title

:

author

:

publisher

:

isbn10 | asin

:

print isbn13

:

ebook isbn13

:

language

:

subject

publication date

:

lcc

:

ddc

:

subject

:

THE CHRISTIANITY OF

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

THE CHRISTIANITY OF

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT

T. G. ELLIOTT

Scranton: University of Scranton Press

© 1996 By the University of Scranton Press

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Elliott, T. G. (Thomas George), 1938 -

The Christianity of Constantine the Great / by T. G. Elliott.

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-940866-58-7 -- ISBN 0-940866-59-5

1. Church history--4th century. 2. Constantine I, Emperor of Rome, d. 337. I. Title.

BR205.E55 1996

207.1--dc2096-36046

CIP

Marketing and Distribution

Fordham University Press

University Box L

Bronx NY10458

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

vii

Introduction

1

1Parents

17

2Early Religious Development

29

3Accession and Early Years as Emperor

39

4Rome, 312and Eusebius' Conversion Story

61

5The Donatists, 312-337

73

6Legislation

97

7Constantine and Licinius, 311-324

115

8The Melitians and the Arians

141

9Preparations for the Council

163

10The Council of Nicaea

195

11Eusebius of Nicomedia

215

12The Aftermath of the Council of Nicaea

229

13 Gothic Wars; Building; Administration

253

14 Constantine, Athanasius and Arius, 328-333

271

Page vi

15Constantine and Athanasius to the Council of Tyre in 335

285

16Last Years

321

Conclusion

327

Bibliography

337

Index

359

Page vii

PREFACE

This book had its origins in my sudden realization some years ago that Eusebius' story of Constantine's conversion was a fiction or a mistake, based upon the emperor's own story of how God told him to make the labarum, the standard carried before his army. This confirmed my opinion that Constantine's Christianity was of more normal and earlier origins than the "miracle" of 312 A.D. Further study of my subject made me very skeptical about several aspects of studies of Constantine-his alleged dependence on the bishop Ossius, his lust for power as demonstrated by his civil wars, his efforts to obtain unity in the Church so that it might better subserve the needs of the empire, his reversal of policy with regard to the Arians, and all his reversals of policy with regard to Athanasius. In recent years I have become quite cautious about Athanasius: is it really necessary to believe that the eastern bishops, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, were as heretical, or pusillanimous, as his writings assert?

It is on these religious questions, on which I believe that I have something useful to say, that this book is focused, although I have not tried to stay away from Constantine's career in general. My view of the origins of Constantine's religion has led me to think that his belief and policy on religious matters were more consistent than earlier writers suggest, and I have been surprised by the appearance of the Constantinian documents when read in this light. My main concern has been to present the argument arising from such a reading as well as I can. Knowledgeable readers will understand that the complexity of the ancient evidence makes the straightforward presentation of the argument impossible, but I have tried to preserve a chronological order in dealing with Constantine's religion.

I have intended to contribute to the scholarly discussion of the subject, but the book is also written for the student and the educated general reader. It is much dependent upon the Constantinian documents, which appear in translation in a fairly large number. It will be easier for most readers to use the translations provided here than to consult them in a library, and I

Page viii

have drawn freely on those translations which were most accessible. In some cases I have altered translations in the interest of accuracy, or of bringing an old translation, such as Richardson's of works of Eusebius of Caesarea, up to date. 1 I have corrected very few outright errors in translation. In cases, where I could find no translation into English, and in some others where the style made me uncomfortable, I have given my own versions, but my prevailing practice avoids the risk of foisting my own views, which are, admittedly, controversial, on the ancient texts. I apologize to those readers who do not like the language of the old translations: it has the advantage of differing from my own. In the list of ancient works cited I have referred the reader to an existing translation where possible. Professionals will know where to find the material.

I have several debts for some of the translations. The Longman Group granted permission to reprint Kelly's translation of the synodal letter of the Council of Antioch in 325. I am very grateful to the Harvard University Press, the Oxford University Press, the British Library, and to Prof. C. Luibhéid for their permission to reprint translations of material as acknowledged in the text and notes.

My use of the modern literature on the subject requires some explanation. Much of that literature is based on assumptions regarding the sources or Constantine himself which have been invalidated, and use of it would place an intolerable burden on the footnotes. For example, I have little to say about the work of Henri Grégoire, with some of whose arguments I sympathize, because he thought that Eusebius of Caesarea did not write the Vita Constantini, 2 or about the work of the many scholars, including Grégoire, who have assumed a direct relation between the paganism of the panegyric orations on Constantine, or his coinage, and the personal religious belief of the emperor. For some readers this may seem to reflect a severe treatment of some ancient sources. Some of these sources, deprived of the support provided by invalidated modern assumptions, have little to say on the subject of this book, and my refusal

1 What appears as Richardson's translation (in LNPF² vol. 1) has been altered in order to make it translate the GCS text of Winkelmann, of 1975.

2 H. Grégoire, "Eusèbe n'est pas l'auteur de la Vita Constantini," Byzantion 13 (1938), 561-583.

Page ix

to regard them as evidence should not be taken to reflect ignorance of them, or a desire to ride roughshod over them. The scholar who writes on Constantine must decide what he will give up, in order to avoid contradicting himself, and if I have given up something different from earlier scholars, that is part of the justification of this book.

Of the literature which I should have used, I have undoubtedly missed many items, most of them subsumed by later work, for which I apologize. Although I have read more than I have cited, the absence of a work from the list of works cited reflects nothing more ominous than the ignorance of the author, in all probability.

My introduction to studies of Constantine long ago came through Baynes' little book, which has remained in the back of my mind. I have made much use, particularly at an early stage in the present work, of the many works of T. D. Barnes, who pays such useful attention to details, and who may have provoked other scholars to similar, or even more thorough, efforts. I have profited greatly from R. P. C. Hanson's The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, which has made the subject so much more accessible to people who have no particular aptitude for theology and who find earlier accounts intolerable. It was always a pleasure to use that work. Various publications of Richard Klein and Otto Seeck have been a comfort at the most difficult points, where I needed comfort from scholars who had thought through the problems.

This book has not been a co-operative venture, and my informal scholarly debts are easy to acknowledge. Barbara Rodgers helped me at an early stage, when I most needed it, with her advice on the early years of the reign. I have enjoyed the conversations I have had with Toronto colleagues-John Rist, Paul Fedwick, Gary Rubinstein, Catherine Rubincam, and Wendy Helleman, the last of whom read the book and cleared some errors out of it. Recently I have had the great benefit of several discussions of the chronology of the years around 326-350 with Richard Burgess, who has very kindly shared with me the results of his important work on the subject, for which see the notes to chapters 10 and 12.

I am grateful to Richard W. Rousseau, S.J., Editor of the University of Scranton Press, who suggested that I write the book, and to the anonymous readers for their criticisms of it.

My wife, who contributed more than everyone else together, by

Page x

making for us a home in which I could do this sort of work, and the book is dedicated to Myrna.

Page 1

INTRODUCTION

Constantine's importance is due to his christianizing mission, and a very wide range of views has been put forward regarding his personal religion. His ''conversion" has generally been taken for granted because we have as evidence for his religious views before 312 pagan panegyrics, coins, and inscriptions; for the conversion in 312 the direct evidence of Eusebius of Caesarea; for the period after 312 the christianizing legislationat a minimum. A view of the subject which respects each of these facts has been well argued in N. H. Baynes' much-cited work, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, 1 which may still represent the views of more scholars on the subject than does any other book.

It is the measure of Baynes' achievement (and, perhaps, of his daring) that his work was written two decades before he could have known of the two most significant modern discoveries in the area. These were 1) the identification of the London Papyrus 878 with Eusebius' VC 2.26-28, which authenticated Eusebius' quotation of a controversial document, 2 and 2) numismatic argument for the necessity of re-dating the War of Cibalae from 314 to 316/17. 3 The first discovery invalidated much of the

1 N. H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (London, 1931), reprinted from Proceedings of the British Academy 15 (1929), 341-442; second edition with preface by H. Chadwick (Oxford, 1972). This book is very helpful for the early bibliography on the subject, and I have no wish to discuss the material from the "Donation of Constantine" to Jakob Burckhardt and beyond.

2 See A. H. M. Jones, "Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius's Life of Constantine" in JEH 5 (1954), 196-200.

3 P. Bruun, The Constantinian Coinage of Arelate. Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 52.2 (Helsinki, 1953), 15ff. and 49; C. Habicht, "Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Konstantin" in Hermes 86 (1958), 360-378. On the latter see also T. Grünewald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Überlieferung (Stuttgart, 1990) (Historia Einzelschriften 64), 108-112.

Page 2

presentation of Eusebius as a fraud and forger, and the second required major adjustment to the chronology of Constantine's activity after 312, and to the interpretation of his career. It is necessary here to be frank about the effect of these discoveries: they rendered obsolete much of the literature on the subject, especially general treatments of Constantine, by resolving the centuries-old controversy over the credibility of Eusebius' VC in Eusebius' favorat least on these two very important points.

A discussion of the approach adopted here to the sources on Constantine will help to alert the reader to the nature of this book, and how it will relate to other literature on the subject. I divide the sources, to begin with, into Christian (including Constantine himself), pagan (such as Libanius, Julian, Eutropius, Zosimus), and official (or propaganda)the coinage and inscriptions of Constantius and Constantine and the panegyric orations addressed to them. An important difference between this book and earlier works lies in its treatment of the evidence of the propaganda material. Although I agree with other scholars that the panegyric speeches addressed to Constantine (and Constantius) contain valuable evidence for the careers of the emperors, I contend quite firmly that for the purpose of determining their personal belief the weight to be assigned to these sources is not as easy to determine as has been thought. Since the propaganda in fact shows us only what these emperors wanted their propaganda to say (approximately 4), persuasive direct evidence regarding their personal belief which contradicts what is indicated by the propaganda must certainly be heard. This sounds quite simple, but the effect on the interpretation of Constantine's career can be drastic, and will not be avoided in this book.

This is a serious departure from the earlier literature on the subject. 5

A second point to note is the treatment of the Life of Constantine

4 That the panegyrics are not propaganda in the sense of documents carefully screened by the court officials has been persuasively argued by C. E. V. Nixon, "Constantinus Oriens Imperator: Propaganda and Panegyric. On Reading Panegyric 7 (307)" in Historia 42.2 (1993), 229-246.

5 It requires only a moment's thought to abandon Gibbon's peculiar use of the results of the early numismatic studies as evidence of Constantine's religious views, and, with that, much of modern scholarship on Constantine. The situation today regarding the treatment of the evidence of Constantine's coins is pretty much as DuCange, Banduri, and the Baron de la Bastie left it.

Page 3

(herein abbreviated as VC) of Eusebius of Caesarea. 6 The skeptical views of this work taken by Burckhardt and Grégoire are completely obsolete, and although I recognize that it presents a very large subject, I am not very uncomfortable with the work. Nevertheless, even taken on its own terms 7 as a panegyrical account of the religious character of the emperor, it was intended to mislead the reader at several points. Eusebius wished to give the impression that Constantine was a particular kind of Christian-a heaven-sent deliverer of the Church who was not much concerned about the Arian heresy, and in basic agreement with Eusebius' own views on theology. The means which he employed to create these impressions were remarkably unscrupulous. So far as we know, his quotations of Constantinian documents should be accepted as accurate, but the contexts in which he places some of the documents are quite misleading. 8 Furthermore, he was often carried away by his desire to present his ideal of a Christian ruler to Constantine's sons, and obscured the truth about their father. It is necessary to be patient with this work: no argument for accepting or rejecting it wholesale can gain general acceptance.

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (abbreviated HE), which he brought down to 324 in successive editions, 9 is problematic for a more innocent reason. Eusebius simply did not know much about Constantine and Licinius at an early date, and in the earlier editions he got some things wrong, as in his notion that Licinius was a Christian. He has no miracle by which Licinius became one, and he eventually recognized his error.

The Christian writer Lactantius, who is very much a contemporary

6 The history of scholarship on this work has been well discussed by F. Winkelmann, "Zur Geschichte des Authentizittsproblems der Vita Constantini" in Klio 40 (1962), 187-243. More recent work is noted in the edition by L. Tartaglia, Eusebio di Cesarea, Sulla Vita di Costantino (Naples, 1984) and the review thereof by F.Winkelmann in ByzZ 79 (1986), 57-58. See also H. A. Drake, "What Eusebius Knew: The Genesis of the Vita Constantini" in CPh 83.1 (1988), 20-38; Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire (Berkeley, 1991), 54-56.

7VC 1.11.

8 T. G. Elliott, "Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini" in Phoenix 45.2 (1991), 162-171.

9 T. D. Barnes produces the highest number of these editions in "The Editions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History" in GRBS 21 (1980), 191-201, but see now A. Louth, "The Date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica" in JThS 41.1 (1990), 111-123.

Page 4

source for Constantine's early career, is also problematic. He has plenty of facts, and he gets his events in the right order, so that the attacks on Constantine's opponents are relatively easy to discard, or to allow for. 10 In recent years, however, a considerable body of criticism has been (quite properly) directed at the book On the deaths of the persecutors (hereafter DMP). 11My willingness to accept statements by Lactantius should not be taken as evidence of complete ignorance of, for example, numismatic argument: 12 my scepticism about the usefulness of propaganda material for the reconstruction of Constantine's personal beliefs should be taken into account.

The works of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, present difficulties which are sometimes extreme. Athanasius was a more skilled propagandist than was Eusebius, but his energies were not directed against Constantine. Nevertheless, his efforts to persuade his readers, after Constantine's death, that the Council of Nicaea of 325 did nothing for the Arians have been all too successful, and will require careful attention. Furthermore, the letter which Athanasius quotes as having been written by Constantine to the bishops at Tyre in November of 335 will be shown in chapter 15 to be a forgery. The reader will observe that the argument concerning Constantine made in this book results directly in, or is occasioned by, some adverse

10 A favorable view of Lactantius was presented by J. Moreau in the introduction to his edition of the De mortibus persecutorum (Paris, 1954) (Sources chrétiennes 39), esp. pp. 44-51. It persuaded many scholars.

11 See R. G. Tanner, "The aim of Lactantius in the Liber de mortibus persecutorum" in Studia Patristica 17.2 (1987), 836-840; F. Kolb in Diocletian und die erste Tetrarchie (Berlin, 1987), 131-139; Gnomon 60 (1988), 45-50; P. Bruun, "The Heraclaean coinage of Maximinus Daza. A drastic proposal" in Studies in honor of R. Thomsen (Aarhus, 1988); [M. Gelzer, "Der Urheber der Christenverfolgung von 303" in Vom Wesen und Wandel der Kirche, Fs. E. Vischer (Basel, 1935, reprinted in Kleine Schriften 2 Wiesbaden, 1963), 378-386]; P. S. Davies, "The Origin and Purpose of the Persecution of AD 303" in JThS 40.1 (1989), 66-94; W. Portmann, "Zu den Motiven der diokletianischen Christenverfolgung" in Historia 39.2 (1990), 212-219; W. Kuhoff, "Ein Mythos in der römischen Geschichte: Der Sieg Konstantins des Grossen über Maxentius vor den Toren Roms am 28. Oktober 312 n.Chr." in Chiron 21 (1991), 127-174.

12 Much of this has been conveniently collected in Patrick Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Numismatics: Papers from 1954 to 1988 (Rome, 1991).

