pp. 531-533- F ° r the life of Lactantius, see Brandt, "Ueber das Leben des Lact," in Sitsungsberichte der Wiener Akad., vol. cxx (1890). The De Mortibus Persecutorum, in any case, must have been written soon after 313.

78

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[78

and so to proceed to battle. H e did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X , with a perpendicular line d r a w n through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ, H a v i n g this sign, his troops stood to a r m s . " 1 In this account there is nothing said about a miraculous vision o r about Constantine being converted to Christianity. A l l that the author tells is that in a dream the promise of victory w a s associated with the use of the m o n o g r a m of Christ, and that the event turned out as the dream foretold. T h e dream itself is, of course, not susceptible of historical p r o o f , but Constantine's use of the monogram of C h r i s t ' s name, f o r the first time, during this campaign, and his use of it thereafter, is supported by abundant evidence. 2 Its u s e in the first instance m a y have come as well f r o m a dream as f r o m anything else. T h a t political or military considerations could scarcely have led him to take this step, and that they could not have played any large part in Constantine's adoption of Christianity, is clearly proved by Seeck. 3 1

Chap. 44.

2

C f . supra, p. 47, infra, pp. 7 9 - 8 1 ; and in addition to E u s c b i u s ' reiterated statements, Lactantius, de \fort. Persec., chap. 44; P r u d e n t i u s , In Symmachum, ii, lines 464-4R6. A l s o many coins and medals. F o r the m o n o g r a m on helmets, see Numismatic Chronicle, 1877, pp. 44 et seq., plate i (article by Madden, " C h r i s t i a n E m b l e m s , " ctc.). A labarutn containing the Christian emblems w a s probably long a f t e r deposited in the palace at Constantinople, Cod. Thcod., vi, 2 5 ; Theophanes, Chronogr., p. 1 1 . F o r some other evidence, see Schultzc, Zeitsch. f. K. C., x i v ( 1 8 9 4 ) , PP- 5 2 1 et seq. 'Deutsche Rundschau, April, 1891, pp. 73-84, and repeatedly in his Untergang d. antiken Welt. T h e Christians constituted a v e r y small, almost negligible part of the a r m y and, so f a r as we k n o w , had as yet taken no part in politics. Italy w a s predominantly pagan, and R o m e especially so. T h e r e could have been no inherent military or political advantage in displaying Christian emblems there. C f . also F e d e l c S a v i o , La Conversione di Costantino Magno e la Chiesa all' inizio del secolo iv, in La Civilta Cattolica, 1 9 1 3 , vol. i, pp. 385-397.

]

7 9

THE

"CONVERSION"

OF

CONST

AN

TINE

T h a t some curious natural phenomena in the heavens m a y have impressed the contestant f o r Italy and led to the use of the cross is possible, but hardly meets the requirements of any

of

our

sources.

Eusebius'

detailed

account

of

a

heavenly apparition is followed by a reference to a dream the f o l l o w i n g night, and this is to some extent a corroboration of Lactantius. latter,

we

have

W h e r e the f o r m e r goes beyond the

merely

an

instance

of

legend-making

p o w e r s at w o r k . 1 A l l that the incident involves, then, w a s the association of victory w i t h the use of the w o n d e r f u l monogram.

It

w a s a superstitious age, and Constantine in fact used the labarum bearing this m o n o g r a m , and the m o n o g r a m itself, as a magical charm, a fetich.

F o r him and f o r the Chris-

tians generally, including their bishops, divine p o w e r resided in i t ; its use brought success and good luck.

B y it

Constantine probably felt that he prevailed o v e r his enemies.

W h a t he adopted b e f o r e the battle of the Milvian

Bridge, w a s not Christianity but a luck token. 2

T h e cross

had by this time become generally used by Christians as a magic sign b e f o r e which demons

fled.8

Constantine used

both the m o n o g r a m of Christ and the cross. difficult in reading the accounts of

It is o f t e n

Eusebius and

later

writers to tell to which of the two they refer. T h e monograip

had not a l w a y s been an exclusively

Christian s i g n ; it w a s used on oriental banners in preChristian times, probably as one of the many symbols of 1

Cf.

infra,

p. 135 cl

* E u s e b i u s , Life of Constantine,

seq.

of Constantine,

i, 3 1 ; ii, 6 - 7 ; ii, 1 6 ; Oration

c h a p . 6, 2 1 ; chap. 9 ; chap. 10.

in

Praise

M a n y of these passages

e m b o d y f e t i c h i s m p u r e and s i m p l e . 3

L a c t a n t i u s , Dii-ine

Institutes,

iv, 2 7 ; De

Mort.

Persecut.,

c h a p . 10.

F o r earlier a c c u s a t i o n t h a t C h r i s t i a n s w o r s h i p e d the c r o s s , see T c r t u l lian, Apology,

c h a p . 16, a n d Ad

Nationes,

i, 13.

8o

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[80

the sun. 1 It appears on coins in the late third, in the second, and the first centuries before Christ. 1 But it is apparent that Constantine's Christian friends regarded it as an emblem of their religion. W e have no evidence that his pagan contemporaries regarded his use of it as indicating adherence to the sun-god." T h e cross also was used symbolically by others than the Christians. It has been, among various peoples, a common object in nature worship. 4 Early Christian writers speak of its recurrence in nature and of its general symbolism apart from their own religion." It was in such universal use among the Christians, however, as a religious token and sign of magic power that by the time of Constantine it must have been regarded almost as their property.® It is interesting to note that f o r Eusebius it was a symbol of immortality rather than a token of Christ's sacrificial or vicarious death. 7 T h a t a great general would expect divine help through using a symbol, that he would attribute his victory to a 1 1

Cf. Zahn, Cons tan tine d. Grosse

u. die Kirche,

p. 14.

Rapp, " D a s L a b a r u m u. der Sonnenkultus," in Jahrbuch

von Altertums freunden

im Rheinlände,

des

Vereins

1866, pp. 166 et seq.

' B u r y is a little over-cautious in his statement: " It is not clear that Constantine used it as an ambiguous symbol, nor yet is there a wellattested instance of its use as a Christian symbol b e f o r e A . D. 323 (cf. Brieger, in Zeitsch. f. K. G., iv (1881), p. 201)." 4 It w a s commented, f o r instance, that it was one of the emblems in the Temple of Serapis at A l e x a n d r i a at the time that temple was destroyed. Sozomen, vii, 1 5 ; Socrates, v, 17.

• J u s t i n Martyr, First x v i ; Ad Nationes, i, 13. • Cf. references, supra; ' Eusebius, Life tions the cross.

Apology,

chaps, lv, l x ; Tertullian,

also Tertullian, De Corona,

of Constantine,

Apology,

3.

i, 32, and elsewhere when he men-

81 ]

THE

" CONVERSION

" OF

CONSTANTINE

81

divine m o n o g r a m , is difficult f o r us to realize to-day, but a s Seeck and others have shown, it w a s v e r y natural in the f o u r t h century.

It w a s much more natural than

free-

thinking and absence of superstitious considerations.

The

clear-minded m a n who, himself uninfluenced by religious forces o r f e a r s of supernatural power, used these f o r the ends of his o w n ambition, as Constantine is sometimes assumed to h a v e done, would have been the exception at that time, if not an impossibility. 1

Lactantius apparently

believed that Licinius, w h o w a s not of that author's religion, w a s taught in a dream by an angel a magic formula in the shape o f a v a g u e monotheistic prayer, which, repeated in the presence o f the enemy, insured victory. 2 4. Constantine's

Christianity

H a v i n g adopted the magical symbol of

the Christian

God, and finding it successful, Constantine pursued

this

primitive allegiance to its logical end.

the

H e favored

church w h i c h represented this God, and allied himself more and m o r e w i t h its officers and its teachings.

H i s conver-

sion w a s thus a gradual process extending f r o m the w a r with M a x e n t i u s , or earlier, and ending only with his last illness.

C e r t a i n episodes m a r k the stages of this develop-

m e n t ; the v i c t o r y over Maxentius, the attainment of sole emperorship b y the victory over Licinius, 3 and probably also the Council of Nicea.

In the first t w o cases the decid-

ing factor w a s the success with which the Christian God 1 Burckhardt, and others, in picturing Constantine as such a man, camc near c r e a t i n g a modern legendary Constantine as the product of nincteenth-ccntury free-thought. Cf. infra, p. 99. 3 Dc Mort. Pers., 46. Seeck, in his Unlcrgang d. antiken ¡Veil, accepts Lactantius' account of the battle which followed, in every detail, even to the successful carrying-out of this plan.

' Cf. F

Seeck, Untergang

d. antiken

Welt,

i, pp. 61, 472-3.

82

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[82

crowned his amis. 1 In neither was the change so great as it has usually been considered. T o the end of his days probably his chief conception of Christianity was that of a cult whose prayers and whose emblems ensured the help of the supreme heavenly power in military conflicts and political crises, and whose rites guaranteed eternal blessedness. O f the inner experiences of Christianity and of the doctrines of that religion, other than the broadest monotheism, he seems to have had little conception. T h e great A r i a n controversy seemed to him " intrinsically trifling and of little moment " involving " not any of the leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law " but concerning " small and very insignificant questions."' Upon the proper day f o r observing Easter, however, vital issues depended. " A discordant judgment in a case of such importance and respecting such a religious festival, is w r o n g , " " discrepancy of opinion on so sacred a question is unbecoming." ! A t the court Easter was celebrated with gorgeous ceremonies, and martyr's days and other sacred occasions were carefully observed. 4 5. The Transition

from Paganism to Christianity Roman Empire

in the

In all of this, Constantine did not differ greatly from the current notions of his day, pagan and Christian. Most men seem to have been seeking charms to give them success in this life and happiness hereafter. Belief in one supreme 1

C f . the prayer which Eusebius said was enforced in the army, of Constantine, iv, 20. ' Eusebius, Life ander and Arius.

of Constantine,

Life

ii, 68-71, reproducing letter to A l e x -

* Op. ext., iii, 18 and 19, reproducing letter of Constantine respecting the Council of Nicca. 4

Op. cit., iv, 22 and 23.

83]

THE

"CONVERSION"

OF CONSTANTINE

83

heavenly power, in the future life, and in the necessity of expiatory rites, was common to Roman paganism of the fourth century, modified as it had become by prevalent influences, and to Christianity. 1 Remembering the presence of numerous Orientals in Gaul * and Constantine's connection with the cult of the sun,' the transformation of Roman religious life as described by Cumont is illustrated and confirmed by the case of Constantine. " The last formula reached by the religion of the pagan Semites and in consequence by that of the Romans, was a divinity unique, almighty, eternal, universal and ineffable, that revealed itself throughout nature, but whose most splendid and most energetic manifestation was the sun. T o arrive at the Christian monotheism only one final tie had to be broken, that is to say, this supreme being, resident in a distant heaven, had to be removed beyond the world." 4 " The principal divergence [between Christianity and the later Roman paganism] was that Christianity, by placing 1 For the gradual change in the tone of the panegyrists and others from polytheism to monotheism, see Pichon, Les derniers Écrivains profanes, Paris, 1906. A beautiful illustration of this is the peroration of the anonymous panegyric delivered before Constantine in Gaul in 313. Cf. supra, p. 76. It was certainly not a long step for the orator of this occasion instead of declaring (chap. 2) that Constantine was under the care of the supreme mind, while other mortals were left to the lesser gods, to omit the lesser gods entirely in his peroration. Cf. infra, p. 132 et seq., and supra, p. 76, n. 5.

* Cf. Cumont, Oriental Religions in the Roman Empire, pp. 107 et seq. • Eumenius, Panegyric. Cf. supra, pp. 75-76; Julian, Oral., vii, f. 228, and numerous coins inscribed to " Soli Invicti Comiti." See also Preger, Konstantinos-Helios, in Hermes, xxxvi, 1901, pp. 457 et seq. * Op. citn p. 134. Cf. page xxiv. Cf. also p. 288, where Cumont quotes with approval Loeschke's statement calling Constantine's letters " e i n merkwürdiges Produkt theologischen Dilletantisnius, aufgebaut auf im wesentlichen pantheistischer Grundlage mit Hilfe weniger christlicher Termini und fast noch weniger christlicher Gedanken."

84

CONSTANTINE

[84

AND CHRISTIANITY

G o d in an ideal sphere b e y o n d the confines o f this w o r l d , e n d e a v o r e d to rid itself o f e v e r y a t t a c h m e n t to a f r e q u e n t l y a b j e c t polytheism. . . .

A s the religious h i s t o r y o f the em-

pire is studied m o r e closely, the t r i u m p h o f the c h u r c h will, in o u r opinion, appear m o r e a n d m o r e as the culmination o f a l o n g evolution o f b e l i e f s . " W h a t w a s true o f C o n s t a n t i n e w a s thus in a m e a s u r e true o f the E m p i r e at large.

C h r i s t i a n i t y and p a g a n i s m in

the f o u r t h century did not constitute t w o fixed, u n c h a n g i n g , irreconcilable enemies.

" T h e upper class w e r e f o r gener-

ations f a r m o r e united by the old social a n d literary tradition than they w e r e divided b y religious belief. . . .

In

truth the line between C h r i s t i a n a n d p a g a n w a s l o n g w a v e r i n g and uncertain.

W e find adherents o f the o p p o s i n g

creeds side by side e v e n in the s a m e f a m i l y at the end o f the f o u r t h c e n t u r y . "

1

T h e later persecutions seem to h a v e been continued m o r e by

governmental

policy

than by

p o p u l a r desire.

There

w a s even a general reaction a m o n g the people a g a i n s t this policy.

L a c t a n t i u s w a s able to g i v e as o n e o f the r e a s o n s

w h y G o d permitted the persecutions the f a c t that " g r e a t numbers are d r i v e n f r o m the w o r s h i p o f the false g o d s by their hatred o f

cruelty."

2

The

triumph of

Christianity

w a s c o m p a r a t i v e l y p e a c e f u l and l e f t p a g a n i s m in m a n y instances

unembittered.

"No

advocate

appeared;

neither

g o d n o r demon, prophet nor divines, could lend his aid t o the detected a u t h o r o f the imposture [ o f p a g a n i s m . ]

For

the souls o f men w e r e no l o n g e r enveloped in thick d a r k ness, but enlightened b y r a y s o f true godliness, t h e y plored the i g n o r a n c e , " Dill, Roman

1

tics and

39, el passim,

etc.

2d ed, p. 13.

Society,

Religion

in the

Days

de-

3

C f . also E . F . H u m p h r e y ,

of Augustine

Poli-

( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 1 2 ) , pp. 26-

f o r tlic situation at the end of the f o u r t h and b e g i n n i n g

o f the fifth c e n t u r y .

C f . also, infra,

p. 96.

2

Divine

a

E u s c b i u s , O r a t i o n in P r a i s e o f C o n s t a n t i n e , viii, 8.

Institutes,

v, 24.

85]

THE

"CONVERSION"

OF CONSTANTINE

85

T h e religious revolution under Constantine was not unique in the history of the empire though it proved to be t h e greatest one. Mithraism and a revival of the cult of Apollo had prevailed in the court of Diocletian. Christianity came to the f r o n t under Constantine, and Neoplatonism was fostered by Julian. This oscillation was not d u e entirely to an even balance of power between bitter enemies, but in part, also, to uncertainty and a wavering border line. On the pagan side there had long been a movement unconsciously leading in the direction of Christianity. Paganism " a f t e r three centuries of Oriental influence . . . was no longer like that of ancient Rome, a mere collection of propitiatory and expiatory rites performed by the citizen f o r the good of the state: it now pretended to offer t o all men a world conception which gave rise to a rule of conduct and placed the end of existence in the f u t u r e life. It was more unlike the worship which Augustus had attempted to restore than the Christianity that fought it. T h e two opposed creeds moved in the same intellectual and moral sphere, and one could actually pass f r o m one to the other without shock or interruption. . . . T h e religious and mystical spirit of the Orient had slowly overcome the whole social organism and had prepared all nations to unite in the bosom of a universal church." 1 On the Christian side the sense of irreconcilable conflict between the world and the gospel no longer dominated all church life. Belief in the speedy end of the world and apocalyptic descriptions of a miraculous millennium, which had at first offered to many the only hopeful outcome of this conflict, were gradually relegated to the byways of ecclesiastical thought. In the third century, the great Alex1

Cumont, Oriental Religions, etc., pp. 210-11.

86

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[86

andrian theologians had completed the reconciliation of the new revelation and the old philosophy in an evolutionary interpretation of Christianity. 1 Without surrendering its claim to finality or the necessity of the exclusion of all other gods and religions from the mind of the believer, the new faith found many points of contact and support in the growing monotheism of paganism. Nor were the Christians, as we have seen, free from the fundamental religious notions of the fourth-century piety generally; belief in magic, in good and evil spirits, in the constant interference of the supernatural in human affairs, and in success and victory as the ultimate test of the reality and supremacy of the god whose aid was invoked. 2 The center of Constantine's Christian life and that of many of his contemporaries is to be sought, not in any theological or moral convictions, but in the identification of his fortunes, his luck one might say, with the Christian god. Eusebius, perhaps unwittingly, tells us as much when he closes his " Oration in Praise of Constantine " with the tribute of divine revelations to the E m p e r o r : 3 Y o u r s e l f , it m a y be, will v o u c h s a f e at a time of leisure to relate to us the abundant manifestations w h i c h y o u r S a v i o u r has accorded you of his presence, and the oft-repeated visions of himself which h a v e attended you in the h o u r s of sleep.

I

speak not of those secret suggestions which to us are unrev e a l e d : but of those principles which he has instilled into y o u r o w n m i n d , and which are f r a u g h t with general interest and benefit to the h u m a n race.

Y o u will yourself relate in w o r t h y

terms the visible protection

which

your

Divine

shield

and

g u a r d i a n has extended in the hour of battle; the ruin of y o u r open and secret f o e s ; and his ready aid in time of peril.