Page 5

judgment on Athanasius, who came into conflict with the sound ecclesiastical policy of the emperor and the Church. I do not believe that he and Constantine had theological differences.

The ecclesiastical histories of the late-fourth and fifth-century writers Rufinus, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, do not present new problems to me, and, like my predecessors, I am willing to try to deal with their confusions, without pretending to have much more patience with Philostorgius than the patriarch Photius had. However, I have tried, in a couple of places, to pay more attention than my predecessors have to Gelasius of Caesarea, as preserved in the HE (Historia Ecclesiastica) of Gelasius of Cyzicus and elsewhere. Fairly late in the fourth century the first Gelasius wrote his HE, now lost, starting with Constantius (Constantine's father) and continuing to the period after the Council of Nicaea. 13 This author had both Eusebius' HE, and his VC 14 He was a nephew of Cyril of Jerusalem, who was bishop there from about 350 until his death in 386. 15 Through Cyril's influence he was made bishop of Caesarea in 366, and he seems to have been dead in 400. 16 Quotations from Gelasius' work survive in the HE of Gelasius of Cyzicus, which was written by about 475, and in Byzantine Lives. Winkelmann argued in the 1960s that his work projects back into the early fourth century the attitudes of the age of Theodosius. Such a view depends, so far as Constantine is

13 Cf. Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE, 1, 1-4, edited by G. Loeschke (and M. Heinemann) in GCS (Leipzig, 1918). The subject of Gelasius of Caesarea was controversial until the publication, in 1965 and 1966, of the following by F. Winkelmann:(i) "Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia"in Sitzungsberichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Nr. 3 (1965), 123 pages (hereinafter "Untersuchungen"); (ii) "Charakter und Bedeutung der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia" in Byzantinische Forschungen 1 (1966), 346-385 (hereinafter "Charakter"); (iii) "Die Quellen der Historia Ecclesiastica des Gelasios von Cyzicus (ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasius von Caesarea)" in Byzantinoslavica 27 (1966), 104-130.

14 For Gelasius' use of the VC cf. Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen," 38-43; "Charakter," 375; 378-380.

15 For Cyril cf. Smith and Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography (London, 1887), vol. 1, 760-763.

16For the date of Gelasius' death see Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen," 71.

Page 6

concerned, on the acceptance of Eusebius' account of Constantine as correct, and on the confidence that we know just what effect the Theodosian age would have had on the material under survey by Gelasius. I regard these matters as being very much open to argument, and would accept, for example, what Gelasius tells us about Constantine's father, partly because it agrees with the accounts of Eusebius and Constantine, and partly because it does not seem well suited to at least some of the needs of the age of Theodosius. If the recent argument of J. Schamp to the effect that Gelasius' work went down only to the death of Arius is correct, there will have to be a revision of the value of Gelasius' evidence. 17

The most interesting Christian source for our subject is Constantine himself. The documents, whose force was ignored by Gibbon, had been appreciated by Tillemont, who found successors in E. Schwartz and Baynes. We must surely take it that Constantine's laws express his intentions. 18 I think that his letters regarding the Donatists are quite reliable also. His letter of 324 to Alexander and Arius and his Speech to the assembly of the saints raise questions, for Constantine learned from his experience with the Donatists that he should avoid the appearance of bias while dealing with groups in the Church. Many scholars have written as if Constantine expressed his views frankly and completely in these documents. I do not believe this, and in order to be fair to the reader when I discuss them, I quote the letter of 324, in spite of its length. Other Constantinian documents dealing with the Arian question, including those suppressed by Eusebius of Caesarea because they did not agree with his own views, seem to me reasonably straightforward, with the notable exception of the alleged third letter to the bishops at Tyre.

The pagan sources do not present serious problems. They did not know very much, and the contemporary ones could say even less, about Constantine's religion or mission. The epitomators are very brief, and are clearly under the influence of Constantine's propaganda. I will deal with questions raised by the evidence of these authors as they arise.

The Roman government left by Augustus was a military despotism

17 J. Schamp, "Gélase ou Rufin: Un fait nouveau. Sur des fragments oubliés de Gélase de Césaree (CPG no. 3521)" in Byzantion 57 (1987), 360-390.

18 As O. Seeck said in "Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin's des Grossen" in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftlichen Theologie 33 (1890), 77.

Page 7

decently cloaked as a "restored" republic, in which the princeps held no more "power" than other magistrates, but excelled them all, as first among equals, by reason of his superior "authority." This cloak became a thing of shreds and patches by the middle of the first century under the succeeding Julio-Claudian emperors until, during the year of the four emperors after the suicide of Nero in 68, the "secret" was discovered that an emperor could be made elsewhere than at Rome. The Flavian rulers provided sounder management of the empire, at the cost of drastic tax increases and an openly hereditary succession which led to disputes with a few senators, rapidly resolved in the emperor's favor. Under the "five good emperors'' from 96 to 180, only the last of whom had a son to succeed him, the Roman governing classes happily accepted a situation in which they referred to the emperor as dominus, and the emperor selected one of the senators to be his successor. When Marcus Aurelius was succeeded by his natural son Commodus in 180 the quality of the central government deteriorated sharply, and the civil wars following Commodus' murder in 192 did serious damage to the empire. During the "military monarchy" of Septimius Severus and the other members of his dynasty the succession remained in the family, but the empire suffered from brigandage owing to civil war, plague, increasingly irregular and ruthless taxation, inflation, and foreign war. From 235 to 284 under the "military anarchy" the succession became thoroughly unstable. The barbarian invasions increased greatly in intensity, civil war became chronic, taxation was a matter of more or less organized robbery, and inflation grew much more rapid. 19 In many parts of the empire the second-century paradise of the bourgeoisie became, it seems, a hell on earth. The low point was reached under Gallienus in 253-268.

Diocletian took over a recovering empire in 284. He completely overhauled the Roman government. The old indirect taxes and provincial tribute of Augustan days were abandoned, along with the emergency levies of the third century, and replaced by an income tax on production. This

19 On this general subject see C. R. Whittaker, "Inflation and the Economy in the Fourth Century A.D." in Imperial Revenue, Expenditure and Monetary Policy in the Fourth Century A.D. (British Archaeological Reports, Int'l. Series 76 (1980), 1-22; A. Wassink, "Inflation and Financial Policy in the Roman Empire to the Price Edict of 301 A.D." in Historia 40.4 (1991), 465-493.

Page 8

was made more uniform than the old taxes, obviously in an effort to make it more equitable, and also, undoubtedly, to increase the revenues. Provinces were made smaller, their numbers increasing from about 50 to almost 100, to enable individual governors to get a stronger grip on the administration of their areas, and these smaller provinces were combined into dioceses, in order to reduce the number of officials reporting to the praetorian prefects. The ceremonial of the court became much more elaborate, in order, by increasing the distance between the emperor and his subjects, to increase the security of the emperor. The legions were reduced in size, and their numbers increased, and the total number of troops rose substantially. The army had been divided into frontier troops (limitanei) and the mobile field army stationed behind the frontiers (comitatenses): Diocletian laid more stress on the frontiers and their fortifications. Various methodsthe draft, enforcing of hereditary obligations, hiring of mercenaries, etc.were applied to maintain the required number of recruits.

In 286 Diocletian introduced a new gold coin, the aureus, and attempted to stabilize the silvered bronze currency. The aureus was later decreased in size by Constantine from 60 to 72 to the gold pound (of 327 grams), and, as the solidus, circulated throughout the Roman world and beyond for more than a thousand years. Diocletian's efforts with the "silver" coinage had, not entirely through the fault of the emperor, a less happy fate, and Diocletian, faced with a stupefying inflation, issued his famous edict on maximum prices and wages in 301, fixing prices of over 1,200 items in an attempt to prevent what he called profiteering. This too failed, and when the usual death penalty had claimed enough victims the edict was revoked.

The empire which Diocletian had obtained was threatened with war along much of its frontier. He soon decided that he could not manage all of these wars alone, and that a junior colleague was necessary. An old friend, Aurelius Maximianus was made Caesar on December 13 of 285 20

20 For the date, I follow the apparently exhaustive argument of F. Kolb in Diocletian und die erste Tetrarchie (Berlin, 1987), 22-49. See also the discussion in C. E. V. Nixon and Barbara S. Rodgers, In Praise of Later Roman Emperors (Berkeley, 1995, hereafter cited as NR), the introduction to Panegyric 10 at pp. 44-51.

Page 9

and sent to Gaul, which was troubled by a peasant uprising and by naval raids from the north. Diocletian himself had campaigned on the Danube in 285, and by 287 had made an advantageous peace with Persia. Maximian was partially successful in Gaul, but his lieutenant Carausius, in charge of naval operations, proved dishonest. Faced with punishment by Maximian, who had been raised to the rank of Augustus on July 21 21 of 286, Carausius rebelled, and found himself in control of Britain and some of northwestern Gaul. During the next two years Maximian continued his campaigns in Gaul with some help in 288 from Diocletian, who marched up the Danube to attack the Germans from Raetia. Maximian left the war in the north against the Franks to his praetorian prefect Flavius Constantius, who was successful against them. In the following years, however, neither Maximian nor his prefect was able to suppress Carausius, and Diocletian was busy in the east and on the Danube.

Then, in 293, (on March 1 and perhaps May 21 22), Diocletian produced what has come to be known as the tetrarchy. The junior Augustus Maximian received the senior Caesar Constantius as his colleague in charge of Gaul and Britain, while Diocletian took as his Caesar Galerius Maximianus, who was put in charge of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, and of the defense of the east. The Caesars became the sons-in-law of their Augusti. Diocletian, under the special protection of Jupiter, formed a Jovian dynasty with Galerius whose protecting deity was Mars, while Maximian formed the Herculean dynasty with Constantius, who was under the protection of Sol Invictus or Apollo. The fourfold division responded, according to a panegyrist of Constantius, 23 to the nature of the entire world-the four elements, the four seasons, the divisions of the world by the double ocean, the sun's team of four horses, the sun, moon, Lucifer, and Vesper. We do not need to stand in awe of these arrangements, in spite of the fact that they were often written on stone, nor need we be hypercritical. The fourfold division was to return in the praetorian prefectures long after the collapse of Diocletian's dynastic arrangements.

For the next three years Diocletian worked at consolidating the Danube frontier while Galerius held his ground in the east. In 297, however,

21 Kolb, 49-67.

22 Kolb, 68-87.

23 Pan. lat. 8(5).4.

Page 10

Diocletian was in the east trying to help Galerius against the Persian prince Narseh, who defeated the Romans before being repulsed. Diocletian went back to Antioch which he entered in a chariot, while Galerius went before him, humbled, on foot. 24 It may have been at this point that Diocletian began to purge the Christians from the Roman armies, sending letters to all military commanders instructing them to have their soldiers sacrifice, or quit the army. 25 Diocletian then had to deal with a rebellion in lower Egypt, after which he sailed up the Nile to make a treaty with the southern tribesmen. He arrived back in Syria in 299 to learn that Galerius had won a great series of victories over the Persians and captured their capital Ctesiphon before withdrawing, all of which made possible an even more advantageous peace than that of 287. Galerius now enjoyed great prestige.

Diocletian had already made it clear that he regarded the success of the empire as dependent on other factors besides his military efforts. In 295 he had made a rambling law on marriages which he would no longer recognize as such, on the ground that they were incestuous. 26 His purpose was to secure the favor of the immortal gods by purifying the Romans' posterity. This he could do by declaring illegitimate those born of the proscribed unions. In the same year CJ 9.9.27, in the interests of chastity and in contempt of the ambiguities of the ancient law and the crafty tricks of lawyers, cleared the way for accusations of adultery against women who divorced and announced their remarriages before five years had passed.

In 302 27 Diocletian ordered that Manichaeans be burned alive along with their books. Then, annoyed by the open defiance of a Christian in Nicomedia and perhaps also persuaded by the recent tracts of pagan

24 Eutropius, Brev. 9.24. Ammianus 14.11.10.

25 I have preferred the argument of David Woods, "Two Notes on the Great Persecution" in JThS 43.1 (1992), 128-134, at 130, to that of P. S. Davies, "The Origin and Purpose of the Persecution of AD 303" in JThS 40.1 (1989), 66-94, at 92-94. The date chosen depends, to some extent, on how well-considered we regard the decision to persecute.

26 Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio 6.4 in FIRA Florence, 1968, vol. 2, 558-560.

27 The date is doubtful-cf. Chastagnol in CPh 79 (1984), 253-259 reviewing Barnes' books.

Page 11

intellectuals against the Christians, 28 Diocletian chose February 23, the festival of the Terminalia, of 303 as the date for the setting of a terminus to the new religion. 29 Assemblies for Christian worship were declared illegal; churches and houses containing the Scriptures were to be destroyed, and other church property confiscated; individual Christians had to sacrifice before pleading in court. This last measure, by depriving them of all legal redress, left them open to attacks by their enemies. This edict was published throughout the empire. 30

In the east Diocletian and Galerius went further. By the end of February Galerius had blamed the Christians for a fire in the imperial palace, and the emperors began torturing and executing Christian suspects. 31 Later in 303, reacting against rebellion in Syria 32 they ordered the arrest and imprisonment of the Christian clergy. After a second fire Galerius declared Nicomedia unsafe and departed, 33 and Diocletian set out

28 T. D. Barnes, "Sossianus Hierocles and the antecedents of the "Great Persecution" in HSCP 80 (1976), 239-252, at 246ff.; W. H. C. Frend, "Prelude to the Great Persecution: The Propaganda War" in JEH 38 (1987), 1-18. Regarding the date of Porphyry's work it seems safe to say that neither the case for 300 nor for 270 has been proven. See also Barnes' "Pagan Perceptions of Christianity" in Early Christianity (ed. Ian Hazlett, SPCK, 1991), 231-243, at 239; "Scholarship or Propaganda? Porphyry against the Christians and its Historical Setting" in Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies (London) 39 (1994), 53-65. Tomas Hgg had shown that the Contra Hieroclem was not by Eusebius in his "Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist" in Symbolae Osloenses 67(1992), 138-150.

29 Lactantius, DMP 12.1, supported by T. D. Barnes in "The Constantinian Reformation" in The Crake Lectures, 1984 (Sackville, New Brunswick, 1986), 47 and n. 53 thereto. Against Lactantius' view that Galerius instigated the persecution see H.

A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine (Berkeley, 1976), 15-16; P. S. Davies, "The Origin and Purpose of the Persecution of A.D. 303" in JThS 40.1 (1989), 66-94; W. Portmann, "Zu den Motiven der diokletianischen Christenverfolgung" in Historia 39.2 (1990), 212-219.

30 Barnes, CE, 23. If this edict were sent directly to individual governors by Diocletian, rather than forwarded through the various emperors, there would be no evidence for anti-Christian activity of Constantius.