To

1 C f . the chapters upon the Hellenizing of church theology in Hs left unfinished at his death;. Frothingham, ed. Homily on the Baptism of Constanline, (L'Omelia di Giacomo di Sarug) in Memorie delta r. Accademia dei Lincei, classe di scienze morale, vol. viii, 1883). J. Langen, Geschichte d. rôm. Kirche (1885), ii, p. IQ5 et seq. Abbé Duchesne, ed. Liber Poutificalis, vol. i (1886), pp. c v i i - c x x . F. J. Dôlger, " Die Tauft Konstantins u. i. P r o b l e m e , " in /Constantin d. Crosse u. s. Zcit (1913), pp. 377-381, 394-426. Friedrich, Die Constantinische Schenkung, Nôrdlingen, 1889.

165]

LATER

LEGENDS

OF

CONVERSION

A t R o m e itself this legend first comes to light in references to b o o k s containing it, in the time of P o p e S y m machus (498-514). There is no record in writers, historians, poets, orators, official documents, liturgies or inscriptions, of any local Roman tradition connected with the legend until the eighth century. In fact, there is no trace of the legend in extant inscriptions or monuments in R o m e before the tenth century.' It came into v o g u e very slowly and does not seem to have prevailed there until after it had been taken up in many other places. These considerations show both the lack of any historical g r o u n d whatever for the legend, and its nonRoman source. 1 H o w e v e r the legeml of Constnntine's leprosy and cure started, it g o t to Rome by the end of the fifth century, possibly earlier. Duchesne thinks it may have been put into literary Latin by some eastern monk such as Dionysius E x i g u u s . 3 The legend and a book containing it are referred to in the forged documents b r o u g h t out by ecclesiastical controversies centering about Symmachus (bishop of R o m e 498-514). The pseudo [ ? ] Decretum Gelasii P. de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris (c. A . D. 501, Duchesne: after 533, Friedrich) 4 says that the anonymous A c t s of Sylvester are read by many of the o r t h o d o x in R o m e and many churches elsewhere and does not condemn the practice. 5 The pseudo Cousli1

D u c h e s n e , op. cil.,

%Op.

cit.,

i, pp. c x i i i , c x v i .

* Ibid.,

i, c x v i .

vol. i, p. cxiii et seq.

l C f . M i r b t , in R e a l E n c y k . vi, 475, for the view that it w a s m e r e l y revised and interpolated under Pope H o r m i s d a s (514—5-?3)-

' A c t u s beati S i l v e s t r i , apostolicae sedis praesulis, licet ejus qui c o n scripsit n o m c n i g n o r e t u r , a nuiltis tanien in urbe R o m a n a c a i h o l i c i s l e g i c o g n o v i m u s , et pro antiquo usu multae hoc i m m i t a n t u r ecclesiae, * * * beati Pauli apostoli praecedat sententia: ' o m n i a probate, quod b o n u m est v e n e l e . '

I(j6

CC)XSTAA'77NE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[,55

tutum Silvestri (about 501-508, Duchesne, op. tit., i, c x x x i v ) mentions briefly the leprosy and cure. The pseudo Gesta Libcrii, from the same time, refers to an old work which told of Constantine's leprosy and his cure by Silvester.' These references show that there must have been in existence at Rome by the beginning of the sixth century, a book containing the legend of Constantine's leprosy and baptism by Silvester, that it was not associated with the name of any author, did not enjoy a great vogue, for its truthfulness was questioned, and it needed apology. It certainly must have contradicted not only the facts of history, but current opinion as well. 1 It is probable that toward the end of the sixth century this anonymous Vita Silvestri was touched up by an enthusiast for the primacy of Rome who saw the opportunity it afforded. It was not made mucli of, so far as we know, in the middle of the century after the stormy days of Symmachus. But by the time of Gregory the Great 3 we find a version with added details, represented in the text published by Mombritius.'' 1

" H o c cum [ L i b e r i u s ] Iegisset ex libro antiquo, edoctus a libro Silv e s t r i episcopi R o m a n o r u m , et quod publice praedicaret, in nomine J e s u Christi a lepra mundatum iuisse per Silvestrum Constantium patrum C o n s t a n t i u s . " In emphasizing the antiquity of the l.ibcr or I'ita Silvestri, and c o m m e n d i n g it by a f f i r m i n g its use by Liberius, the forger probably g i v e s himself a w a y , as is pointed out by Duchesne, for in the Vita Silvestri L i b e r i u s is unhistorically represented as already dead. The f o r g e r , h o w e v e r , may have had another text of the Vita Silvestri. '' F r i e d r i c h thinks that this form is represented by the version published by S u r i u s , which is also a n o n y m o u s . Cf. CvnstantinischeSchenkuns;, p. 8 1 . F o r fuller discussion of the above, see F r i e d r i c h , 70-81, and D u c h e s n e , op. cit., i, pp. c x i i i - c x v . 3

P o p e , 590-604.

' F r i e d r i c h , up. cit., p. 81 et seq. D u c h e s n e had, before Friedrich, g i v e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same date, but looked upon the version in M o n b r i t i u s as the earliest extant form from which other versions were derived.

167]

LATER

LEGENDS

OF CONVERSION

rfj

Here the whole legend of Sylvester purports to be taken from a collection of twenty b o o k s of A c t s of martyrs and bishops of the principal sees written by Eusebius of Caesarea. T h e name of Sylvester's m o t h e r is given, the speech of Sylvester against the Jewish rabbis has a decided turn against the monothelites, and Constantine is made to emphasize the primacy of R o m e , while Sylvester is not represented as making the trip t o Constantinople, of which the version in Surius tells. This version had apparently become known in the east before the end of the sixth century, where in fact the Vita Silvestri generally became popular, and seems even to have displaced the original eastern form of the legend of Constantine's conversion." Friedrich has discussed an interesting passage in the correspondence of Gregory the Great, in which E u l o g i u s , patriarch of Constantinople, wrote to him asking for a copy of the collection of the Acts of martyrs and bishops written by Eusebius. G r e g o r y replied a that he had not known whether they had been collected or not, and that he had not been able to find in his archives or in libraries at R o m e any except a few scattered A c t s in one manuscript volume. If he found any such collection as was asked for he would send it. Friederich's interpretation of all this is that the Vita Silvestri, worked over in the interest of the primacy of the bishop of R o m e , and validated by a preface claiming Eusebian authorship, had 1 Duchesne, op. cit., i, p. cxx. One of the Greek renderings even retained the part of the preface stating that the work was translated from the Greek into Latin, thus putting his Greek into the embarrassing position of being a translation from the Greek. This process reminds one of a form of the Autobiography of Hcnjamin Franklin, which wa translated into French, then this was translated into English, and this back into French. Cf. Macdonald's ed., p. xv.

'July, 598-

168

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[168

fallen into the hands of E u l o g i u s at Alexandria. He thereupon put R o m e into an embarrassing situation b y w r i t i n g for the collection of the A c t s by Eusebius from which the Vita Silvestri in its preface claimed to come. G r e g o r y , in reply, could only imply that the other A c t s were scattered and lost, and asks for time. 1 Though these inferences are in places overdrawn, the passage certainly looks like a reference to the preface of the Vita Silvestri, and the implications must, in the main, be accepted. A f t e r G r e g o r y , the V i t a Silvestri was called to the attention of pilgrims in a Roman pilgrim b o o k composed under P o p e H o n o r i u s (625-638). * T h e Liber Pontifi.calis incorporated in its life of Silvester his flight t o Syraptim, the baptism of Constantine by Silvester, and Constantine's cure from leprosy. 3 A legend combining two such personages as Constantine and Sylvester could hardly remain entirely stereotyped. T h e manuscripts which have come d o w n in different languages show considerable variation of incident. Friedrich has argued with considerable plausibility that the legend of the miraculous founding of Constantinople through a dream in which Sylvester figured, came into it not l o n g before the end of the seventh century. 4 N o t many generations after this a modified version of it appeared as the Constitutum Constantini, that famous document which containing the Donation of Constantine was destined to play a great part in the history of Europe. 1

Friedrich, op. cit.,

pp. 83-87.

' D o l l i n g e r , Fapslfabeln,

cd. F r i e d r i c h , p. 65.

' E d . D u c h e s n e , i, I/O et seq., ed. M o m m s e n , p. 47 et seq. The f o r m e r assigns the original compilation, including S y l v e s t e r ' s life, to a time not later than B o n i f a c e II (530-532). M o m m s e n , following W a i t z , puts the w o r k in the b e g i n n i n g of the seventh c c n t u r y . *Cf. supra,

pp. 150-151.

!69]

LATER

LEGENDS

OF CONVERSION

General Acceptance of the Sylvester-Constantine

j6g

Legend

The emergence of the legend of Constantine's Roman baptism brought medieval writers face to face with a question of fact, for the knowledge of the earlier accounts of his baptism at Nicomedia had been preserved, not only in the east by Eusebius and his followers, but in the west by Ambrose, Jerome, Prosper and other authors. The former legend was also contradicted by the widely used Historia Tripartita, compiled from the three continuators of Eusebius' Church History. Confronted with this problem of historical criticism, the middle ages followed its natural bent and accepted the one which appealed most to its imagination and its orthodoxy. A few writers such as Isidore (636), Fredegar (658), Frehulf (c. 840), Hermann the Lame of Reichenau (c. 1050) and Marianus Scotus (c. 1050), held to the older version of Constantine's baptism, in some cases apparently not knowing the later legend, in some cases rejecting it. The Sylvester legend, however, won the field almost completely and in the later middle ages was seldom disputed. 1 It furnished one of the arguments at the second council of Nicea for the use of D o l l i n g e r in Fapstfabeln, ed. Friedrich, pp. 65-72 et passim, collected a long and almost exhaustive list of references in medieval writers. Duchesne: Liber Pontificalis, i, p. c x v , gives a number of references in both L a t i n and Greek authors, concluding that after the commencement of the ninth century all the Byzantine chroniclers admit the Sylvester legend more or less completely. I n the W e s t , at the end of the sixth century, Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc., ii, 3 1 , described the baptism of Clovis; " p r o c e d i t novus Constantinus ad lavacrum, deleturus leprae veteris morbum, sordentesque maculas gestorum antiquorum recenti latice deleturus." The A n g l o - S a x o n bishop Aldhelm, at the end of the seventh century, is thought to have introduced the Constantine-Sylvester legend into g e n eral literature in his "Liber de laudibus lirgitii/a/is," chap. 25 (r/. Friedrich: Con. Sckenci., pp. 1 3 6 - 1 3 7 ) . T h e subsequent list includes B e d e , A d o , Pope Paul I . , Pope Hadrian I . , Odericus Vitalis, H u g o of 1

iy0

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[

i 7

q

images. 1 Even in m o d e r n times it was incorporated in Baronius' Annalsa and taken seriously by Severinus Binius, whose c o m m e n t s are printed as notes in Migne's Patrologia.3 The whole story of Constantine's leprosy, cure and baptism gained graphical representation in a series of ten pictures in the o r a t o r y of St. Sylvester adjoining the church of Q u a t t r o Incoronati at Rome. These probably date from the restoration of the oratory in the thirteenth century, but may possibly be earlier. 4 Later tradition located the spot where Constantine and Sylvester were supposed to have parted. 5 It even influenced geography by identifying the Syraptis or Syraptim of the legend with the real Soracte and c h a n g i n g the latter name to the former. Here, very fittingly, a monastery of St. Sylvester was built in the eighth century. 6 The reasons for the popularity and well-nigh universal acceptance of this incredible legend are revealed by writers who discussed it before it had entirely displaced the historical facts. I t seemed unthinkable to them that Constantine should have presided at the Council of Fleury, Ratramnus, Bonizo, Martinus Polonus, all thepapal chroniclers after the Liber Pontificalis, Nicholas I . , Leo I X . , collections of canon law by Anselm, Deusdedit, Gratian (in the palea, or later insertions), the Kaiserchronik, Konrad von Wurzburg, Wolfram von Eschenbach, and others. 1

Cf. the first Act of the Council.

2

Under A . D . 324, the date to which the Roman baptism of Constantine was commonly assigned, No. 32 et seq. ' L a t i n series, viii, col. 795 et seq. 4 C t . Arch, della Societa rom. di St. patria xii (1889), p. 162. cini: Vita di Lorenzo Valla, p. 154, note. 5

Gregorovius: Rome

in the Middle

Ages,

Man-

ii, p. ;/H.

' D u c h e s n e : Op. cit., i, p. c x i x . Hartmann, I¿alien Band ii, Halite ii (Gotha, 1903), p. 222.

im

Mittelalter,

LATER

LEGENDS

OF

N i c e a , w h i l e still u n b a p t i z e d .

CONVERSION

171

His baptism by Eusebius

of N i c o m e d i a , a b i s h o p t a i n t e d w i t h A r i a n h e r e s y , s e e m e d e i t h e r i m p r o b a b l e , o r t h e r e s u l t of a relapse, n o t a natural

consequence

of

his

conversion

from

paganism.

M o r e o v e r , how could such a hero have postponed tism

to

his

death-bed?

baptistery bearing

the

The

existence

n a m e of C o n s t a n t i n e

l o c a l i z e the place of his b a p t i s m .

bap-

in R o m e of

a

helped t o

M o r e o v e r , the m i r a c u -

l o u s e l e m e n t , instead of b e i n g an o b s t a c l e t o a c c e p t a n c e of t h e l e g e n d , w a s fairly d e m a n d e d b y t h e g r e a t signific a n c e of C o n s t a n t i n e ' s c o n v e r s i o n .

T h e a b s e n c e of early

a c c o u n t s c o r r o b o r a t i n g it p r o v e d o n l y that C o n s t a n t i u s had tried t o s u p p r e s s t h e s t o r y of his f a t h e r ' s leprosy. 1 M e n of the M i d d l e A g e s w e r e s k i l l e d h a r m o n i z e r s of discrepancies.

Their

treatment

of

this

legend

t h a t their business w a s n o t p r i m a r i l y t o d i s c o v e r but to systematize accepted teachings. after accepting

the l e g e n d ,

torical Nicomedian baptism.

shows facts,

T h e y , therefore,

easily d i s p o s e d

of the his-

T h e Gesta Liberii s m o o t h e d

o v e r difficulties b y p o s t u l a t i n g a n o t h e r e m p e r o r of the s a m e name.

B i s h o p B o n i z o r e j e c t e d t h e E u s e b i a n bap-

t i s m a s an e r r o r g r o w i n g o u t of c o n f u s i o n of fact and n a m e , due to the belief t h a t B i s h o p E u s e b i u s of had i n s t r u c t e d C o n s t a n t i n e in C h r i s t i a n i t y . about

1100,

accepted

both

baptisms

and

Rome

Ekkehard, harmonized

t h e m b y t h e s u p p o s i t i o n that C o n s t a n t i n e a f t e r his R o m a n c o n v e r s i o n had fallen i n t o the A r i a n h e r e s y w h i c h led t o his h a v i n g the rite r e p e a t e d b y E u s e b i u s of This

happy

lowed.

device

seems

to have

been

Nicomedia.

g e n e r a l l y fol-

T h e p r o b l e m w a s t h e n , f r o m all p o i n t s of

view,

s o l v e d t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e m e d i e v a l mind, and the w o n d e r f u l l e g e n d of S y l v e s t e r ' s r e l a t i o n s t o C o n s t a n t i n e 1

S o Severinus Binius.

Cf. M i g n e , o/>. cit., col. 800.

CONSTANTINE

AND CHRISTIANITY

[172

had clear sailing. It still forms a part of the Roman Breviary, to be read on Sylvester's Day, the last day of the calendar year. 1 S o the piety of the early Middle A g e s found one of its most characteristic utterances. The wonder-working power of God was displayed in the miracles of the Sylvester legend, and the triumph of the Christian faith set forth in glowing colors. But the hero of these divine manifestations was no longer Constantine, as in the earlier legend, it was Sylvester, the priest and bishop. T h e emperor took his true place as a mere creature of this world, the object of God's wrath for his sins, and the beneficiary of a priest's intercession when his heart had relented. The kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of priests, had come into its o w n ; its glory and its power made the Roman emperor himself but a miserable, helpless mortal in comparison with the divine power dispensed by the Pope, the head of the church. 1 The revision of the Breviary recently completed consists merely of a rearrangement of parts and makes little or no change in the contents. Cf., also, under Nov. 9 and 18.

PART THREE THE SPURIOUS CONSTANTINE : THE CONSTITUM CONSTANTINI

CHAPTER HISTORY

I

OF T H E CONSTITUTUM

i. The Conslitutum

Constanlini Contains

CONSTANTINI

and the Donation

it

WE have seen that medieval legends of Constantine, especially that of his healing and baptism by Sylvester, existed in a more or less fluid state. This is true of all legends, indeed of all narratives in manuscript, and in a lesser degree even of some printed documents. Variations in printed books, however, are slight and unimportant, compared to those which develop in oral or manuscript tradition. Many medieval writers, in copying narratives of others, treated them as an a u t h o r would treat his own notes, omitting, adding and changing at will. N o t a little of our modern sense of accuracy and t r u t h in historical work is due to the mechanical invention of printing. 1 When, therefore, a form of this particular legend emerged in which Constantine donated land, privileges and authority to Sylvester as bishop of R o m e and pope, one scarcely knows whether t o call it forgery or romance. Since the author of it, however, evidently took pains to give what he t h o u g h t to be a legal form and specified grants which would really be of use and importance in his time, it is not too harsh a judgment to pronounce his words a forgery, such as even the laws of his own time severely condemned. 1 1

For this suggestion I am indebted to Professor J . H . Robinson.

' T h e motive of the forgery will be discussed below, p. 2 1 1 et Cf. also supra, pp. 1 2 - 1 3 .

l/5l

175

seq.