31 Lactantius, DMP 14.1-5.

32 Eusebius, HE 8.6.8.

33 Lactantius, DMP 14.6-7.

Page 12

for Rome to celebrate his vicennalia, 34the decennalia of the Caesars, and a triumph for Galerius' victory over the Persians. As part of the celebrations the clergy were released from prison, on condition that they sacrifice. Many would not, and suffered the consequences. Some were forced physically to sacrifice. Others were simply said to have done so. Early in 304 another edict required the inhabitants of each city to assemble and sacrifice. 35

On his return journey from Rome to Nicomedia in the summer of 304 Diocletian became ill. His condition worsened, and in December he seemed about to die. He did not reappear in public until March 1 of 305, a ghost of his former self. 36 On May 1 Diocletian and Maximian abdicated, the first Roman emperors to do so.37 Instead of the sons of Constantius and Maximian, Galerius' nephew Maximinus (Daia) was made Caesar for the east, and a crony of Galerius named Severus was made Caesar for the west by the abdicating Maximian at Milan. Constantius was now the senior Augustus, Galerius the junior. 38

The Christian writer Lactantius represents this as a shocking departure from succession arrangements agreed on earlier. 39 Barnes, relying heavily on Lactantius, has suggested that Constantine and Maxentius might have been recognized as sympathetic toward Christianity before 303, and that Galerius had agitated for the Persecution in an effort to discredit them. 40 Such a view has its attractions, but depends upon Lactantius, whose bias

34 Lactantius, DMP 17.1-2.

35 Eusebius, Mart. Pal. 3.1.

36 Lactantius, DMP 17.3-9.

37 Lactantius claims in DMP 18.1ff. that Diocletian abdicated under pressure from Galerius.

38 Lactantius, DMP 18-19.

39 Lactantius, DMP 19-20.

40 D. de Decker argued in Byzantion 38 (1968), 493ff. from his refusal to perform adoratio to Maximian or Galerius (Lactantius, DMP 18.9) that Maxentius was an avowed Christian. I think this unlikely. See S. Pezzela, "Massenzio e la politica religiosa di Costantino" in Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 38 (1967), 443; Pedro A. Barcelo, "Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Constantins des Grossen vor der Schlacht an der Milvischen Brücke" in Hermes 116.1 (1988), 76-94; B. Kriegbaum, Kirche der Traditoren oder Kirche der Mrtyrer: Die Vorgeschichte des Donatismus (Innsbruck, 1986), esp. 130-149.

Page 13

against Galerius has, I think, been explained adequately by P. S. Davies and others as the result of an inference from Galerius' last illnessi.e., Galerius came to a bad end, and was a bad emperor; therefore it was he and not the more respected Diocletian who was responsible for the persecution. 41 I remain persuaded by Davies' arguments 42 that Galerius has not been shown elsewhere to be either a pagan fanatic or the instigator of the Great Persecution, and I believe that we should not prefer the evidence of Lactantius on this point to that of Constantine, who blames Diocletian. 43 It is a real difficulty with this subject, for those who want a single answer, that blaming Galerius is not inconsistent with blaming Diocletian. Similarly, to claim that Galerius pushed Diocletian into abdicating is not inconsistent with the view that Diocletian had long planned to abdicate.

The last matter for this introduction, and one related to the Persecution, is the view to be taken of the size of the Christian population of the empire at the beginning of the fourth century. This also bears on the question of Constantine's reason for accepting a christianizing mission. The estimate of Adolph Harnack, with which most scholars have worked since 1900, was that the Christians were more numerous in the east than in the west, more numerous in the cities than in the country, and that they totaled about ten percent of the population. Harnack's estimate is, of course, very much dependent on the evidence of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. In recent years there has been a certain amount of dissent. Frend clearly thought that the Christians were much more numerous than Harnack had, 44 and Barnes argued that the Christians were ready to take over the

41 P. S. Davies, "The Origin and Purpose of the Persecution of AD 303" in JThS 40.1 (1989), 66-94. We might add that Diocletian was ruling during two years of persecution, Galerius during eight, and that human memory tends to be short. Note, however, that Lactantius may have exaggerated the severity of Galerius' illness. Any such exaggeration detracts from the force of Davies' argument. It may have suited Lactantius' argument to have the persecution ended by an edict of the man who had begun it.

42 He shows from acta martyrum that Galerius' provinces had fewer known martyrs, not more, than those of his colleagues, but we should remember that they also had fewer Christians than the eastern provinces.

43 Eusebius, VC 2.49-51.

44 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965), chs. 14 and 15.

Page 14

empire by 300. 45 Given the much smaller numbers of Christians in the west, I think that these scholars would have to contemplate a figure of twenty percent or more for the Christian population, but neither of them gives his own guess at a figure. Lane Fox, on the other hand, had read Frend's chapters when he argued that the Christians may have been no more than 4-5% of the population. 46 Ramsay MacMullen, who thought that Constantine's work made a great difference to the speed at which the empire became converted, thought that there were about 3,500,000 Christians in 310, which would have been between five and ten percent of the population. 47

The trouble with trying to press the evidence of the language of Eusebius and others is that Christians had been using triumphant language since the Resurrection. Eusebius, Origen, and Tertullian can all be shown to use the same sort of language, as can Constantine himself, 48 and nobody would say that the Christians had been ready to take over the empire at the beginning of the third century. We must also bear in mind that if we put the number of Christians quite high, it will be especially high in the cities of the east, and we shall create the problem of explaining why Diocletian thought that the Persecution would succeed. Here, in fairness to Frend's views, which are more broadly based than those of Harnack, we must not make the mistake of thinking that to Diocletian all Christians were potential

45 The fullest statement of Barnes' views on the size of the Christian population is "The Constantinian Reformation" in The Crake Lectures, 1984 (Sackville, New Brunswick, 1986), 43-46. On this basis he resurrects the eighteenth-century view of Constantine as a Christian ex rationibus politicis. See S. Mazzarino, Antico, tardoantico è era costantiniana. Storia e civilt 13 (1974), vol. 1, 34-40. Barnes' view depends to a considerable extent on his view that the first edition of Eusebius' HE was produced in the 280s, instead of 313/314. See note 9 above. Barnes latest piece on this subject "Statistics and the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy" in JRS 85 (1995), 135-147 does not demonstrate swift Christianizing of the empire before Constantine.

46 R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 268, 276, 287 and n. 52, 310, 316, 335, 453, 561 and (esp.) 592. Lane Fox's estimate may lean on the one carefully arrived at by Gibbon in the last ten pages of ch. 15 of Decline and Fall.

47 R. MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400) (New Haven, 1984), 109-110.

48 Constantine, Speech to the assembly of the saints 19-21.

Page 15

martyrs, 49 so that we might have quite substantial percentages of Christians in the cities of the east such as Nicomedia, and find him willing to persecute in spite of that. 50 We then must look at the problem from the other end. After all of the Christianizing efforts of Constantine, 51 and furthermore of his son Constantius II, his nephew Julian the Apostate tried to re-paganize the empire in the years 361-363. The failure of his efforts had so much to do with Julian's own folly that it is impossible to know, again, what proportion of the population were pagans, but it must have been great. If these efforts of Constantine and Constantius II, in addition to any prior increase over the twenty percent of the population postulated for the beginning of the century, had doubled the Christian population, I think that Julian's efforts become hard to explain if that population had been over twenty percent of the total at the beginning of the century.

The argument of Lane Fox that the Christians formed about four to five percent of the population is also a respectable one, in spite of the unsettling fact that his lower figure is only one-fifth 52 of what I have supposed to be Frend's opinion. He knew what he was writing about, had applied his mind to the subject, and will probably persuade many readers. I might add that there has been a tendency for scholars to think that the Christian proportion of the population was always on the rise everywhere, a notion which I find somewhat disquieting. Some bishops were bound to be more popular than others, and local circumstances must have varied. My scepticism regarding Lane Fox' estimate is not, I admit, founded on material other than that put forward by Frend. Harnack had agreed with the argument Frend was later to make about a sharp rise in the Christian population during the last half of the third century. In this situation

49 In his edict of toleration in 311 Galerius seems to express some surprise at the number of recalcitrant Christians.

50 Diocletian's willingness to persecute creates another problem: that of determining how well the persecution was planned. Had Diocletian been intending for some years to persecute as part of his effort to revitalize Roman morals, or did he begin to persecute as a result of the temporary military setback against the Persians? I admit that the question is important, but I have no basis for a decision on the point.

51 These have been stressed by R. MacMullen in his Christianizing the Roman Empire.

52 It is the distribution of the Christians as well as their sheer numbers that is important, but the two questions must be related to a considerable extent.

Page 16

Harnack's argument seems to maintain its old respectability, and so I am willing to stay with his estimate. 53

This involves the view that acceptance of a Christianizing mission was not to Constantine's political advantageespecially, of course, to his advantage as a western emperor. That conclusion would also be true even if the higher estimate of the Christian population by Frend were correct. Jones pointed out long ago that it was not necessary to become a Christian in order to gain the favor of the Christians, 54 and even if we take it that his view depended on a low estimate of the Christian population, it surely would hold true for the emperor of the west.

53 Knut Schferdiek wrote in his "Christian Mission and Expansion" in Early Christianity (ed. Ian Hazlett for SPCK, 1991), 72 that in 303 "Christians formed a firmly established minority within the Roman empire, although there were considerable differences between its various regions."

54 A. H. M. Jones, Constantine the Great and the Conversion of Europe (London, 1948), 79-80.

Page 17

CHAPTER ONE

PARENTS

Constantine was born at Naissus 1 on February 27 2 of 272 or 273 3 to Flavius Constantius 4 and Helena. The year of his birth has been controversial, for a rather peculiar reason. From the time when he became an emperor in 306 until at least 324, when he became sole ruler of the empire, Constantine himself, on occasion, made false statements, and had his panegyrists make false statements, regarding his age. He wanted at least some people to think that he was about fifteen years younger than he actually was. This period was, in 306, almost half of his lifetime. An explanation of this behavior, which has caused yet more problems in a subject which already has enough of them, will be offered below.

About both of his parents the ancient sources tell us a good deal. His mother, later to become St. Helen, had, on any account, a very peculiar history. Of humble origins at Drepanum in Bithynia, she married an army officer, the future emperor Constantius.5 Nothing is known of their marriage except that it produced Constantine, and ended when Constantius divorced his wife to

1 Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 1.10.13; Origo 2.

2 CIL 1¬, 255, 258, 259.

3 I take it that Barnes has the rights of the matter of Constantine's birth date in The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (hereafter NE), 39.

4 He is nicknamed Chlorus by Byzantine writers, who evidently knew more about him than we do.

5 On Helen see Barnes, NE 36. Regarding her humble origins, I note Banduri's idea that Ambrose's term stabularia had referred to Helen's search for the birthplace of Christ. See Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum a Traiano Decio ad Palaeologos Augustos (Paris, 1718), vol. 2, 111 and notes.

Page 18

marry Maximian's step-daughter Theodora by 289 6 while he was Maximian's praetorian prefect. Nothing is heard of Helen for the next quarter of a century. After Constantine captured Rome from Maximian's son Maxentius in 312 (i.e., by 316) she reappears, as a Christian. 7 At this time she must have been at least sixty years old. Eusebius of Caesarea in his VC 3.47.2 says that Constantine converted her from paganism to Christianity (presumably at some time after 312), and goes on to tell of her famous tour of the Holy Land in 326 or 327. 8 According to Theodoret, however, she had raised Constantine as a Christian. 9 She was in the east with Constantine in 326, when she expressed her distress^10 at his execution of his eldest son Crispus, and she then went off on her tour. Whatever the truth may be about her religion, her reappearance (by 316) after all those years is quite remarkable. Constantine, who was later to execute both his son and his wife, does not seem to have been entirely destitute of family feeling.

Scholars have not accepted the claim of Theodoret, which he presumably got from Gelasius of Caesarea, 11 that Helen, no less than Constantius, had

6 Victor, Liber de Caesaribus 39.25. Theodora's name is interesting. Her mother Eutropia, who became the step-grandmother of Constantine, bore (Maxentius and) Fausta to Maximian and also became Constantine's mother-in-law by his second marriage. In the interests of Constantine's propaganda against Maxentius in 312 she admitted (Origo 12) that Maxentius' father was a Syrian. She is next seen working on Constantine's Holy Land project after 325 (VC 3.51-53). One wonders whether she and Helena were as thick as thieves.

7 Cf. Barnes, CE, 49.d

8 Barnes, in JEH 44.2 (1993), 290-297, at 296 expresses reservations about the 326 date, preferring 327.

9 HE 1.18.

10 Epitome de Caesaribus 41.12.

11 Theodoret's statement in his HE 1.18 is copied by Gelasius of Cyzicus in his HE 3.1,7, with an addition from Gelasius of Caesarea. Cf. Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen," 18-20. The contrary tradition is that represented by the plain statement of Eusebius (in VC 3.47) that Constantine converted her to Christianity. See M. R. Salzmann, "Aristocratic Women: Conductors of Christianity in the Fourth Century" in Helios 16 (1989), 207-220, at 215. It must be acknowledged that this runs counter to Eusebius' own presentation of Constantius as a Christian. Theodoret, in his HE 1.18, describes Helena as "she who brought forth this great luminary for the world and nurtured him in piety from his childhood." While copying several chapters of Theodoret into his own HE Gelasius of Cyzicus added at this point (3.6.1)

Page 19

brought Constantine up as a Christian. Now, Gelasius' claim regarding Helen was not the easy way for him to deal with the question. He was writing in the age of Theodosius, when Athanasian propaganda against Constantius II, which reflected on Constantine, 12 was becoming accepted in the east. He had his predecessor Eusebius' VC, with its story of a conversion of Constantine, and its statement that Constantine had converted his mother. He could have accepted Eusebius' claims quite easily. Instead, he rejected them, in favor of a very different presentation of Constantine's religion, and of Helen's role in producing it. An economical explanation for his account of Helen here is that it was the truth. 13 Since I believe that Gelasius' story, if untrue, should contradict more evidence than this brief statement of Eusebius, and since it accords with Constantine's own claim about his father's religion, I accept it.

Of Constantius we are told a good deal also. By the time Constantine was born he was an officer in the army. 14 The Origo describes him as protector primum, inde tribunus, postea praeses Dalmatiarum. 15He fought in Syria under Aurelian, and was governor of Dalmatia in 284/5 when Diocletian became

a single parenthetical sentence: "For she no less than the child's father, her husband Constantius, brought him up by God's laws to worship Christ." This sentence, like that of Theodoret, may go back to Gelasius of Caesarea, for whom see below. If Eusebius' statement had been made early in his account of Helen's work in Jerusalem it would be more persuasive against the other tradition. In fact it is made in passing, in his account of her funeral, and I am doubtful about it. The age of Helen at the time of the conversion alleged by Eusebius, after which she took to Christianity like a duck to water, seems rather advanced.

12 This propaganda may also be seen in Bidez's edition of Philostorgius, including his Appendix 7.

13 Eusebius' statement about the conversion of Helena by Constantine, like the false claim that Constantine arrived in Britain to find Constantius near death in 306, may be nothing more than a product of Eusebius' claim that Constantine was himself converted. Eusebius' claim in VC 1.27 is contradicted by Origo 4 (= Anonymus Valesii or Excerpta Valesiana) and Pan. Lat. 6(7).7, lff. The point is discussed in my article in Phoenix 41.4 (1987), 427-428.

14 For what this might have meant to Constantius' religious life see J. Helgeland, "Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine" in ANRW 2.23.1 (Berlin, New York, 1979), 724-834, esp. the summary on the evidence at 796-797 and the conclusions at 816-820.

15 Origo 1.2. See M. Peachin, "A note on the early days of Diocletian's reign" in AJAH 9 (1984), 153-157.

Page 20

emperor. He was praetorian prefect of Maximian by 289, by which time he probably was married to Maximian's daughter Theodora. 16 He fought against Carausius, the lieutenant of Maximian in charge of naval operations, who had defected. On March 1, 293 he was elected into the imperial college as the senior Caesar under Maximian. 17 He campaigned successfully against the Franks and other Germans. 18 He recaptured Boulogne, 19 and his expedition to recapture Britain in 296 was successful. 20 This victory in Britain had implications for the rest of the west. 21 When Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in 305 he became the senior Augustus. 22He was in charge of the Gauls, Britain, and Spain. 23

In his HE 8.13.12-14 Eusebius describes him as the kindest and mildest of emperors, ''most friendly to the Divine Word," who "took not the smallest part in the war against us, but preserved the pious that were under him unharmed and unabused." He neither pulled down churches nor took any other action against the Christians. His death was honorable, and he left his empire to his son, who was proclaimed Augustus by the soldiers.

According to Eusebius in the VC 1.12-27, Constantius was a Christian throughout his life (17; 27.2). During the Great Persecution he showed himself as the friend of the Church (13, 15) and cleverly got rid of those Christians at his court who were willing to offer pagan sacrifice (16). His palace was like a church (17). God rewarded him for his devotion with a happy life (18)and a happy death, as he was rejoicing in being able to bequeath his empire to his son (19, 21). In addition to this Eusebius quotes Constantine himself as having said

16 Pan. 8.1, NR notes 2 and 5 on pp. 107 and 108 respectively.

17 Pan. 8.3,1 NR note 8 on p. 110

18 Pan. 6.6,2; 6.4, 2; 6.5, 1-6.7,4

19 Pan. 8.6,1, NR 115 and notes.

20 Pan. 8.13,1-8.17,3. On the date of the expedition see NR, Introduction to Pan. 8 and n. 7 to p. 109. The campaign is persuasively reconstructed by D. E. Eichholz in "Constantius Chlorus' Invasion of Britain" in JRS 43 (1953), 41-46. See also P. J. Casey, Carausius and Allectus (New Haven, 1994), 137-139.

21 Pan. 8.18,4-5, NR, n. 67 on p. 136.

22 See also Barnes, NE 60-61.

23 M. Christol and P. Sillières, in "Constantin et la péninsule ibérique" in REA 82 (1980), 70-80, show from an inscription that Constantine was in charge of Spain in 308.

Page 21

in 324 that his father was a Christian. 24

Constantius had a daughter named Anastasia 25 (by Theodora, who was presumably, although not necessarily, a pagan), which is a further indication that he was a Christian. 26 In On the Deaths of the Persecutors 15 Lactantius praises him as follows: Nam Constantius ne dissentire a maiorum praeceptis videretur, conventicula, id est parietes,qui restitui poterant, dirui passus est: verum autem Dei templum, quod est in hominibus, incolume sevavit. 27This statement clearly implies that he disagreed with the policy of persecution. Furthermore, the word servavit suggests that Lactantius regarded Constantius as a fellow Christian; for an outsider's action reliquit would seem a more natural word. This evidence of Lactantius might be reconciled with anti-Christian activity in Constantius' realm by the supposition that the persecuting edict was sent directly to the governors.

In spite of this evidence, in the Divine Institutes 1.1 28 Lactantius, who must have known a good deal about the family's circumstances, 29 addresses Constantine as Imperator Maxime, qui primus Romanorum principum, repudiatis erroribus, maiestatem Dei singularis ac veri et cognovisti et honorasti. 30

Although the phrase repudiatis erroribus might be taken to imply that Constantine had once lived in those errors, and the primus might be taken to imply that Constantius was a pagan, neither inference is necessary. As emperor,

24VC 2.49. Neither Eusebius nor Constantine says anything about Constantius' divorce of Helen in order to marry Theodora. Regarding the Christian doctrine on divorce at the time see R. MacMullen, "What Difference Did Christianity Make?" in Historia 35.3 (1986), 322-343, at 327 and note 19 thereto.

25 From the Greek word for the Resurrection.

26 For the implications of this fact cf. Kraft, Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung, 5-6.

27 "For Constantius, that he might not seem to be dissenting from the orders of his seniors, allowed churches-that is, the walls, which could be restored-to be torn down: but the true temple of God, which is in men, he kept safe."

28 Written 305-308 or 309, according to O. Nicholson, "Flight from Persecution as Imitation of Christ: Lactantius, Divine Institutes IV 18,1-2" in JThS 40.1 (1989), 48-65, at 48.

29 He was tutor to Constantine's son Crispus.

30 "Great emperor, who first of the Roman princes repudiated the errors and both recognized and honored the majesty of the one true God." Cf. Barnes, "Lactantius and Constantine" in JRS 63 (1973), 43, and note 31 below.

Page 22

Constantine could be envisaged as publicly repudiating on behalf of the empire the errors of others, and Constantius could not be the first emperor so described because he had not formally repudiated the errors and had not published an allegiance to Christianity. It is possible that Lactantius' emphasis on the fact that Constantine did two things (et cognovisti et honorasti) results from a view that Constantius had done one of them (cognoscere). Moreover, that the meaning of repudiatis erroribus is the abandonment of paganism is not quite certain. The "errors" could refer to sacrifice to the pagan gods by a Christian believer.

In the past scholars have taken this address, and the statement of Lactantius that in Constantius' realm some churches were pulled down during the Great Persecution, 31 as proof that he was not a Christian, but the evidence on the other side of this question should not be disregarded too quickly. If we suppose, for a moment, that Constantius was some sort of Christian in 303, we must ask ourselves what he could have done to protect his co-religionists and their property when Diocletian began the Great Persecution. If he were not ready to go to war against his colleagues (at the head of a pagan army), his allowing some churches to be pulled down was a relatively harmless way out of his difficult situation. 32 If that were the case, Lactantius was right in denying to Constantius the et cognovisti et honorasti which he declared was the peculiar distinction of Constantine. After all, in this dedication Lactantius was trying to make the most of Constantine. In short, Lactantius' statement need not imply that Constantius was not a Christian. Lactantius and Eusebius, and later on the Donatists, all could assert that no Scriptures were burnt, and no Christians imprisoned or killed in his realm. This is equally important evidence of the religious views of Constantius. We should note Eusebius' claim that he cleverly got rid of those Christians at his court who were willing to offer pagan sacrifice it is an example of what he was willing to do in a situation under his

31 Lactantius, in DMP 15, asserts that in Gaul the persecutions involved only church buildings. W. H. C. Frend in Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, (Oxford, 1965), 492 and note 113 (Garden City, N.Y., 1967), 365, note 62 thinks that the records of martyrdoms in Gaul in 304 show more than a token persecution. However, we do not know how much control Constantius had over the situation when Diocletian issued the persecuting edict. See Ch. 3, note 34 below, and the beginning of Ch. 7.

32 Origo 2.2 and Victor, Caesares 40.2 say that Constantine was a hostage.

Page 23

direct control, in spite of instructions from Diocletian to get rid of the Christians. 33

Of the ecclesiastical historians, Theodoret says that Constantius raised Constantine as a Christian. Socrates says that he had abandoned paganism. 34 Finally, Gelasius of Caesarea described Constantius as a Christian and a protector of Christians during the Great Persecution, and said that he bequeathed his empire Constantine because, as he declared to his friends, he was convinced that Constantine to would end the persecution of Christians. 35

Against this evidence of Christianity is to be set that of the coins and the pagan panegyrics. The earlier scholarship has simply assumed that we had to argue directly from the presence of pagan gods on the coins and in the panegyrics to the personal religious convictions of the emperors. Scholars after Gibbon have made this assumption quite easily, and Gibbon probably made it for a number of reasons, including the novelty of numismatics in his own day: it has had the most serious consequences for the study of Constantine, for it introduced the possibility of maintaining a radical distrust of everything that he said about his religion. 36 Now, the assumption, in spite of the fact that it seems to be universal, is wrong. Of itself, the propaganda of Constantius and Constantine proves only what they wanted their propaganda to say, and nothing whatever about their personal religious belief. In order to get from what they wanted their propaganda to say to their personal belief, there must be an argument, which has not yet been forthcoming. In its absence I am free to proceed now with my hypothesis that our view of Constantius' personal belief

33 Diocletian's instructions to get rid of the Christians were in his edict of 297 (or 299). See Lactantius, DMP 10. lff.; Eusebius, HE 8.1.8; 8.4.2-5 and Introduction, note 25.

34 HE 1.25. Socrates believed Eusebius' story about the conversion of Constantine, and apparently saw that it could not be easily reconciled with Eusebius' claim that Constantius was a Christian. His solution was to leave Constantius without a religion.

35 For this material on Constantius cf. Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen," 18-22. See note 27 above.

36 Gibbon's presentation of Constantine departs drastically from that of Tillemont, and the difference between them was made possible by his peculiar use of numismatic material. See above, Introduction, note 5.

Page 24

should not be determined by the propaganda. 37 The desirability of keeping Constantine safe and pagan subjects (especially troops) happy was sufficient reason for a Christian in Constantius' position to continue with the pagan gods on coins and in the panegyrics. We need seek no further for a parallel than his grand-nephew, Julian the Apostate, who, in order to win over people and avoid opposition, pretended to be a Christian while on the march against Constantius II, 38 at a time when no one questions his paganism.

The question on which it may be profitable to speculate regarding Constantius is "what sort of Christian?" We are not told by any ancient writer that Constantius was baptized. He served in the army, which was against the teaching of Tertullian in his later works, 39 but not all that unusual for a Christian. He was, however, an emperor. Surely he took part, and a leading part, in pagan ceremonies. 40 How, then, could Constantine, Eusebius, and Gelasius assert that he was a Christian?

In the fourth century it was not common to be baptized at an early age, so that the lack of baptism (which is in any case not proven) need not detain us. Second, it is clear that those asserting that Constantius was a Christian had nothing to gain by doing that. 41 On the contrary, Eusebius' very full statements go against his story of the conversion of Constantine, as he himself seems to know, 42 and Constantine himself had nothing to gain by forfeiting the glory of being the first Christian emperor. Third, the position of emperor was a peculiar

37 T. G. Elliott, "'Constantine's Conversion' Revisited" in AHB 6.2 (1992), 59-63. The older argument of Baynes, in the Appendix to his Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, against drawing extravagant conclusions from the coinage of Constantine down to 324, overlooked the fact that the same argument could be applied to the coinage of Constantius. For the argument regarding Constantine cf. Kraft, 14; Barnes, CE 48; Lane Fox, 658.

38 Ammianus Marcellinus, 21.2.4.

39 Tertullian, De corona 11, which may be compared with his earlier Apologeticum 42.

40 See A. D. Nock, "The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year" in HTR 45 (1952), 186-252, reprinted in his Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford, 1972), ed. Zeph Stewart, vol. 2, 736-790, esp. 757-771.

41 The apologetic view that the persecutors all came to bad ends required that Constantius not be one of them, not that he not be a pagan.

42 Eusebius finds himself in the awkward situation of presenting Constantine as deciding to worship his father's god alone, at a time when he does not know the identity of that god. See VC 1.28.

Page 25

one, and Constantius may have been willing to go through pagan ceremonies in order to keep his pagan soldiers happy. I would speculate that Constantine, Eusebius, and Gelasius regarded the question as one of Constantius' personal (as opposed to imperial) loyalties, and thought that, in spite of unchristian things which he did, he really was a Christian. That is, they thought that if left to his own devices he would not have taken part in pagan ceremonies. 43

Other very interesting questions concern his rise to imperial power. Was he a Christian when he became Maximian's praetorian prefect and married his daughter? 44 Did Maximian or Diocletian know that he was a Christian when he became a member of the tetrarchy? Most scholars would think (as I used to) that the last question, at least, could not be answered in the affirmative. I am no longer certain of that. The evidence regarding Christian women in Diocletian's own family is of some importance, 45 and so is his deliberate pace in initiating the Great Persecution, although he had earlier shown himself quite willing to persecute the Manichaeans. It might be thought that knowledge of the Christianity of Constantius might have put Constantine in mortal danger, but it must be remembered that he could have gotten out of that by the simple expedient of sacrificing. For these reasons I am not as sure as I once was that the Christian religion of Constantius was unknown to Maximian and Diocletian, although I suppose it may have been. After all, if Constantius were the sort of army Christian I have been contemplatingwilling on occasion to take part in pagan ceremoniesthere was no strong reason for his religion to seem a problem in 293. Later on, things may have changed. In his earlier life Diocletian too would have been used to the more tolerant Christianity of the camp. After he settled down in Antioch and Nicomedia, he may have come to see Christianity in a different light.

I realize that in writing of "the more tolerant Christianity of the camp" I

43 The view of the religion of Constantius adopted here is open to the objection that it is irrefutable. "If he does something pagan, that's the crypto-part, and if he does something Christian, that's the Christian part." Now, it is necessary to admit that the view adopted here, like other views of Constantius' religion, cannot be conclusively proven. However, that is not a reason for abandoning it, as long as it seems the most probable hypothesis.

44 See note 22 above.

45 Lactantius clearly implies in DMP 15 (see also chs. 39-41 and 50-51) that Diocletian's wife Prisca and daughter Valeria were Christians.

Page 26

am introducing a new concept into the discussion, and that readers may well ask whether such a thing could have existed, in view of the first commandment. We should observe the following facts. There were Christians in the Roman army, and we know of very few martyrs among them. Most of them must have intended to kill rather than to be killed. 46 They must have made their peace with the army's religion, and gone their own way on their own time. I think that it is a mistake to import straight into our thinking regarding Christians in the army a notion of Christianity as it appears in stories of martyrs in civilian life. It requires only a moment's thought to see that the Christianity of Constantius as we find it in our sources fits perfectly well with what we must imagine to have been the circumstances of a Christian officer in the Roman army. Some of the Church Fathers, who knew that the cult of the standards was idolatrous, objected to service in the army by Christians for that reason. Christians in the army were regularly guilty of idolatry, and there is no reason to believe that it always stopped with the cult of the standards.

Of course, I realize that it is not perfectly satisfactory to call such persons Christians, but what is the alternative? In that they sacrificed and were known to have done so, they were not part of the Christian community. 47 To describe them as pagans, however, would be quite misleading. To describe them as chronically repeating apostates would be ridiculous, especially in the case of those not baptized. Their circumstances were such that the practice of strict Christianity was not so much a gamble as it was suicide, and this important difference between them and civilians must always be remembered. These believers were a very inconvenient subject for the bishops to deal with, and that is why we do not hear more about them. 48

In his account of the origins of the Melitian schism 49 Epiphanius tells of the disturbance created in the prison at Alexandria when soldiers and various clerics, who had lapsed during the Great Persecution, went to visit the martyrs, hoping

46 J. Helgeland, "Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine" in ANRW 2.23.1 (Berlin and New York, 1979), 724-834, esp. the summary on the evidence at 796-797 and the conclusions at 816-820.

47 The point is discussed by J. Straub in "Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol" in Historia 4 (1955), 306, but in connection with Christianity as we see it in a civilian context. Cf. Frend, MP 301.

48 Notice how Eusebius of Caesarea backs away from the subject in HE 8.1.8.

49 A rigorist sect, named after the bishop Melitius of Lycopolis.

Page 27

to obtain mercy through repentance. 50 This produced a division of opinion among the martyrs. What both of these groups of the lapsed had in common was their extreme vulnerability to persecution. 51

In view of the foregoing considerations I am inclined to accept the claims that Constantius was a Christian. Not all readers would be so persuaded. However, there is more evidence regarding this problem to be presented in the next chapter.