I76

CONSTANTINE

AND

CHRISTIANITY

[I76

The Donation of Constantine (or ConstitutUm Constantini, to use the original title of the entire document) 1 extended the legend of the Vita Silvestri by expanding and developing the emperor's expression of piety and gratitude for his miraculous cure from leprosy. It is a document of some 3,000 words, purporting to be from the hand of Constantine, running in his name, and with the imperial subscription. It contains the usual divisions of a medieval legal charter: "invocation of the Trinity," "title of the emperor," " a d d r e s s " to Sylvester, " g r e e t ing." then a rather long " proem " in the form of a confession of faith and a long " narration " of Constantine's leprosy and cure by baptism as contained in the Vila Silvestri. After this comes the "disposition " reciting that since Sylvester is the vicar of the Son of God, he and his successors shall have enlarged power and greater than imperial honor, and shall have primacy over the sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople (which even according to the legend itself had not yet been founded, much less made an episcopal see) and Jerusalem, and over the whole Church universal. Constantine proclaims that he had built the Lateran church and baptistry and makes it "head and summit of all churches." He has built and ornamented the churches of St. Peter and of St. Paul, and to supply their lamps with oil has given them endowments in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, Italy and various islands. He gives to Sylvester, " chief priest and pope of the whole Roman world," the Lateran palace, his own diadem or crown, frigium, collar, purple ' S t r i c t l y speaking, the phrase " Donation of Constantine" applies only to one section of th a. General .Irta

Collections

Sanctorum, ed. by the Bollandists, vols. 1-54 in 2nd. ed. (18631869), in process of publication. Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. ( N e w York, 1886-1905). Corpus Inscriptionurn Latinorum (C. I. L . ) , ed. Mommsen and others (Berlin, 1862, in progress), new cd. (1893, in progress). Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866, in progress). Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Dyzantinae (Bonn, 1828-97). Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'Armenie, by Victor Langlois. Containing Moses of Chorene. (1868.) Fragmenla Historicum Graecorum, ed. C. Mueller, 5 vols., ( P a r i s , 1841-83). Monumenta Germaniae Historica ( M . G. H . ) , ed. Pertz, Mommsen and others (Berlin, 1826, in progress). Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff (N'ew Y o r k , 1 8 9 0 1907). Panegyrici Latini, ed. Bährens (Leipsic, 1874). Patrologiae Cursus Completus, ed. Migne, J . P. Ser. Graeca ( P . G . ) , 166 vols. (Paris, 1857-1866). Ser. Latina ( P . L . ) , 225 vols. (Paris, 1844-1855). Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio, ed. J . D. Mansi (Florence and Venice, I759-I798)- Reprint (Paris, 1901, in progress). Patrum Nicaenorum nomina Latine, Graece, Coptice, Arabice, Armeniace, sodata opera, ed. H. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, O. Cuntr (Leipsic. 1898). 243] 243

244

BIBLIOGRAPHY b. Individual

[244

Works

Addai, Doctrine of. Syriac Text and English translation, ed. George Phillips (London, 1876). Ambrose, Opera, in Migne, P. L., vols. X I V - X V I I ; in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 32; Eng. translation, by Romestin, in Nicenc and Post Micene Fathers, series 2, vol. 10. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum Libri (qui snpersunt), ed. in Teubner Texts, by V. Gardthausen, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1874-1875), Eng. trans, by N. H. Bayncs (London, 1912). Anonymi Itinerarium [Anno Domini j j j ] a Burdiga'.a Hierusalem usque, et ab Hcraclea per Aulonam et per urbem Romani Mediolanttm usque, ctc., (the Bordeaux Pilgrim), P. I.., VIII, col. 783 et seq. Anonymus Valesii, printed with Ammianus Marcellinus: ed. Mommsen in Chronica Minora (M. G. H., 1892). Part about Constantine is in vol. I under Origo Constanliui imperatoris. Cf. also Ohnesorge, W., Der Anon. Valesii de Constantino. Kiel, 1885. Augustine, Opera, in Migne, P. L., X X X I I - X L V I I ; Eng. translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series I, vols. 1-8 (New York, 1903-1907). Chronica Minora, ed. by T. Mommsen (M. G. H.), auct, antiq., vols. 9-12 (Berlin, 1892-98). Codex Justinianus, ed. by P. Kriiger (Berlin, 1877-99), 2 vols. Codex Theodosianus, or Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis, ed. by T. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1905) ; also by Ilacnel (Berlin, 1842) ; also by J. Gothofredus, fr vols. (Leipsic, I736-45)Codinus, De originibus Constantinopolitanis, in Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae ; also in Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, ed. T. H. Preger (Leipsic, 1901-7). Constantine, Opera, in Migne, P. L., vol. V I I I . Oration to the Assembly of the Saints (the Easter Sermon). Published as an appendix to Eusebius' Life of Constantine, q. v. Eumenius, Panegyrieus Constantino Augusto. In Migne, P. L., viii, cols. 619-640. Also in Panegyrici Latini. Eunapius, Opera, ed. by C. Müller, in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. IV (1868); also by L. Dindorf, in Historici Graeci Minores, 2 vols. (Leipsic, 1870-71) ; and by F. Boissonnade, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1822). Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. by Schwartz and Mommsen, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1903), Kleine Ausgabe (1908); also by \V. Bright (Oxford, 1872). Vita Constantini, and other writings in Migne. P. G., vol. I I ; also, ed. by Heinichen (1830, 1869); ed. Heikel in

245]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

G. C. S., (Berlin, Leipsic, 1902), Eng. translation of these and of his Oration in Praise of Constantine in Niccne and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vol. I. Cf. Heikel; Kritische Beiträge zu dem Constantin-Schriften des Eusebius, in Texte u. Untersuchungen, ed. Harnack u. Schmidt X X X V I , 4, (Lcipsic, 1 9 1 1 ) . Eutropius, Breviarium ab urba condita. Ed. Ruehl (1887); ed., H. Droysen in M. G. H., II (1878-1879). Trans, in Bohn series by Watson, Abridgement of Roman History (1853). Faustus, History of Armenia, German translation by H. Gclzer. French translation in Langlois, Coll. d. hist. Armenie, vol. I. Hydatius, Consular Fasti, in Mommsen, Chron. Minora, I. James of Sarug, L'omilia di Giacomo di Sarug sul Battesimo di Constantino imperatore, trad. ed. annoi, da Arthur L. Frothìngham, Jr., in Memorie della Reale Accad. dei Lincei, (Rome, 1883). Jerome, Opera, Migne, P. L., 22-33. Eng. translation by Lewis and Martley in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 2, vols. 6. Julian, Opera, ed. Hertlein (Leipsic, 1875); the Caesares, ed. also by Ezekiel Spanheim (Gotha, 1736). Lactantius ( L . Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius), De Mortibus Persecutorum (authorship questioned), Divinarum Instilutiouum, libri vii, Migne, P. L„ vol. 7 ; also ed. Brandt and Laubmann, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesìasticorum Latinorum, vol. xxvii, ii, 2 (Vienna, Fathers, 1897). Eng. trans, of Lactantius' works in Ante-Niccne vol. 7. Libanius, cf. Sievers, Das Leben des Libauiiis (1868), Orations and Declamations, 4 vols., ed. iReiske (1784-1797) ; Speeches and Letters, ed. by Wolf (1738). Moses of Chorene, ed. Le Vaillant de Florival. Cf. supra, Collection des historiens . . . de l'Armenie. Nazarius, Panegyricus, 321, in Migne, P. L., viii, cols. 583-608; also in Paneg. Lat. Philostorgius, Kirchengeschichte, ed. J . Bidez, in Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Leipsic, 1913. Ecclesiasticae Historiae Libri Septem, ed. by H. Valesius, in Migne, P. L., vol. 65. Eng. trans, in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library (London, 1855). Prudentius, Carmina, ed. by A. Drcssel (Leipzig, i860), in Migne, P. L., vols. 59-60. Eng. trans, by Thackery (London, 1890). Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. by R. Hussey, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1853); also ed. by W. Bright (Oxford, 1878); also Migne, P. G.. vol. 67. Eng. trans, in Nicene and Post-Xicene Fathers, series 2, vol. 2 (New York, 1890), and in Bohn's Ecdes. Library (London, 1874). Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. by R. Hussey, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1858-60; also in Migne, P. G., vol. 67. Eng. trans, in Xicene and

BIBLIOGRAPHY

246 Posl-Xiceiie

Fathers,

B o h n ' s Eccles.

Lib.

T h e o d o r e t , Historic

[246

series 2, v o l . 2 ( N e w

York,

Ecclesiastica,

Lib.

and

Post-Nicene

series 2, v o l . 3 ( N e w Y o r k , 1892), a n d in B o h n ' s

Eccles.

( L o n d o n , 1854).

V i c t o r , S e x t u s A u r e l i u s , Opera, Vita

in

ed. by L . P a r m e n t i e r ( L e i p s i c , 1911 ) ;

a l s o in M i g n e , P. L., v o l . 82. E n g . trans, in Nicene Fathers,

1890), and

( L o n d o n , 1855).

Artemii,

in Acta

Z o s i m u s , Historia trans.

ed. F . P i c h l m a y r

Sanctorum

Nova,

(London,

1892).

ed. by L . M e n d e l s s o h n ( L e i p z i g , 1887).

1814).

(Frankfurt-a-M.,

(Munich,

( O c t o b c r 20).

German

trans,

by

Seybold

and

Eng. Heyle

1802). II. L I T E R A T U R E

A y e r , J. C., Jr., A York,

Source

Book

for

Ancient

Church

History

(New

1913).

Bardenhewer,

Otto.

Patrologie

;

Eng.

trans.,

Patrology.

(Freiburg

Century.

Eng. Hist.

i . B . and St. L o u i s , 1908.) Baynes, N. H.