50 Epiphanius, Panarion 68.2.1.

51 David Woods, "Two Notes on the Great Persecution" in JThS 43.1 (1992), 128-134 argues that 297 is the date for the persecution in the army.

Page 29

CHAPTER TWO

EARLY RELIGIOUS

DEVELOPMENT

Born in 272, Constantine had become tribunus ordinis primi by 305. 1 He had already had considerable military experience in earlier tribunates. 2 These presumably began in about 293 when Constantius was made Caesar, after which Constantine went to the east. 3 He served under Diocletian and Galerius "in Asia," 4 during which time he saw the ruins of Memphis and Babylon, by 301/302. 5 He fought with Galerius against the Sarmatians, 6 probably in 299. 7 By this time he probably was married to Minervina, of unknown family, who seems to have died by 307, leaving him with a young son Crispus. 8 Eusebius says that he saw him in Palestine with Diocletian, 9

1 Lactantius, DMP 18.10.

2 Pan. 6.3,3; 7.5,3. See A. H. M. Jones, LRE 640-641.

3 Origo 2. He may at an early date have been betrothed to Fausta, Maximian's youngest daughter (Pan. 7.6 2; Julian, Oration I, 7D. Cf. NR, note 18 to Pan. 7 on p. 193), but according to Barnes (NE 34), Fausta was born in 289 or 290.

4 Origo 2.

5 Constantine, Speech to the assembly of the saints 16.2-4; Eusebius, VC 1.19. For the date see T. D. Barnes, "Sossianus Hierocles and the Antecedents of the Great Persecution" in HSCP 80 (1976), 251

6 Origo 3; Zonaras 12.33.

7 Lactantius, DMP 18.10; 19. ff. Cf. Barnes, NE 41-42 and "Sossianus Hierocles etc.," 250ff.

8 She was Constantine's wife, not his concubine, as Epitome de Caesaribus 41.4 and Zosimus 2.20,2 make out. Crispus' first child was born in 322 (PLRE I, 233). NR in note 10 on pp. 189-190 cite J.-R. Palanque, "Chronologie Constantinienne" in REA (this is from NR) 40 (1938), 241-250, at 247; Galletier, 11.5.

9 VC 1.19.

Page 30

probably in 301/302.10 Constantine says that he was at Nicomedia in the spring of 303, 11 and Lactantius places him there in April of 305 and May 1 of 305.12 Lactantius' inference that Constantine was being groomed as a successor is not proof that he was, but it does not seem unreasonable. 13

For the religious development of Constantine before he became an emperor there is a small amount of interesting evidence, consisting of statements by himself, the primary source for the subject. 14 The first text is the beginning of his letter to the bishops after the Council of Arles in 314. 15 He had convoked the bishops in order to have them deal with complaints from the Donatists.16 They had given their decision against the Donatists, who, much to his displeasure, had appealed it to him. Before going on to deplore the behavior of the Donatists Constantine approved the bishops' decision, as follows:

The incomprehensible kindness of our God does not allow mankind to wander too long in the darkness, nor does it allow the odious wills of some persons so to prevail as not to grant men a new opportunity for conversion to the rule of righteousness by opening to them a saving path by means of its most glorious light. I have indeed learned of this through many examples, and can judge of the matter by my own case. For there were at first in me things which fell short of righteousness, and I did not think that the supernal power could see any of the things hidden in my

10 Barnes, "Sossianus Hierocles" 251.

11Speech 25.

12 DMP 18.10; 19. lff.

13 C. E. V. Nixon showed, in "The Panegyric of 307 and Maximian's Visits to Rome" in Phoenix 35.1 (1981), 70-76 that Diocletian had planned his abdication for some time before it occurred.

14 Parts of Constantine's story were given accurately by Gelasius of Caesarea (in Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE 1.3-7) and by Lactantius in DMP 44. Eusebius' version is in VC 1.28-32. I discussed this material in "Constantine's Early Religious Development" in JRH 15.3 (1989), 283-291.

15 Optatus, Appendix 5 = Soden, Urkunde 18 [in Hans von Soden, Urkunden zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Donatismus (Bonn, 1913]. For a recent defense of the document as authentic see Charles Odahl, "Constantine's Epistle to the Bishops at the Council of Arles: A Defense of Imperial Authorship" in JRH 17.3 (1993), 274-289.

16 For whom see below, ch. 5.

Page 31

heart. What fortune should this have brought upon me? surely one overflowing with every evil. But Almighty God, who sits in the watchtower of heaven, has granted to me what I did not deserve. Truly, most holy bishops of the Savior Christ, I can now neither describe nor number the gifts which of His heavenly benevolence He has granted to me, his servant. I rejoice therefore, dear brethren, I especially rejoice that you have now, after a completely fair adjudication, recalled to a better hope and fortune those whom the wickedness of the Devil seemed to have led by his wretched persuasion to depart fro m the glorious light of the Catholic law ....17

The second text is the beginning of Constantine's speech of welcome to the bishops at Nicaea in 325.18 The fullest version of the speech is that provided by Gelasius of Cyzicus in his HE 2.7, 1-42. 19(The source for this full version was the fourth-century HE of Gelasius of Caesarea, who had written a continuation of the HE of his predecessor Eusebius. This material could not be used with confidence until Friedhelm Winkelmann published his studies of the two Gelasii in the 1960s. 20) Some parts of the very beginning of the speech are incomprehensible, but I translate in order to lead into the part of the text bearing directly on the subject.

The nurturing justice of Almighty God paved for mankind many avenues to good works, and especially that notable and very brilliant one which, greater an any miracle, he brought together for us in the totality of the most holy law of the Catholic Church, the Lord's household of faith. We see that the peak of this mansion has reached to the light of he stars, and the foundations, even at the beginning of the work, we perceive so deeply and surely rooted that the whole world has come to know of it. From that peak, which stands over the rest, to the completion of the

17 My translation.

18 Other versions of part of this speech are conveniently collected in P. R. Coleman- Norton, Roman State and Christian Church London, 1966), vol. 1, 129-133.

19 Edited by G. Loeschke (and M. Heinemann) in GCS 28 (Leipzig, 1918).

20 Note 7 on p. 3 above.

Page 32

consummation [?] there appears an even and level course, brightly lit. Its [?] front, adorned with a starry seal, twelve pillars whiter than snow, which cannot be moved from the foundation of the faith, everlastingly support by the power of our saving God. The author of this mighty work gave piety to us who sincerely accept a just faith in His immortal law. Whoever would approach His gates does so only by reason of a chaste and pious desire and with the assurance of a pure mind. For him the saving disposition has brought forth a marvelous light of the world. I say, [?] from within the faith of men throughout the whole court of the Lord, honored with flowering crowns gathers the fruit of immortality and makes clear, by bringing them into the open, the holy forces of human life. Again, from that place the heavenly majesty crowned [?] sketches the rewards of the age that is always being born, or rather, is already born, and those things nurtured with due praise adorn the complete perfection of the work. This same house of the Lord is guarded by only two watchmen: godly fear comes as a corrector to the thoughts of some, and the praise of God is always present to the wise as a reward of their understanding. With these two seated in the porch of the most holy place the doors open to receive justice, and she dwelling within remains in her purity, but to injustice it is not lawful to approach the doors, and she is turned away and locked out of this place. These things that are so clear, most honored and praiseworthy brethren, brought me to the brightness of the eternal and immortal light, for fear that if I remained at a distance a doubtful faith might make me out of harmony with the truth.

But what shall I first affirm?the form of happiness which is hidden within my breast, or the divine favors conferred on me by Almighty God, whose number it would be a vast work to tell, when this same God of ours and father of all things took my modest talents into his service? Believe me, most honored brethren, and apply a serene faith to what I say: however happy my mind, filled with the divine favors, seems to be, and however outstanding the praises it seems able to render, nevertheless, as faith in the truth clearly shows, neither voice nor tongue can meet

Page 33

the command of the mind, as is quite understandable. For the magnitude of the favors is immeasurable ....

In 314 he said that there were at first (primitus) in him things quae iustitia carere videbantur (things which seemed to fall short of justice), and that he did not think that the supernal power could see any of the secrets of his heart 21 He declares that he was unworthy. This clearly recalls a period before a religious development which produced what he thought was a moral improvement. In 325 he said that he had realized that injustice was excluded from the house of the Lord, and that he had become afraid that a doubtful faith might make him out of harmony with the truth. Here the moral concern is just as strong and is again part of a religious development, but the concern with truth is clearer. The statements are different, but not at all inconsistent. The mention of fear is an important indicator to us of the quality of Constantine's faith. It seems that this theme, which is repeated later, sets Constantine's religion apart from the mere preaching of a ''religion of success." 22

Taken by itself the first statement is that of a Christian recalling a time when the practice of his religion was in some way defective; the second is that of a Christian recalling how he made a more serious approach to his religion because he thought that it was a necessary guide to truth and

21 Scholars are still mistranslating this phrase with "I did not think that any supernal power could see the secrets of my heart," as if reading ullam for ulla, as Baronius did. They are not happy with the plain meaning of the text. If Constantine in writing to the bishops had made a reference to various supernal powers, he surely would have added some explanation regarding any previous pagan history.

22 In his influential Christianity and Classical Culture (Oxford, 1944), 177-212 C. N.Cochrane treated some of Constantine's statements as nothing more than that. This conclusion is unduly severe. Constantine was in fact both religious and successful. It is arguable, in the absence of evidence, that he would not have been religious if he had not been successful, but it is not demonstrable. Constantine evidently regarded his success as a proof of God's favor, and he pointed to that proof in statements to both Christians and pagans. Moreover, he said that the demonstrations of God's power (and he surely meant demonstrations in his own favor) had strengthened his own faith (VC 2.55). Nevertheless, it would be unwise to overrate these claims. It would be interesting if his success had weakened Constantine's faith, or if he had developed a desire to fail; the actual situation is simply natural.

Page 34

righteousness, and feared the loss of such guidance. Two Constantinian documents provide some help in dating this developmentthe Speech to the assembly of the saints, and the Letter of 324 to the eastern provincials which is quoted by Eusebius in the VC 2.24-42.

In the concluding chapters (22-26) of the Speech Constantine refers to his Christianizing mission and to God's blessings upon it, describes the Persecution, and contrasts the Christian religion with the cruelty of Decius and Valerian. In chapter 25 he describes Diocletian's persecution and continues: 23

At length, indeed, the providence of God took vengeance on these unhallowed deeds; but not without severe damage to the state. There were so many slaughters that if they had occurred against barbarians they would have brought a lasting peace. For the entire army of the emperor of whom I have just spoken, 24 becoming subject to the authority of a worthless person, 25 who had violently usurped the supreme authority at Rome, when the providence of God was restoring freedom to the great city that was destroyed in several successive battles. 26

The natural interpretation of the last chapters of the Speech is that the whole war against Maxentius was part of the mission.

It has already been recognized that the address to the bishops at Nicaea has several echoes of the Speech. 27It is even more important to recognize that the address at Nicaea also echoes the Letter to the bishops at Arles quite strongly. The themes of justice, gratitude, God's willingness to guide men, the Church as the repository of His truth, the limitless benefits which

23 The translation quoted below is in LNPF² vol. 1, 578-580.

24 I.e., Diocletian.

25 Note 4 on page 580 of the translation quoted describes how Diocletian's army came under the control of Maxentius.

26 I have corrected Richardson's translation of the end of this passage from "Rome (when the providence of God restored freedom to that great city), was destroyed in several successive battles." The "restored" of the translation did not render the present participle correctly.

27 See the notes to Gelasius, HE 2.7,1-18 in Loeschke's edition.

Page 35

God has conferred upon Constantine His servant, all recur. This means that Constantine's themes in 324 were not mere postwar propaganda, for they are the themes of 314. The consistency indicates that these ideas were important to Constantine, and makes it all the more desirable to determine the circumstances in which the religious development occurred.

In the passage of the address at Nicaea quoted above, 28 Constantine referred to his Christianizing mission and to God's blessings upon it. Later in that same speech, at sections 35-38, Constantine included the war against Maxentius in the Christianizing mission. In his Letter of 324 to the eastern provincials Constantine described his Christianizing mission as something begun in Britain, in response to the Great Persecution. 29 This is quite consistent with the statement of Lactantius that Constantine's first action on becoming emperor (i.e., in 306) was to restore the Christians to their worship and their God. 30 It is also consistent with the plain meaning of the inscription on the Arch of Constantine, which is that God prompted Constantine to the entire war against Maxentius and his faction, not just to the final battle against them. 31 In his Letter of 314 to the bishops at Arles Constantine said that there were at first (primitus) in him things which fell short of righteousness. The primitus is not very specific, but, coming from a man forty years old, it ought to refer to a period earlier than 312. The economical explanation of all these facts is that Constantine's statements regarding his mission are true.

This conclusion is supported by the evidence of the Letter of 324 to the people of the eastern provinces. Constantine begins with an elaborate condemnation of the persecution and the persecutors, and goes on to urge his subjects to become Christians. In describing the beginning of the persecution he tells how the oracle of Apollo claimed that the righteous of the earth were causing interference with the proper functioning of the oracle. 32 He then says that when he was young he heard Diocletian ask who these righteous (or just) people were, and also heard a pagan priest answer that they were the Christians. The result of this was the Great

28 Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE 2.7.

29 VC 2.28-29.

30 Lactantius, DMP 24,9

31 I discussed some of the relevant material in Phoenix 41.4 (1987), 423-425.

32 VC 2.49-51.

Page 36

Persecution, which Constantine described as a cruel and wicked civil war on the Christian population, waged by savage emperors of unsound mind who could not see the truth. 33

The personal references in this document have been ignored because they do not suit any conversion theory, but they throw considerable light on Constantine's statements concerning his religious development. The connection of truth with justice, the Lord's household of faith, and the strengthening of Constantine's faith recur again. It is clear from the Letter to the bishops at Arles that Constantine regarded the errors of paganism as the road to unjust behavior, and the Great Persecution as conclusive proof of the necessity of Christian belief. The Persecution, according to him, was a disgrace to the human mind and heart, and to the Roman empire which because of it had been brought lower than barbarism. 34 Its promoters had been convicted by the testimony of their own oracle, and damned to hell. Their doom and the success of God's servant demonstrate the rightness of Constantine's actions. 35

The important point for our subject is that when Constantine speaks of his own religious development he mentions an advance toward truth and justice. It seems fair to conclude that in his own life he had acted on the claim made in this letter (at VC 2.56), that only those can lead a pure and holy life whom God calls to a reliance upon His holy laws. Constantine does not say that he actually succeeded in living a pure and holy life. He says that he became God's servant, and that God conferred innumerable blessings on him. It is now apparent that the results of interpreting Constantine's statements in a normal way are very different from the results of ignoring them or of torturing them into conformity with the inventions of Eusebius. A simple, and powerful, argument further recommends the normal procedure. Constantine made great efforts to persuade his pagan subjects to become Christians. If he had been converted to Christianity by a miracle, and had then gone on to his great successes, his own conversion would have been the central theme of his preaching. That is to say, the Constantinian documents would actually contain the inventions of Eusebius.