Rome

and Armenia

in the Fourth

R e v . , x x v ( 1 9 1 0 ) , pp. 625-643. Boissier, Gaston. religieuses

La Fin du Paganisme:

en occident

au quatrième

étude

sur les dernières

siècle,

2 vols.

luttes

(Paris,

1891.)

5th ed. ( P a r i s , 1907). Essais Rev. Boyd,

d'histoire

de deux

W.

K.

The

Columbia

Theod.

Zeitsch.

Ecclesiastical

in

der

Constantin,

in

of

the

History,

Theodosian

Economics

Code,

and

Public

Die

Grosse

als

Religionspolitiker,

in

(1880).

Zeit

Constantins

2nd ed. ( L e i p s i c , 1880). Cf.

de

( N e w Y o r k , 1905).

f. Kirchengeschichte

B u r y , J. B .

la conversion Edicts

Studies

Constantin

Burckhardt, Jakob.

Cambridge

II,

July, 1886, pp. 51-72.

University

L a w , vol. X X I V Brieger,

religieuse;

mondes,

des

Grossen

(Basle,

3rd ed., reprint ( L e i p s i c ,

1853}.

1898).

Gibbon.

Medieval

History,

planned by J. L>. B u r y , vol. 1

(London

and N e w Y o r k , 1 9 1 1 ) , vol. 2 ( L o n d o n and N e w Y o r k , 1 9 1 3 ) . C a r t e r , J. E.

The

Ciampini, Joan. synopsis

hislorica

Clinton, H . F. Cohen.

H.

Fosti

sous

impériales,

Romani, by

A.

of Ancient

Rome

a Constantino

l'Empire

2 vols.

(Boston,

1911).

inagno

constructs

Storia

( O x f o r d , 1845-50.)

Feuardent). romain

8 vols., 2nd ed.

(Livorno,

delle

Descriptions

communément

(Paris, relazioni

des

monnaies

appelées

medail

es

18S0-1892.) tra

lo

slato

e

h

chiesa.

188S.)

Cumont, Franz. Mithra.

Life

aedificiis

( R o m e , 1693).

(continued

frappées Crivcllucci,

Religious De sacris

Textes

(Brussels,

et monuments ifr/j.)

figurés

relatifs

aux

mystères

de

-47]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

The Mysteries of Mithra, t r a n s , by J . T . M c C o r m i c k . (.London, 1903.) Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain. ( P a r i s , 1907.) T r a n s . , Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, by G r a n t S h o w e r man. (Chicago, 1911.) Cutts, E. L . Constantine the Great; the Union of Church and State. ( N e w York, 1881.) D e l a h a y e , H . Legends of the Saints. ( L o n d o n , 1907.) Dill, S a m u e l . Roman Society in the Last Century of the IVestem Empire. ( L o n d o n , 1898.) D ö l g e r , e d . Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit. X I X Supplem e n t h e f t d e r Römischen Quartalschrift ( F r e i b u r g i.Br., 1 9 1 3 ) . D u c a n g e . Constantinopolis Christiana. D u c h e s n e , L . Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, 3 vols. ( P a r i s , 1906-10.) E n g . t r a n s , f r o m 4th ed. Early History of the Christian Church, 2 vols, p u b l i s h e d . ( L o n d o n , 1909-12.) D u r u y , V i c t o r . Histoire des Romains depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à l'invasion des barbares. ( P a r i s , 1870, a n d l a t e r e d i tions.) E n g . t r a n s . , J . P . M a h a f f y ed., History of Rome and of the Roman People. ( L o n d o n , 1883, a n d l a t e r . ) La politique religieuse de Constantin, A. D. 312-337, in Compte rendu acad. seien, mor. polit., X V I I ( 1 8 8 2 ) , pp. 185-227. l ' i n l a y , G. History of Greece, B. C. 146-A. D. 1864. 7 vols., ed. T o z e r , H . F. ( O x f o r d , 1877.) F i r t h , J . B. Constantine the Great. ( N e w Y o r k , 1905.) F r o t h i n g h a m , A . L . C f . supra, J a m e s of S a r u g . Geffcken, J o h s . , Aus der Werdezeit des Christentums (Leipsic, 1904). Geizer, H . Die Anfänge der Armenischen Kirche, in Berichte über die l-'erliandlungcn der kön. sächs. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft :u Leipzig. X L V I I ( 1 8 9 5 ) , pp. 109-174. Gibbon, E . The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. E d . by J . B. B u r y , 7 vols. ( L o n d o n , 1900-1902.) Gieseler, J . C. L . Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 3 vols.(Bonn, 1824) ; stli ed. 6 vols. ( 1 8 2 8 - 3 7 ; . E n g . t r a n s , f r o m 2nd ed. Textbook of Ecclesiastical History, by H u l l , revised a n d ed. by H . B. S m i t h , 5 vols. ( N e w Y o r k , 1863), also D a v i d s o n , 5 vols. ( E d i n burg, 1854). Glover, T . R. The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire. ( L o n d o n , 1909.) Görres, Franz. " Die V e r w a n d t e n m o r d e C o n s t a t u i n s des G r o s s e i l , " ¿.eitsch. für wiss. Theol. X X X ( 1 8 8 7 ) , pp. 343-377. " D i e R e l i g i o n s p o l i t i k des K a i s e r s C o n s t a n t i n s . " Ibid., XXXI ( 1 S 8 8 ) , vol. I, pp. 72-93" D a s E d i k t v o n M a i l a n d . " Ibid. ( 1 S 9 2 Ï . p. 2S2 et seq. G r a u e r t , H e r m a n n , Konstantin der Crosse und jjs Tolei anz-Ed'kt l'on Mailand, Festrede (Munich, 1913).

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[248

Gretser, J. Dt cruce Christi, in Opera, vol. 2. (Ratisbonae, 1743.) Grisar, Hartmann. History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages. Ed. Luigi Cappadelta, translation from the German. (1912.) " Die vorgeblichen Beweise gegen die Christlichkeit Constantins des Grossen," Zeitsch. für kathol. Theolog. V I (1882), pp. 585-607. Gwatkin, H. M. "Constantine and his City." Chap. I of Cambridge Medieval History, vol. I, pp. 1-23. Hamilton, Mary. Incubation, or the Cure of Disease in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches. (London, 1906.) Healy, Patrick J . "Constantine's Edict of Toleration," in Catholic University Bulletin. X I X (1913), No. 1, pp. 3-22. Hülle, Hermann. Die Toleranzerlasse römischer Kaiser für das Christentum. (Berlin, 1895.) Jeep, L. Quellenuntersuchungen zu den Griechischen Kirchenhistorikern. (Leipzig, 1884.) " Zur Geschichte Constantins," in Festschrift für E. Curtius. (Berlin, 1884.) Zur Ueberlieferung des Philostorgios, in Texte und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge. (Leipzig, 1899.) Keim, Theodore. Der Uebertritt Constantins des Grossen 2um Christenthum, Academ. Vortrag. (Zürich, 1862.) Langen, Jos. Geschichte der römischen Kirche, 4 vols. (Bonn, 1881.) Lipsius, R. A . Die edessenische Abgarsage. (Brunswick, 1880.) Madden, W. " Christian Emblems on the Coins of Constantine the Great," etc. Numismatic Chronicle. New Series, vols. X V I I , X V I I I . (London, 1877-78.) Manso, J . C. F. Leben Constantins des Grossen. (Breslau, 1817; Vienna, 1819.) Maurice, Jules. Numismatique Constantinienne. Vol. I. (Paris, 1908.) In process of publication. Les Origenes de Constantinople, in Memoires du centenaire des antiquaires de France. (Paris, 1904.) Monod, Paul. La politique religicuse de Constant in. (Montauban, 1886.) Müller, I. E . P. von. Hqndbuch der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft. New ed. (Berlin, 1892.) In progress of publication. Newman, J . H. Essays on Miracles. (London, 1875.) Pauly-Wissowa. Real-Ettcyclopädie der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft u. s. w. New ed. (Stuttgart, 1901-, in process of publication). Peter, Hermann. Die geschichtliche Litteratur über die römische Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius I und ihre Quellen. 2 vols. (Leipsic, 1897-) Wahrheit und Kunst; Geschichtschrcibung und Plagiat im klassischen Altertum. (Leipsic, 1911.)