33 VC 2.48-54. The vividness of the recollection is impressive.

34 VC 2.53.

35 VC 2.54-55.

Page 37

Since they do nothing of the sort, we should ignore the inventions, and deal with Constantine's statements on Constantine's terms. This argument has been neglected in the past on the technical ground that it is an argument from silence, and those obsessed with technicality are welcome to continue to neglect it, but they should not expect much company.

Thus far we have been considering a development which seems most likely to have been a response to the Persecution, and which manifested itself in the Christianizing mission. Although there is no reason why it might not have occurred earlier, there is sufficient reason for dating the change to 303. In both of the passages which I have quoted he refers to God's immeasurable blessings upon His servant, and in the speech at Nicaea he links those to God's taking of Constantine into His service. In the Letter to the eastern provincials it is clear that he regarded that service both as a response to the Persecution and as something which began in Britain. There were strong connections in Constantine's mind between the Persecution, his own response thereto, and God's blessings upon the Christianizing mission. The strong connection between truth and justice is easily explained as a product of reaction to the Persecution. Finally, there is his remark at the end of chapter 54 of that letter that the destruction of the persecutors was a calamity which would never have come upon them had it not been for the impious oracle of Apollo which prompted the Persecution. This seems to me to imply that if there had been no Persecution, Constantine would not have embarked on his mission. He does not make a special point of this implication, and I see no good reason to reject it.

If the view of the religion of Constantius accepted above is correct, the groundwork for such a development had been laid before 293. What happened during the Persecution was that Constantine saw two things-the savagery of the persecutors, who would not live and let live, and the willingness of martyrs to die for their faith, for fear of worse consequences. The tolerant army-Christianity of Constantius was inadequate to these circumstances once the issue had been forced. Furthermore, Constantine began to worry about his ability to hide from God, and about the "doubtful faith" that might keep him "out of harmony with the truth." The court of Diocletian had become an uncomfortable place.

Constantine had been with the senior Augustus for about ten years, and

Page 38

was himself about thirty-one years old when the Persecution began. Two years later, on May 1 of 305, he was excluded from the succession. 36 Whether religious considerations influenced this decision, we do not know, but Constantine would have had to be extremely foolish to stay in the east voluntarily. During the Persecution he had become much more interested in his religion, and much more aware of duties to God. It was at this time, I think, that he became, as he later styled himself, 37 "the man of God." This man of God lived in circumstances in which no Christian had lived before, and he had not become the first imperial martyr. According to him, the persecutors had begun a civil war. He meant to end it.

36 We cannot know whether Galerius' success in persuading Diocletian to exclude Constantine from the imperial college in 305 (Lactantius, DMP 19, and Barnes, CE 26) had any relation to a suspicion that Constantius and Constantine were Christians, or at least too Christian for comfort. According to F. Kolb, Diocletian und die erste Tetrarchie, 139-143, Diocletian had long planned to exclude the natural offspring of those chosen as Caesars from the succession.

37 The expression is used in his letter "to Arius and the Arians with him." See Urkunde 34.38 in H.-G. Opitz, Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 318-328. Athanasius Werke 3.1 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1934); Urkunde 32, on p. 240 below.

Page 39

CHAPTER THREE

ACCESSION AND EARLY

YEARS

AS EMPEROR

Constantine departed from Galerius' court. Both pagan and Christian sources claim that Galerius had subjected him to dangers; 1 both tell a story of Constantine's escape to Constantius, in which he hamstrung or killed the post horses at each stage in order to defeat pursuit,² and say that he reached his father (in Britain) as the latter was dying. 3 Two pagan sources, however, say that he reached Constantius at Boulogne, as he was preparing to cross to Britain. 4 This detail, for which there is no other explanation, must be correct. Since Constantius and Galerius were Britannici maximi II by January 7 of 306, 5 Constantine left Galerius' court in 305.

The story of Constantine's speedy departure has been accepted as true and condemned as excessively colorful, or as propaganda. However, even a colorful piece of propaganda might be true. The story seems to have been established by 313, and Galerius died in 311. Before his death Constantine was not directing any propaganda against him, although Constantine's behavior was very reserved. 6 The correct reason for

1 Lactantius, DMP24.4; Origo 2-3; Zonaras 12.33; Praxagoras 62.21 (Jacoby, FGrH2B no.

219.2).

2 Lactantius, DMP 24.5ff.; Victor, Caesares 40.2ff.; Epitome 41.2f.; Zosimus 2.8,2ff.

3 Lactantius, DMP 24.5ff.; Eusebius, VC 1.20; Victor, Caesares 40.2ff.

4 Pan. Lat. 6.7,lff.; Origo 4.

5 AE 1961, 240, discussed by M. Bizzarri and G. Forni, "Diploma militare del 306 D.C. rilasciato a un pretoriano di origine italiana" in Athenaeum 38 (1960), 3-25.

6 Grünewald, Constantinus, 42.

Page 40

suspicion regarding the story is that it does not sit very well with Constantine's successful effort in 306 to obtain recognition from Galerius. Moreover, it would have suited Constantine to claim after 305 that he had escaped (rather than departed) from the court of the persecutor. 7 These considerations do not rule out the possibility that the story is true, for Constantine might have used after 310 a story which would not have been advantageous to him before that date. In any case, Constantine accompanied his father northwards, campaigned with him against the Picts, 8 and was with him when he died at York 9 on July 25 10 of 306. Constantine's half-brothers and sisters were present. 11 Very different accounts of the succession appear in our sources.

Gelasius of Caesarea said that Constantius declared to his friends that he wished to leave his empire to Constantine because he was convinced that he would end the persecution of the Christians.12 This meant that Constantius made a drastic break with the policy of Diocletian, but it seems to me that he was fully qualified to make it. The Epitome de Caesaribus says that with the consent of all present, especially Crocus the Alamann king who had accompanied Constantius as an auxiliary, Constantine took the rule. 13 Eusebius says that Constantine simply put on his father's purple cloak for the funeral ceremony, and that after the funeral everyone saluted him as emperor. 14 Eusebius tells this story so that he can make the claim 15 that Constantine owed the empire to God alone.

Gelasius' statement regarding Constantius' intent is consistent with Lactantius' claim that on his succession Constantine did nothing before

7 For another example of an attempt to distance himself from Galerius see below, p. 43.

8 Pan. Lat. 6(7).7,1 ff.; Origo 4.

9 Eutropius, Breviarium 10.1,3; Jerome, Chronicle 2288

10 CIL I², pp. 268, 269; Chronica Minora 1.231; Socrates, HE 1.2,1. I take it that this was always reckoned as Constantine's dies imperii. See Thomas Grünewald, Constantinus 163-171 and C. E. V. Nixon and Barbara Saylor Rodgers, In praise of Later Roman Emperors (Berkeley, 1995-hereafter NR) the introduction to panegyric 7 at pp. 178-184.

11 Eusebius, VC 1.21.2.

12 Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen," 18-20.

13Epitome de Caesaribus 41.3.

14 VC 1.22. See also NR notes 30 and 31 to Panegyric 6.7.4 on pp. 227-228.

15 Ch. 24.

Page 41

restoring the Christians to their worship and their God. 16 This implies legislation in Britain in 306. 17 The quiet, defensive activity of Constantius was replaced by the formal ending of the Persecution under a younger emperor, who had the advantage of starting out with the Christian officers of Constantius.18

Constantine sent his laureled image to Galerius, and told him that he had been declared Augustus. Galerius, with whatever misgivings, accepted the image, sent back a purple robe to signify that it was he, not Constantius or the troops, who was making the appointment, and proclaimed Constantine Caesar. Severus was promoted from Caesar to Augustus to replace Constantius. Constantine accepted this situation and styled himself Caesar. 19 He crossed the Channel to repel a Frankish raid, and had two captured kings, Ascaric and Merogaisus, killed by beasts in the arena at Trier. 20

In the meantime Galerius extended his taxation of the urban population of the empire to Italy, including Rome, and withdrew most of the praetorian guard from Rome. 21 Maxentius, the son of Maximian, whom Diocletian and/or Galerius had removed from the succession plans along with Constantine in 305, won the support of those remaining. On October 28 of 306 22they declared him emperor, and he was soon recognized in the rest of Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, and North Africa. 23 Maxentius, however, was unsuccessful in obtaining recognition from Galerius, who sent Severus against him. 24 Severus proceeded south, apparently from

16 DMP24,9: Suscepto imperio, Constantinus Augustus nihil egit prius quam christianos cultui ac Deo suo reddere. Haecfuit prima eius sanctio sanctae religionis restitutae.

17 For a discussion of Lactantius' statement see Barnes, "Lactantius and Constantine" in JRS 64 (1973), 44-46.

18 I infer their existence from VC 1.16.

19 Grünewald, Constantinus, 13-16.

20 Pan. Lat. 7.4.2; 6.11.5. See NR 195, 234, 361.

21 Lactantius, DMP26.

22 The date is deduced from the statement of Pan. lat. 12(9).16.2 and Lactantius, DMP 44.3 that the battle of the Milvian bridge was fought on the sixth anniversary of Maxentius' rule. Lactantius gives that date as Oct. 27, CIL 12, 274 as Oct. 28.

23 Pan. lat. 12(9).25.2-3.

24 Lactantius, DMP26. He could not make three Caesars.

Page 42

Milan. 25 Maxentius enlisted the support of his father as "Augustus for the second time" and bribed Severus' soldiers away from him. Severus fled to Ravenna, where Maximian first besieged him and then offered terms which he accepted. Maximian took him to Rome. Galerius himself now prepared to advance against Maxentius, and thereby signed Severus' death warrant. 26 Maximian's search for allies took him to Constantine, to whom he married his daughter Fausta, in exchange for Maximian's declaration of Constantine as Augustus. 27

Late in 307 Galerius invaded Italy and almost met the fate of Severus, but escaped by means of great promises to his soldiers 28 and made his way back to his own territories. He got Diocletian out of retirement to share the consulship of 308 with himself, and now refused recognition as emperor to Constantine, the inactive ally of Maxentius and Maximian. 29 From Galerius' point of view only himself and Maximinus remained in the imperial college. 30 At this point, however, Maximian and Maxentius fell out, and Maximian fled to Constantine. This made possible a meeting at Carnuntum on the Danube of Galerius, Diocletian, and Maximian, who proclaimed Licinius, an old friend of Galerius who had fought with him in the east,31 as Augustus to replace the dead Severus, and once more accepted Constantine as Caesar in the west. The tetrarchy was reconstituted, from their point of view, with Galerius and Licinius as Augusti, and Maximinus and Constantine as Caesars.

Constantine, however, did not accept the demotion to the rank of Caesar in his own realm. 32 When Maximinus' troops saluted the eastern

25 Zosimus, 2.10,1.

26 Accounts vary of the time and place of Severus' death. See Barnes, CE 30.

27 Pan. Lat. 7(6).1.1ff.; 2.1;5.3; 8.1.

28 Lactantius, DMP 27. He may have lost substantial numbers of his troops, for Constantine, in Speech to the assembly of the saints 25, referring to the expeditions of Severus and Galerius (I think), says that the whole army of Diocletian came into the possession of Maxentius.29 Lactantius, DMP 29.

30 Barnes, CE 31-32.

31 Eutropius, Brev. 10.4. See H. Chantraine, "Die Erhebung des Licinius zum Augustus" in Hermes 110.4 (1982), 477-487.

32 Grünewald, p. 42.

Page 43

Caesar as Augustus in 310, Galerius was constrained to accept that, and the tetrarchy was subsequently replaced by four Augusti.

In 309 Licinius was preparing to attack Maxentius in Italy, but he seems to have been distracted from that in 310, when Galerius became ill with the disease which was to kill him in the next year. In 310, while Constantine was engaged against the Franks, the restless Maximian declared that Constantine was dead, had himself proclaimed Augustus for the third time, and prepared to defend Massilia against a siege. Constantine, quickly descending the Saône and the Rhône, arrived on the scene very promptly, and the gates were opened to him. Maximian subsequently committed suicide. 33 These events were to affect quite seriously Constantine's relationship with Maxentius, who, as was only natural, promptly became a devoted son.

In 311 while he was dying of his terrible disease 34 Galerius revoked the Persecution. On April 30 his letter to provincials was posted at Nicomedia.

Among all the other arrangements which we are always making for the advantage and benefit of the state, we had earlier sought to set everything right in accordance with the ancient laws and public discipline of the Romans and to ensure that the Christians too, who had abandoned the way of life of their ancestors, should return to a sound frame of mind; for in some way such self-will had come upon these same Christians, such folly had taken hold of them, that they no longer followed those usages of the ancients which their own ancestors perhaps had first instituted, but, simply following their own judgment and pleasure, they were making up for themselves the laws which they were to observe and were gathering various groups of people together in different places. When finally our order was published that they should betake themselves to the practices of the ancients, many were subjected to danger, many too were struck down. Very many, however, persisted in their determination and we saw that these same people

33 Pan. lat. 6(7).14-20; Lactantius, DMP29-30.

34 Neither Eusebius in HE 9.10.14-15 nor Lactantius in DMP 33 shows any reluctance to supply details, but the details are not the same in both authors, and we do not know what the disease was. We may suspect that its horrors have been exaggerated.

Page 44

were neither offering worship and due religious observance to the gods nor practicing the worship of the god of the Christians. Bearing in mind therefore our own most gentle clemency and our perpetual habit of showing indulgent pardon to all men, we have taken the view that in the case of these people too we should extend our speediest indulgence, so that once more they may be Christians and put together their meeting-places, provided they do nothing to disturb good order. We are moreover about to indicate in another letter to governors 35 what conditions they ought to observe. Consequently, in accordance with this indulgence of ours, it will be their duty to pray to their god for our safety and for that of the state and themselves, so that from every side the state may be kept unharmed and they may be able to live free of care in their own homes. 36

Galerius does not admit that the Persecution was wrong. He has been surprised by the obstinacy of the Christians. The toleration granted by the edict was therefore rather precarious. Nothing was said about restitution of property confiscated during the persecution; that would have been an admission of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, for the moment the toleration, which had prevailed in the western half of the empire, was now extended to the east. It was not to last very long in Maximinus' realm.

When he received the news of Galerius' death Maximinus occupied Asia Minor. When he entered Bithynia, he abolished the census and thereby gained an immediate popularity. 37 He met Licinius on shipboard, and came to terms with him. In Nicomedia he issued orders to the provincial governors to disregard the persecuting edicts, but on November 26 of 311 his agents arrested and executed the bishop of Alexandria, and in Nicomedia on January 7 of 312 Maximinus himself tried and executed the scholar Lucian. 38

35 Galerius does not seem to be contemplating a letter sent through the various emperors.

36 Creed's translation, reprinted with the permission of the Oxford University Press.

37 Lactantius, DMP 36.1-2.

38 Eusebius, HE 8.13.2; 9.6.3. For the chronology of Maximinus' persecution see Barnes, NE 67-68; S. Mitchell, "Maximinus and the Christians in A.D. 312: A New Latin Inscription" in JRS 78 (1988), 105-124.

Page 45

While Maximinus was busy with this persecution, he was deterred by a letter from Constantine. He accordingly pretended to be tolerant, 39 and continued his activities. In the meantime, according to Lactantius, who seems to imply a date in 311, Diocletian died. 40 When Maximinus heard of the marriage alliance arranged between Constantine and Licinius, he sent ambassadors to Rome to request an alliance with Maxentius, which he obtained. Maxentius was already claiming that he was going to avenge his father's ''murder," and had increased his forces with troops brought over from the Mauri and others drafted from Italy. 41

We have come now to Constantine's momentous decision to attack Maxentius, which raises important questions of his policy. In later years he repeatedly described his activity during these years as part of a Christianizing mission. Since Constantine's own explanation has far more support in the ancient sources than any other, I will set it forth and deal with the modern explanations in passing.

In VC 2.24-42 Eusebius quotes a letter which Constantine wrote to the pagans of the east after the final defeat of Licinius in 324. (This is not the same letter as the one which Constantine sent at the same time to the churches.) After setting forth the troubles caused by the persecutors the emperor describes (ch. 28) his Christianizing mission as having started at the Atlantic and having proceeded until he got control of the east. 42

And now, with such a mass of impiety 43 oppressing the human race, and the commonwealth in danger of being utterly destroyed, as if by the agency of some pestilential disease, and therefore needing powerful and effectual aid; what was the relief, and what the remedy which the Divinity devised for these evils? . . . I

39 See P. Bruun, "The Heraclean coinage of Maximinus Daza" in his Studies in Constantinian Numismatics (Rome, 1991), 175-182.

40 Lactantius, DMP42.

41 Lactantius, DMP 43-44.2. See J. N. Adams and P. M. Brennan, "The text at Lactantius DMP 44.2" in ZPE 84 (1990), 183-186.

42 For the proof of the authenticity of VC 2.28 see A. H. M. Jones, "Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius's Life of Constantine" in.JEH 5 (1954), 196-200. The translation is Richardson's, adapted.

43 i.e., the Persecution.

Page 46

myself, then, was the instrument whose services He sought out and chose as suitable for the accomplishment of his will.Accordingly, beginning at the remote Britannic ocean, and the regions where, according to the law of nature, the sun sinks beneath the horizon, 45 I banished and utterly removed every form of evil which prevailed, in the hope that the human race, enlightened through my instrumentality, might be recalled to a due observance of the holy laws of God, and at the same time our most blessed faith might prosper under the guidance of his almighty hand....

It was probably soon after this letter, in December of 324, that Constantine wrote the letter to Alexander and Arius which urges them to resolve their theological dispute. It begins as follows:

I call that God to witness, as well I may, who is the Helper of my endeavors, and the Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold reason for undertaking that duty which I have now performed.

My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the body, as it were, of the whole world, then suffering from a grievous wound. Keeping these objects in view, I was reasoning about the one with the secret 45 eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing, according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all. 46

44 This has to refer to the beginning of his reign in Britain: cf. Elliott, "Conversion," 423-425.

45 For Constantine's secrecy see the end of ch. 10 below.

46 VC 2.64-65, Richardson's translation, adapted. For the date see T. D. Barnes, "Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-342: Some Problems" in AJAH 3 (1978), 54-56. This chronology is assumed in Barnes' CE, 212-214.

Page 47

Editors take it that Constantine refers here only to his campaigns against Licinius, and that the "painful wound" was the dissension between himself and Licinius. The same interpretation is applied to Constantine's reference to his victories over "the tyrants" in his exhortation to the bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325. 47 There is no need, however, to restrict Constantine's references thus, and to have him implying that he himself was a part of the wound. The ''painful wound" is more easily taken to refer to the persecution because in the concluding chapters of his Speech to the assembly of the saints, which may have been delivered on Good Friday of 325, Constantine makes it clear that his Christianizing mission involved fighting against Maxentius. In the final chapter he says that all of his successes were the result of his faithful and prayerful service to God. Chapter 22 begins as follows. 48

To thee, Piety, I ascribe my own prosperity, and all that I now possess. To this truth the happy issue of all my endeavors bears testimony: brave deeds, victories in war, and triumphs over conquered foes. This truth the great city itself allows with joy and praise. The people, too, of that much-loved city accord in the same sentiment, though once, deceived by ill-grounded hopes, they chose a ruler unworthy of themselves, a ruler who speedily received the chastisement which his audacious deeds deserved....

Constantine goes on to describe the Persecution and to contrast the Christian religion with the cruelty of Decius and Valerian. In chapter 25 he describes Diocletian's persecution and continues:

At length, indeed, the providence of God took vengeance on these unhallowed deeds; but not without severe damage to the state. ... For the entire army of the emperor of whom I have just spoken, becoming subject to the authority of a worthless

47 The documents are collected in Coleman-Norton, vol.l, 129-133.'

48 Pp. 578-580 of the translation.

Page 48

person, 49 who had violently usurped the supreme authority at Rome, when the providence of God was restoring freedom to the great city was destroyed in several successive battles. 50

Chapter 26 begins:

When men commend my services, which owe their origin to the inspiration of Heaven, do they not clearly establish the truth that God is the cause of the exploits I have performed? Assuredly they do: for it belongs to God to do whatever is best, and to man, to perform the commands of God. I believe, indeed, the fairest and noblest course of action is, when, before an attempt is made, we prepare security of the result: and surely all men know that the holy service in which these hands have been employed has originated in pure and genuine faith towards God; that whatever has been done for the common welfare has been effected by active exertion combined with supplication and prayer; the consequence of which has been as great an amount of individual and public benefit as each could venture to hope for himself and those he holds most dear. 51

The inclusion of the war against Maxentius in the Christianizing mission was also affirmed in Constantine's exhortation to the bishops at the Council of Nicaea in 325. A part of this speech quoted by Gelasius of Cyzicus

49 Note 4 on p. 580 of the translation describes how Diocletian's army came under the control of Maxentius. I am not persuaded by the argument of H. A. Drake, in "Suggestions of Date in Constantine's Oration to the Saints" in AJP 106 (1985), 335-349, that the army referred to was Maximinus Daia's.

50 I have corrected Richardson's translation of the end of this passage from "Rome (when the providence of God restored freedom to that great city), was destroyed in several successive battles." The "restored" of the translation did not render the present participle correctly.

51 On some of these documents R. Lane Fox has commented in his Pagans and Christians, 635-637.

Page 49

reads as follows. 52

In order that we may see that a lawless condition of the world brought forth the forgiveness of God when the habit of the earlier sin was instilled by the wiles of the Devil into the miserable souls of perverse men, we may obtain from the divine law a clear demonstration of the matter. For from that time when the divine and holy ordinance was not being observed with the proper care by those two put on earth in the beginning, the flower of sin later arose: it became established and greatly increased, as a result of which those two aforementioned were cast out by the divine will. And when the world had been brought to such a condition with the perversity of men that He condemned its foundations in both the east and the west, and the excess of the Devil's power had seized and enfeebled the minds of men (Loeschke put an asterisk into his text at this point) in this command is (?) the holy, immortal, unwearying mercy of Almighty God. For through me his servant God is freeing from this burden those innumerable peoples who have been enslaved for all time past and will bring them to the perfect brightness of the eternal light (my translation).

The reference to God's dissatisfaction with both east and west which led to his use of Constantine shows that Constantine included his war against Maxentius in his Christianizing mission. The last of these statements is to be found in his letter to Sapor, which Eusebius quotes at VC 4.9. 53 It begins:

By keeping the Divine faith, I am made a partaker of the light of truth: guided by the light of truth, I advance in the knowledge of the Divine faith. Hence it is that, as my actions themselves evince, I profess the most holy religion; and this worship I

52 Gelasius, HE 2.7,35-38. Gelasius provides more of this speech than do the other Church historians. Writing in about 475 he says in his preface that he got the speech from a very old book which had belonged to Dalmatius, the archbishop of Cyzicus.

53 Richardson, adapted, 543.

Page 50

declare to be that which teaches me deeper acquaintance with the most holy God; aided by whose Divine power, beginning from the very borders of the ocean, I have aroused each nation of the world in succession to a well-grounded hope of security; so that those which, groaning in servitude to the most cruel tyrants, and yielding to the pressure of their daily sufferings, had well nigh been utterly destroyed, having taken advantage of the champion of all, have been revived as if by a healer.

It is necessary to conclude that the emperor repeatedly presented his whole career as emperor as a Christianizing mission. This included eliminating the persecutors, but was not confined to that. I do not take him to mean that every single thing he did was done with a Christianizing purpose, but rather that that was his main purpose from the beginning. It is not necessary to believe that Maxentius was a persecutor in order to accept Constantine's victory over him as a part of a Christianizing mission. Maxentius' position regarding the Christians has been the subject of some controversy, 54 but Maximinus' approach to him in 311 should not be ignored.

Of course, Constantine did not proclaim this explanation publicly during the years 306-324. That would have been suicidal. His silence has created the opportunity to misunderstand him, and his father Constantius. It is better to acknowledge the force of the argument stated above that the propaganda proves only what the emperors wanted their propaganda to say, and to accept the emperor's explanation of his career as, at the very least, an explanation which he thought would be believed.

The fact that Constantine could tailor his statements according to the religion of his audience, as he did in his letter of 324 to the pagan provincials, casts some light on a feature of the panegyrics which is shared by other Constantinian propaganda statements, and which tells against the

54 Cf. Barnes, CE, 37-39; Pedro A. Barcelo, "Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Constantins des grossen vor der Schlacht an der Milvischen Brücke" in Hermes 116.1 (1988), 76-94, who argues at 83 that Maxentius began by imitating Constantine's policy of toleration. I consider the treatment of Maxentius' policy by B. Kriegbaum, Kirche der Traditoren oder Kirche der Mrtyrer Die Vorgeschichte des Donatismus (Innsbruck, 1986), esp. 130-149, the best available.

Page 51

view that this material is reliable evidence of the emperor's personal religious beliefs. It appears that in spite of the fervor of his many statements to bishops and his efforts on behalf of the Church and Christians during the years 312-324, Constantine's statements to a wider public were all neutral as regards religion.

The panegyrist of 310 says that Constantine made lavish gifts to a temple of Apollo in Gaul, that in the temple he saw the god himself present, accompanied by Victory, and that he recognized himself in the appearance of that one to whom the rulership of the world had been promised. 55 For a long time this was interpreted to mean that Constantine had professed some sort of Apolline faith, 56 or had identified himself with Apollo, 57 and the evidence of this panegyric, the strongest indication of paganism of Constantine (on the old argument), was harmonized with the claims of Eusebius regarding a conversion of Constantine. However, in 1980 Barbara Rodgers argued (successfully, I think) that the panegyrist of 310 had implied that Constantine recognized himself in the form of Augustus, and not of Apollo. 58 An identification of Constantine with Augustus instead of Apollo makes the story in the panegyric of 310 seem even more a matter of conventional rhetoric and less a factual description of a religious experience. It may be in the category of the story by the panegyrist of 321 to the effect that in 312 all the Gauls saw armies of big handsome soldiers flying through the air and calling out that they were going to help Constantine. 59

A second study by Rodgers indicated that even before 312 Constantine's panegyrists had begun to reduce the role of the pagan gods. 60

55 Pan. Lat. 6(7).21.

56 Rodgers, "Constantine's Pagan Vision," notes 2, 3, and 5.

57 J.-J. Hatt, "La vision de Constantin au sanctuaire de Grand et l'origine celtique du labarum" in Latomus 9 (1950), 431; M. R. Alföldi, "Die Sol-Comes Münze vom Jahre 325" in Mullus, Festschr. Th. Klauser (1964), 10-16; J. Le Gall, "Les cheveux de Constantin" in Mélanges d'histoire ancienne offerts William Seston (Paris, 1974), 267-276; S. G. MacCormack, "Roma, Constantinopolis, the Emperor and his Genius" in CQ 69 (1975), 139 (citing Alföldi).

58 Rodgers, "Constantine's Pagan Vision," 265ff.

59Pan. Lat. 4(10).15.

60 "Divine Insinuation," p. 85.

Page 52

The caution of Julian's panegyrist in 362 shows that an orator could pay close attention to the sensibilities of his audience, 61and the fact that Theodosius' panegyrist called him a god is another warning against the conclusion that the paganism of a panegyrist reflects paganism of the emperor. 62 None of this suggests that the claim that Constantine made gifts to a temple of Apollo was false. 63 However, if it is true it would not prove that Constantine either had a vision of Apollo or was a pagan. A Christian in his circumstances in 310 might have made gifts (we are not told what they were), 64 and the panegyrist was presumably recommending Constantine to a pagan audience.

The panegyrist of 311 expatiates on Constantine's tax remission for Autun. 65 He mentions a divina mens which rules the world, 66 but the only pagan expressions are an exclamatory di immortales 67and the statement that Constantine makes up to his subjects what Terra and Jupiter withhold. 68 The panegyrist of 313 names no pagan god, and says nothing of the fact that Constantine refused to ascend the Capitol for the sacrifice to Jupiter during the triumphal entry into Rome. 69 Maxentius is vilified on those moral (not religious) grounds 70 which are found also in the HE and VC of Eusebius, 71 and which reflect the non-Christian language to the public in 312. The orator quite conspicuously attributes Constantine's willingness to begin the extremely dangerous (he says) war with Maxentius, against the advice of almost all his officers, to prompting from a god who is not named and whose relationship with Constantine is

61 ibid., 89-92.

62 ibid., 92-96 and 99.

63 See the end of ch. 9 below.

64 CTh 16.10,19 (of 407) is evidence for the continuation of funding for the old religion. For the preservation of temples for public use or as objects of art, cf. CTh 16.10,3 (of 342); 8 (of 382); 15 and 18 (of 399).

65Pan. Lat. 5(8).

66 ibid., 10,2.

67 ibid., 7,6.

68 ibid., 13,6.

69 Pan. Lat. 12(9).19,1ff. Cf. J. Straub, "Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol" in Historia 4 (1955), 297-313 (reprinted in his Regeneratio Imperii (Darmstadt, 1972).

70 Chapters 3,5-7; 4,3-5.

71 Eusebius, HE 8.14; 9.9; VC 1.33-38.

Page 53

private. 72

I take it that one function of these panegyrics was to downplay the religious differences between Constantine and his opponents. 73Moreover, this was the correct line to take, because Constantine was not a fanatic, and Maxentius was not a persecutor. As a legitimate member of the imperial college Constantine had a duty to suppress Maxentius, who was preparing to go to war against him.

Constantine's claims regarding the campaign against Maxentius accord well with the important facts. In 311 he protested against the persecuting activities of Maximinus, 74 and made a pact with Licinius. By this pact Licinius' efforts, which Galerius had wished to direct against Maxentius, were turned against Maximinus. Constantine himself attacked Maxentius, who had made an alliance with the persecutor Maximinus, and declared war on Constantine. 75 The evidence of the other sources regarding the reason for this campaign may now be considered.

Proper consideration can now be given to all of the words of the Arch of Constantine in Rome. The inscription on the side, referring to the decennalia, indicates that the arch was dedicated in 315, so that the inscription in its attic (694 in Dessau) must have been ordered by then. This reads as follows:

imp. Caes. Fl. Constantino maximo

p. f. Augusto s. p. q. R.,

quod instinctu divinitatis, mentis

magnitudine, cum exercitu suo

tam de tyranno quam de omni eius

72 Chapter 2. I take it that the orator's reticence regarding this god was due to the fact that it was not politic to say more. The passage is discussed by H. Schr6rs in Konstantins des Grossen Kreuzerscheinung (Bonn, 1913), 7-13.

73 Historians do not stress the need for prudence on Constantine's part, but see H. Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée Eusèbe de Césarée" in Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres¬ 39 (1953), 466.