249]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

Pfättisch, J . M. Die Rede Konstantins des Crossen an die Versammlung der Heiligen, u. s. w. (Freiburg i.B.; also St. Louis, 1908.) Preger. " Konstaninos-Helios," in Hermes. X X X V I (1901), p. 457 et seq. Rapp. Das Labarum w. der Sonnenkultus, in Jahrb. des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlände. (1866.) Reitsenstein, R. Hellenistische lVunderer2ählungen. (Leipsic, 1906.) Richardson, E. C. Ed. Eusebius" Life of Constantine, etc., in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. I. Savio, F. " La Conversione di Costantino Magno e la Chiese all' Inizio del Secolo IV ", in La Civiltà Cattolica. February 15, 1913. Schaff, P. " Constantine the Great and the Do Unfall of Paganism in the Roman Erapire," in Bibliotheca Sacra. X X (1863), p. 778 et seq. Schanz, M. Römische Literaturgeschichte, in Müller, Handbuch, etc. Schiller, Hermann. Geschichte des römischen Kaiserzeit. 2 vols. (Gotha, 1883-87-) Schultze, Victor. Geschichte des Untergangs des griechisch-römischen Heidentums. 2 vols. (Jena, 1887-92.) " Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Konstantins des Grossen," in Zeitsch. für Kirchengeschichte. V I I (1885), V I I I (1886.) " Quellenuntersuchungen zur Vita Constantini des Eusebius/' Ibid., X I V (1894). Schwartz, Ed. Kaiser Constantin und die christliche Kirche, fünf Vorträge. (Leipsic, Berlin, 1913.) Seeck, Otto. Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken We t. 5 vols. Berlin, 1895-1913.) 2nd. ed. 1897 et seq.\ 3rd. ed. 1910 et seq. Volumes used in this work: I (1897), I I (1901), I I I (1909), I V (1911). " Die Verwandtenmorde Constantins des Grossen," in Zeitsch. für miss. Theol. X X X I I I (1890), pp. 63-77. " Das sogenannte Edikt von Mailand," in Zeitsch. für Kirchengeschichte. Vol. X I I (1892), p. 381 et seq. " Die Bekehrung Konstantins des Grossen," in Deutsche Rundschau. V I I (1891), pp. 73-84. " Zur Geschichte des Nicänischen Konsils," in Zeitsch. für Kirchengeschichte. X V I I (1897), " Die Urkunden des Vita Constantini," in Zeitsch. für Kirchengeschichte. X V I I I (1898). " Urkundenfälschung des 4n Jahrhunderts." Ibid., X X X (June. 1909). Sesan, Valerian, Kirche und Staat im römisch-byzantinischen Reiche seit Konstantin dem Grossen und bis zum Falle Konstantinopels. Vol. I (Czernowitz, 1 9 1 1 ) .

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

U l h o m , Gerhard.

Der

Kampf

(Stuttgart, 1875.)

mit dem

Heidenthum.

E n g . trans, by S m y t h and Ropes, f r o m 3 r d G e r -

man ed., revised. Zahn, Theodor.

[250

des Christentums

( N e w York, 1891.)

Constantin

der

Grosse

und

die

Kirche.

(Hanover,

1876.) Geschichte

des

Sonntags.

V e n u t i , T o m a s o de Bacci. Cristianesimo. Wissowa, Georg. Workman,

H.

Ethics,

Dalla

(Milan,

grande

Persecuzione

Religion

und Kultus

B., " Constantine,"

der Römer.

in

LEGENDS

AND

( W o r k s not included

donatione

Constantini

judicium, ment

quid

A

trcatyse

of possessyons

Rlwme,

ueri of

gyren

by Constautync,

Religion

and

CRITICISM

supra)

A N D S O U R C E HOOKS

habeat

ut in uersa pagella uidebis.

Godfray, Thomas.

of

1912).

HISTORICAL

I. C O L L E C T I O N S

De

del

(Munich, 1902.)

Encyclopacdia

v o l . iv ( N e w Y o r k a n d E d i n b u r g , LATER

alla Vittoria

1913.)

eruditorum

quorumdant

( M a i n z , 1 5 1 8 , r e p r i n t e d later.)

the donation

and graunted

cmperoitr

of

or gyfte unto

Rome,

and

Sylvester,

etc.

endowpope

(London,

of

1525.)

A p p a r e n t l y a t r a n s l a t i o n o f the p r e c e d i n g item. Fabricius, J. A. Goldast,

Uibliotheca

Melchior.

jurisdiction

imperiali,

f o r t , 1 6 1 4 ) , vol. I l l Kehr, Paul Fridolin. 1906.

Gracca.

Monarchia

Vol. II.

s.

(Frankfort,

L a t i u m , 1907. Amplissima zur Geschichte 3 r d ed.

Syntagma

et potestate (Basil,

et

Under

Codex

in Mon.

juris

canonici,

Cusanus, Nicholas. p r i n t e d in Opera. Decretales

1863.)

V o l . 1.

Italia,

scriptorum unii des

(1724). Römischen

de imperiali tic

I1EFOKE T H E

1ÓTH

jurisdictione

de

jurisdictione,

potestate

ecclesiastica.

1609).

CENTURY

(1844). Gcr.

Hist.,

Concordantia ( B a s l e , 1520,

Pseudo-Isidorianae

(Leipsic,

de

(Frank-

6 vols, published.

tractatuum

d i f f e r e n t title,

ed. F r i e d b e r g . De

Tractatus

191/.)

autorum

imperiale,

slightly

ed. G i l e s

veterani Papsttums

o r syntagma

II. W R I T I N G S

Carolinus,

des

(Tubingen,

pracminentis

1566.

A l d h e l m , Opera, Corpus

Collectio

variorum

ecclesiastica,

autoritaie,

Romanorum.

R o m e and Berlin.

M a r t c n c et D u r a n d . Katholizismus.

sive

1613).

Pontiñcum

Mii'bt, K a r l .

Schard, Simon.

1705-1728.)

imperii,

etc., v o l . 1 ( H a n o v e r , 1 6 1 1 ) , v o l . I I

Regesta

Quel'en

(I^eipsic, Romani

Epistolae, (Leipsic, Catholica.

III. 1879-81.) ( B a s l e , 1568.)

Alio

1565.)

et Capitula

Anguramni,

ed.

Hinscliius.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Gratian, Decretum, in Corpus juris canouici, q. v. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, with introduction and commentary. 2 vols. (Paris, 1886, 1892.) ed. Mommsen, in M. G. H. (Berlin, 1898.) Marsiglio of Padua, Defensor pads. (Frankfort, 1592.) Mombritius (Mombrizio). Sanftuarium, sive vitae sanctorum co Icctae ex codibus. (Milan, c. 1479.) New edition. (Paris, 1910.) Moses Chorensis, ed. YVhiston. French translation in Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modern de l'Armenie. Pecock, Reginald. The Repressor of Overmuch Blaming of the Clergy. In Rolls Series, in Rerum Britannicarum mcdii aeri scriptores. (London, i860.) Ed. Wharton and Babington. Regesto pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natiim 1198, ed. Jaffé. 2nd ed. 2 vols. (Leipsic, 1885, 1888.) ed. Kéhr, P. F. (Berlin, 1906-1913.) In progress, six vols, already published. Valla, Lorenzo. Opera. (Basel, 1543; Venice, 1592.) de falso credito et smentita Donatione Constantini, manuscript copies, Cod. Vat. Urbiiiates Latini, No. 337 (all except a few paragraphs destroyed), also Cod. Vat., No. 5314, dated December 7, 1451, in splendid condition. Ibid. Printed by Ulrich von Hutten in 1517, frequent reprints, also in Opera. -—— Ibid. Translations: English, Thomas Godfray (London, 1 5 2 5 ? ) ; Frcnch, Anonymous (c. 1522), Alcide Bonneau, with Latin text and historical study (Paris, 1879); Italian, without typographical indication (1546); ed. also by G. Vincenti under title, " L a dissertazione di Lorenzo Valla su la falsa e menzognera donazione di Costantino tradotta in italiano da G. Vincenti." Latin and Italian (Naples, 1895, out of print). Voragine. Go'.den Legend, ed. Graesse. (Breslau, 1890.) Trans, by W111. Caxton, revised by Ellis. (London, 1900.) III. WRITINGS AFTER I5OO Baronius, Caesar. Annates Ecclesiastici una cum critica historica chronologica, ed. Pagii (1588 et seq.) ; ed. Mansi, 34 vols. (Lucca, 1738 to 1746.) Banck, V. De tyrannidc Papae in Reges et Principes Christianos. ( Franequerae, 1649.) Darozzi, L. and Sabbadini, R. Studi sul Panormita e sul Valla. Reale uistilutio di studi superiori practici e di perfezionemento. (Florence, 1891.) Eayct. La fattsse donation de Constantin, in the Annuaire de la

BIBLIOGRAPHY

252

[252

Faculté des Lettres de Lyon. (Lyons, 1884), also separately ( P a r i s , 1884). Binius, Severinus. Collection des Conciles. 4 vols. (Cologne, 1606.) Böhmer, H . " Konstantinische Schenkung," in Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie. Vol. X I (1902). Brunner, Heinrich. Das Constitutum Constantini, in Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist, pp. 1-36, and separately. (Berlin, 1 8 ® . ) Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. I I . (New Y o r k and London, 1 9 1 3 . ) Especially chapter X V I I I , by G. L . Burr. Caspar, Erich. Pippin und die römische Kirche. (Berlin, 1914.) Catholic Encyclopedia, especially art. " Donation of Constantine," J . P. Kirsch. Vol. V . ( N e w Y o r k , 1909.) Colombier. ' " L a Donation de Constantin," in Etudes Religieuses. Vol. X I ( 1 8 7 7 ) . Combéfis. Illustrium-Christi Martyrum Triumphi. ( P a r i s , 1659.) Döllinger. Papst fabeln des Mittelalters. (Munich, 1863.) Also ed. J . Friedrich. (Stuttgart, 1890.) Duchesne, ed. Liber pontiAcalis, q. v. Fournier, P . Etudes sur les fausses Décrétales. (Louvain, 1907.) Friedrich, J . Die Constantinische Schenkung. (Nördlingen, 1889.) Frothingham, A. L., J r . L'omelia di Giacomo di Sarùg sul battesimo di Costantino imperatore, in Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei ( R o m e , 1883). Gtnelin. Das Schenkungsversprecken und die Schenkung Pippins. (Leipsic, Vienna, 1880.) Grauert, H . " Die Constantinische Schenkung," in Hist. Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft, I I I ( 1 8 8 2 ) ; I V ( 1 8 8 3 ) ; V (1884). Gregorovius, F. Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mitteia.ter. 8 vols. Stuttgart, 1859-1872); 5th. ed. (1903 et seq.) Eng. trans., A . Hamilton, 8 vols., Rome in the Middle Ages. (London, 1P94-1902.) Guicciardini. Istoria d'Italia. (Freiburg, 1775-1776; Pisa, 1819.) Haller. Die Quellen zur Geschichte der Entstehung des Kirchenstaats. (Leipsic and Berlin, 1907.) " D i e Karolinger und das Papsttum," in Hist. Zeit., 108, 3-12, 1,

PP- 39-76. Hartmann, Ludo Moritz, Geschichte Ita iens im Mittelalter. In Allgemeine Staatengeschichte, hrsg, v. K . Lamprecht, Abt. I, Werk 32. Vols. I - I I I (Leipsic, 1 8 9 7 - 1 9 1 1 ) . Hauck, A . " Zur donatio Constantins," in Zeitsch. f . kirchl. 'S* issenschaft u. kirch!. Leben (1888). Henderson, Ernest F. Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages. (London, 1892.) Trans, of Donation of Constantine, pp. 319-329-

253]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Heydenreich, E. Ed. Incerti Auctoris de Constantino Magno ejusque matte Helena libellus (Leipsic, 1879). Ueber einen neugefundenen Roman von der Jugendgeschichte Constantins des Grossen, in Verbände!, d. PMlologenversammlung in Trier; also in Berliner Zeitschrift f . d. Gymnasialwesen (1880). "Constantin der Grosse in den Sagen des Mittelalters," in Deutsch Zeitsch. f . Geschichtswissenschaft, I X (1893), pp. 1-27. "Griechische Berichte über die Jugend Constantins des Grossen," in Griech. Stud. H. Lipsius sunt Geburtstag dargebracht (1894). Hodgkin, Thomas. Italy and her Invaders. 8 Vols. (Oxford, 18801899.) Second édition (1892-1896, Vols. I-IV, in V ) . Hutten, Ulrich von. Opera, ed. Münch, s Vols. (Berlin, 1821-1825.) Ed. E. Böcking. 7 Vols. (1859-62). Janssen, Johannes. History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages. Trans, frora the German (i5th ed.) by M. A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie. 16 Vols. (London, 1905.) Kaufmann, George. " Eine neue Theorie über die Entstehung und Tendern der angeblichen Schenkung Constantins," in Allgem. Zeitung (1884). Kirsch, J . P. " Die Heimat der Konstantinischen Schenkung," in Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und' Kirchengeschichte, Bd. xxiii, 110-114. (Roine, 1909.) Krüger, G. " Die Frage nach der Entstehungszeit der Konstantinische Schenkung," in Theologische Literaturseitung, X I V (1889), cols. 429-435, 455-460. Lamprecht, C. Die römische Frage von König Pippin bis auf Kaiser Luawig den Frommen. (Leipsic, 1889.) Langen, J . " Entstehung und Tendenz der Konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde," in Historische Zeitschrift L. (1883). Langen, J . Geschichte der römische» Kirche. 4 vols. (Bonn, 1885.) Lea, Henry C. Studies in Church History (1883). Loning, E. " Die Entstehung der Konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde," in Hist. Zeitschrift, L X V (i8go). Martens, W. Die römische Frage unter Pippin und Karl den Grossen. (Stuttgart, 1881.) Die falsche Generalkonsession Konstantins des Grossen. (Munich, 1889.) Beleuchtung der neuesten Kontroversen über die römische Frage unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen. (Munich, 1898.) Mayer, E . " Die Schenkungen Konstantins und Pippins," in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, X X X V I , p. 1 et seq. (Tübingen, 1904.) Mancini, Girolamo. Vita di Lorenzo Valla. (Florence, 1891.) Nisard, Charles. Les Gladiateurs de la république des lettres aux XVe, XVle et XVIle siicles. 2 Vols. (Paris. 1860 >

254

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[254

Pastor, Ludwig. The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages. Trans, and ed. by F. I. Antrobus. Second ed. 10 Vols. (London, 1898.) Scheffer-Boichorst, Paul. Neue Forschungen über die Konstantinische Schenkung, in Mitteilungen des Instituts für österr. Geschichtsforshung, X (1889), X I 1890). Also printed in Historische Studien, pub. by Eberling, Vol. 42. Schwahn, Walther. Lorenzo Valla; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Humanismus. (Rostock, 1896.) Steuchus. Contra Laurentium Vallam de Donatione Constantini (Lyons, 1547.) Strauss, D. F. Ulrich von Hutten (1857), 4th ed. (1878). Eng. trans, by G. Sturge, from second ed. (1874). Taylor, Henry O. The Medieval Mind. 2 Vols. (New York, 1911.) Tiraboschi, Girolamo. Storia della letteratura Italiana. (Rome, 1783, 1806.) Voigt, G. Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums (1880-1881). Weiland, L. " Die Konstantinische Schenkung," in Zeitschrift f . Kirchenrecht, X X I I , 1 (1887), X X I I , 2 (1888). Wolff, Max von. Lorenzo Valla, sein Leben und seine Werke. (Leipsic, 1893.) Zeumer, Karl. " Die älteste Text von der Donation von Constantin. (Die Konstantinische Schenkungsurkunde,") in Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist. (Berlin, 1888.) Zinkeisen. " T h e Donation of Constantine as Applied by the Roman Church," in Eng. Hist. Rev.. IX (1894).

INDEX N a m e s of modern w r i t i n g s by italics.

writers

are indicated

A b g a r legend, 156-157 Acts of Sylvester, cf. Vita Silvestri A d d a i ( T h a d d e u s ) , 116, 156 Addai, Doctrine of, 116 A d o of V i e n n e , 178 A d u l t e r y , legislation on, 44 A e n e a s S y l v i u s , 199, 200 A l d h c l m , 150 A l e x a n d e r V I , 201 A l f o n s o of A r a g o n and Naples, 193 A m b r o s e of Milan, 153, 169 A m m i a n u s Marcellinus, 63, 89, 123 Anastasia, 74 A n s e l m of Lucca, 178 Antioch, C h u r c h at, 57 A n t o n i n u s of Florence, 201 Anulinus, Rescript to, 30, 31 A p o l l o , cf., also, S u n - w o r s h i p , 76,85 Apotheosis of E m p e r o r s , 47, 61 A r c h of Constantine, 47-52 A r i a n c o n t r o v e r s y , 70-71, 82 A r i o s t o , 202 A r i u s , 70, 71 A r i e s , S y n o d o f , 69 A r m e n i a , 157, is8n Artemius, Life of St., 140 A t h a n a s i u s , 71 A u g u s t i n e , 141

by

SMALL CAPS, titles

Bricger, 21 I Breziary, The, I Brunner, 214

of

172

i B U R C K H A R D T , 20, 4 5 , 6 5 i BURY, 66

Caecilian. Bp. of Carthage, Ó3n.4, 69 ! Caesars, The, 124 Cathalanus, 200 Celibacy of the C l e r g y , 32 ; C h a r l e m a g n e , 200 Children, Legislation on, 43-44 Christianity, A d o p t i o n o f , 9, 17 et seq., 37 et seq., 83-86, 96-99, 102 et seq., 123 Christianity, and P a g a n i s m , 82 et seq., 95-96 Church, P r i v i l e g e s o f , 32 et passim j C h u r c h P r o p e r t y , 30 I Claudius, E m p e r o r , 113 1 Claudius, L e g e n d of Constantine's Descent f r o m , 105, 112 et seq. 1 C l e r g y , P r i v i l e g e s o f , 31-32, 40 : Codex Theodosianus, cf. Theodosian Code • Codinus, 129 : C o i n a g e , cf., Constantine I Concubinage, Legislation on, 44 I Constance, C o u n c i l o f . 188 \ Constans, E m p e r o r , 37 Balsamon, 179 Baptism of Constantine, cf., Con- : Constantia, 60, 114 ! Constantine, the Great stantine I Baptism, 87-89, 95, 159. 160, 171 ; Baronius, 170, 206-207 Basle, Council o f , 189 et seq. Career, 10, 1 1 2 ; C h u r c h buildB e r n a r d , St., 187 ] ing, 56-61, 147-148, 163; C o i n a g e . Bethlehem, C h u r c h at, 57 I 45-47; Donation o f , cf. ConstituBishops, Judicial P o w e r s o f , 41 | tum Constantini; C o n v e r s i o n , 72Blastares, 179 I 82, 106, 125-128, 133-135 ' ' *'