74 For the 311 date, Barnes, "Lactantius and Constantine" in JRS 63 (1973), 44-46. Against that date and in favor of a date late in 312, after Constantine's victory against Maxentius, J. L. Creed in his edition of Lactantius' DMP, 115 (commenting on DMP 37,1).

75 Lactantius, DMP 43.

Page 54

factione uno tempore iustis

rem publicam ultus est armis,

arcum triumphis insignem dicavit. 76

It is the obvious implication of the inscription that a divinity prompted Constantine to the entire war. 77 In order to believe that the impulse of the divinity led only to a final, post-conversion, victory one has to imagine Constantine as starting the war on his own, but needing a nudge from God in order to finish it. That is a very odd interpretation, and it is contradicted by the plural triumphis and by the sculptures showing the earlier victories of the campaign. 78 The only trouble with accepting the implication that God prompted the whole war might be the uno tempore, which could be thought to fit better with a post-conversion victory at the Milvian Bridge than with the whole campaign. However, such a construction of uno tempore cannot include the campaign in the north of Italy against parts of "the whole faction" of Maxentius, which appears in the sculptures, and it is quite misleading as to how Constantine eliminated Maxentius. Furthermore, there is no need to suppose that uno tempore refers to a single day. It presumably contrasts the victory of Constantine's campaign on his first try with the past failures of the tetrarchy as represented by Severus and Galerius. 79 Such a construction of uno tempore does not cause troubles with the rest of the text, and of the Arch.

In a passage (at 1.467-488) of his Contra Symmachum, of 402-3, 80

76 To the emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus Maximus, Pius, Felix Augustus, the Senate and People of Rome dedicated this arch decorated with his triumphs because, by an impulse of a divinity and the greatness of his mind, together with his army, in a single campaign he avenged the state against the tyrant and all his faction.

77 I take it that the reason for the ambiguity of instinctu divinitatis was the emperor's wish to avoid giving offence to pagans. Until the final defeat of Licinius Constantine always used neutral language with regard to religion in his public statements. His language to bishops was very different.

78 On the sculptures see, e.g., R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 620-621. H. Dörries cites the lack of sacrificial animals in Constantine the Great, tr. R. Bainton (New York, 1972), 40-41.

79 Cf. R. T. Ridley, "Anonymity in the Vita Constantini" in Byzantion 50 (1980), 245.

80 For the date, M. Schanz, Geschichte der römischen Litteratur (Münich, expanded second edition of 1914, reprinted in 1970), vol. 4, 249.

Page 55

Prudentius described Constantine as a Christian attacking the tyrant Maxentius. Even though Prudentius, unlike Lactantius, repeated the propaganda about the tyranny of Maxentius, his text implies that Constantine had a religious motive for the war as well as a wish to end a tyranny. 81

At about the same time as Prudentius wrote, Rufinus produced an account of the war as follows. 82 Constantine, an unbaptized Christian, prepared a campaign against the tyrant Maxentius. He was worried about it, and prayed for divine help. In a dream he saw a fiery cross gleaming in the western sky, and heard some angels standing by him say "Constantine, conquer by this." He had thus been invited to the faith by God, as St. Paul had been, but with this difference--that his invitation had come when he already was a Christian. He made a banner, called the labarum, in the form of a cross. Now certain of victory, he began to worry about the fact that he, an emperor, was waging a civil war, and that involving an attack on Rome itself. He prayed that he might not have to shed Roman blood. God answered his prayer. Maxentius decided to attack Constantine, and forgot that he himself had ordered the Milvian Bridge broken and made into a trap. He rode out onto the trick bridge, and fell into the river, so that by the loss of this one accursed person Constantine was spared the necessity of fighting a civil war.

The delightful claim that God invited Constantine to become a Christian when Constantine already was one indicates clearly the use of two different sources. Rufinus was using Gelasius, 83who had represented Constantine as a Christian before the "miracle" and/or the dream. 84 What

81 The evidence of Prudentius is unimportant as coming long after 312, but interesting as coming from one who knew both the Eusebian and other Christian views of the campaign of 312.

82 Mommsen's text of Rufinus HE 9.8-9 is in vol. 2 of Eusebius Werke (Leipzig, 1908) edited by E. Schwartz, 827 and 829.

83 Cf. Winkelmann's "Untersuchungen," 103-108.

84 J. Vogt argued in his "Berichte über Kreuzeserscheinungen aus dem 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr" in Mélanges Grégoire [Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves, vol. 9 (1949)], 593-595, that the passage now being discussed showed that Rufinus had also used the VCofEusebius of Caesarea. F. Scheidweiler disagreed, arguing in ByzZ 46 (1953), 295, note 2 that if Rufinus had had the VC he would have modeled his account on that rather

Page 56

happened here was that Rufinus could not decide between his two sources. He solved his problem by supposing that God had been a little late with the famous invitation to Constantine. This proves that Rufinus had no evidence for a conversion other than Eusebius, and that in spite of Eusebius' authority he would not reject the tradition which did not have a conversion.

Rufinus' amusing travesty is partly, I think, the result of a moral problem. He thought that Constantine had a religious reason for this war, but the pagan usurpations of the fourth century had diminished the appetite of some Christians for religious wars. Eusebius' triumphant attitude was out-of-date. Rufinus could not solve his problem by presenting Constantine as a pagan at the outset and a Christian fighting in self-defense on the morning of the final battle, because he did not believe the story of a conversion. Therefore he simply eliminated most of the war.

Rufinus' source, Gelasius of Caesarea, presented Constantine as a Christian before the decision to attack Maxentius, had nothing on the campaign in the North of Italy, and had a trick bridge. However, Gelasius does seem to have thought that there was a battle, and he does not say that Maxentius was the only person drowned. 85 His rejection of Eusebius' conversion story tells more heavily against it than do those of Prudentius and Rufinus, for Gelasius could have checked Eusebius' conversion story with persons who did not hear of a conversion in Eusebius' oration at the tricennalia in 335, and then found it in the VC, just a few years after the tricennalia, but twenty-seven or so years after the alleged event.

It appears, then, that as regards the campaign of 312 Eusebius, with his tale of a conversion, is the odd man out. The historical facts are consistent with Constantine's statements, with which other Christian sources agree. In these circumstances it would not be proper to prefer

than on Gelasius. Vogt was right, for the dream and labarum combination occurs nowhere but in the VC, and the placement of the story before the campaign must come from the VC.

85 Gelasius of Cyzicus HE 1.3-7, which is agreed by everyone, on the basis of the citation of "Gelasios" in 1.8,1 to have been copied from the work of Gelasius of Caesarea. For a discussion of the passage see F. Scheidweiler, "Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia" in ByzZ 46 (1953), 293-296. For three later articles by F. Winkelmann on Gelasius of Caesarea see above, Introduction, note 7. Cf. my "Constantine's Conversion" in Phoenix 41.4 (1987), 420-438.

Page 57

Eusebius' claims to those of Constantine. I have pursued this argument at some length because Constantine's explanation of his career conflicts with Eusebius' account and with modern interpretations of his actions, which must simply reject that explanation. This involves the assumption that the emperor was telling lies, which should not be made when there is so much evidence in favor of his statements. It seems to me that his explanation is probably true, and that it is a more economical explanation than the modern theories about him. 86

For the detailed account of the campaign of 312 we have two of the panegyrics-those of 313 and of 321. Both give the impression of some severe fighting in the north of Italy, and both have Maxentius deciding to come out of Rome and fight Constantine when the latter arrives at the city. At the end of his piece, while comparing this achievement of Constantine to the campaigns of Constantius, the panegyrist of 313 lets fall a remark which may provide an explanation of why Maxentius came out to fight. ''He (Constantius) crossed the Ocean with his fleet; you seized the Alps on foot and the ports of Italy by ship. He recovered Britain, you the most famous islands of the African sea, which were the provinces of the Roman people." 87 This is the only mention in any source of activity by Constantine's fleet. However, the same author describes Maxentius as having gotten together a huge supply of grain. 88

It seems impossible to know whether or not this was a very difficult campaign. Our pagan sources for it are Constantine's propaganda, and later writers who seem to have had only the propaganda to draw on. Constantine had an obvious interest in minimizing the civil struggle, so that we may suspect that the campaign was hard-fought, 89 that the cutting of Rome's grain supply with the fleet was a part of it which forced Maxentius to fight, 90 and that the welcome which greeted Constantine in Rome was augmented by the expectation that there would be more to eat. On the

86 T. G. Elliott, "Constantine's Explanation of his Career" in Byzantion 62 (1992), 212-234.

87 The translation is NR p. 86.

88 Pan. Lat. 12(9).16.1 -Quippe omni Africa quam delere statuerat exhausta, omnibus insulis exaninitis, infiniti temporis annonam congesserat.

89 This is suggested by Lactantius, DMP44.3.

90 All the fuss in the Christian sources about Maxentius consulting the Sibylline books reflects a situation in which Maxentius felt himself under considerable pressure.

Page 58

other hand, the propaganda does not necessarily misrepresent the situation. The panegyrist of 321 represents Constantine as not knowing that Maxentius would come out to fight. 91 Maxentius may have decided that Constantine's army, having fought under him for several years, was not going to be bribed away from him, and may have feared the outcome of a long siege. A panegyrist contemplating the situation in 321, when Constantine's relations with Licinius were quite strained, would have had his normal interest in maximizing the campaign, and also an interest in minimizing it. The fact that he tells basically the same story as the panegyrist of 313 argues for the truth of his presentation.

Constantine left most of his army on the Rhine. That was taken by the panegyrist of 313 as very dangerous, and evidence of Constantine's solicitude for Gaul. 92 However, there is no need to suppose that the soldiers he took to Italy were not picked men. He had about forty thousand troops with him. His first fight in Italy, which he presumably entered by way of the Mt. Cenis pass was at Segusia (modern Susa), where the garrison refused to parley and closed the gates. Constantine fired the gates and entered the city, where he put out the fire and forbade plunder. Advancing eastward, he had a hard fight near Turin against heavy cavalry, which he defeated. The fugitives from this battle found the gates of Turin closed to them, and Constantine was admitted to the city. Other Italian cities came over, and Constantine proceeded to Milan, where he was given a joyful welcome. Continuing eastward, he routed a cavalry force near Brixia, whose survivors fled to Verona. This was garrisoned by a large force under Maxentius' praetorian prefect, Ruricius Pompeianus. 93 Constantine sent troops north on the River Adige to find a crossing, so that he might invest the city. After an initial fight, the prefect broke out, and returned with a large army. Constantine refused to lift the siege, and

91 Pan. Lat. 4(10).27.6; 28,1;. K. R. von Landmann, "Konstantin der Grosse als Feldherr" in Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit, ed. by F. J. Dölger. Römische Quartalschrift, Supplementband 19 (Freiburg, 1913), 143-154, at 149 remarks that Constantine was too clever to take his army too close to the walls of Rome. This does not explain how he could bring any pressure to bear on Maxentius from the Milvian Bridge.

92 Pan. Lat. 12(9).3.1-2.

93 He is named Pompeianus by the panegyrist of 313 [12(9).8.1] Ruricius by that of 321 [4(10).25.4].

Page 59

divided his army. After a desperate battle the prefect was killed and the army with him surrendered. The city of Aquileia came over, and soon Verona surrendered. After a fight at Mutina, and possibly some other minor engagements, Constantine held the north of Italy. In late October he approached the walls of Rome.

Page 61

CHAPTER FOUR

ROME, 312-AND EUSEBIUS'

CONVERSION STORY

Gelasius of Caesarea said that at Rome Constantine saw something in the sky, and that he immediately had the labarum made. 1 This is consistent with the famous ch. 44 of On the Deaths of the Persecutors, in which Lactantius had placed Constantine near Rome, just before the battle of the Milvian Bridge, when he had his dream and ordered his soldiers to paint on their shields a monogram resembling a sign seen in the sky ² and signifying Christ. The two accounts can be combined, on the supposition that Constantine had a dream after he saw the phenomenon. 3 In addition to that, they support each other, for the following reason. Constantine must have ordered the making of the labarum immediately after the appearance of the phenomenon, for it must have been intended to have an effect on his army. That effect would have been lost by a delay between the occurrence of the phenomenon and Constantine's orders. Eusebius' story, which lacks this detail, clearly has come loose from the facts.

The use of Gelasius to support the evidence of Lactantius against that of Eusebius requires some discussion here of Gelasius and his evidence on this point. First, it is clear that his narrative is independent of Eusebius, whose account he knew and rejected, because he has detail on the

1 Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE 1.3-7, which is agreed by everyone, on the basis of the citation of "Gelasios" in 1.8, to have been copied from the work of Gelasius of Caesarea. For a discussion of the passage cf. F. Scheidweiler, "Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia" in ByzZ 46 (1953), 293-296.

2 Not "the heavenly sign," as argued by H. Schrörs, Konstantins des Grossen

Kreuzerscheinung, 14ff.

3 Such a dream is indicated by the account of Eusebius in VC 1.29.

Page 62

circumstances near Rome. It is also independent of Lactantius, whose story is about a dream and an order to paint the monogram on the shields, and has nothing about the labarum. Second, on this matter the credit of Gelasius is not affected by arguments which have been advanced concerning his work in general. F. Winkelmann has argued that he was a person of mediocre abilities who introduced the biases of the orthodox of the age of Theodosius into an account of earlier events, notably by whitewashing Constantine and blackening the Arians. 4 Now, if Gelasius' aim was to whitewash Constantine, he would certainly have wanted to get the conversion story into the labarum story, in order to show Constantine as, to use Rufinus' words, caelitus invitatus adfidem. 5If, on the other hand, Gelasius was more reliable than Winkelmann thought, his account of the events is reasonably deserving of credit. 6 Thus, whatever view we take of him does not undermine his testimony on this point. 7 Third, as regards this question there is no simple escape by preferring the VC on the ground that it is earlier than Gelasius, because one is immediately faced by Lactantius' still earlier story of a dream near Rome. Thus, the solution to the problem of Eusebius vs. Lactantius is obtained by reducing the context from the conversion to the labarum, which is necessary because Lactantius says nothing about a conversion. In the new context Lactantius obtains support from Gelasius without being opposed by the Eusebius of the HE and the tricennial oration, and the effect is decisive.

4 For his description of Gelasius cf. "Charakter," 382-385.

5 Rufinus HE, 9.9,1-3--invited from heaven to the faith." For Gelasius' use of Eusebius' VC cf. Winkelmann, Untersuchungen," 38-43; "Charakter," 375; 378-380. The way to exalt the religious character of Constantine was to minimize paternal (and maternal?) influence and to use the conversion story as proof that God had chosen him.

6 Winkelmann's objection to Gelasius' presentation of Constantius as a Christian made an important contribution to his unfavorable judgment of Gelasius. This objection resulted from acceptance of the conversion theory of Eusebius, who also (be it noted) presented Constantius as a Christian. In spite of the very high value of Winkelmann's work I do not think that the last word has been said on the subject of Gelasius. I note that it appears that Philostorgius (HE, 1.6) also placed Constantine near Rome at the time of the phenomenon.

7 I refer again to the argument of J. Schamp in Byzantion 57 (1987), 360-390 that Gelasius' history went down only to the death of Arius.

Page 63

Eusebius, in his HE, which he had completed by 324, and in his tricennial oration on Constantine in 336, has nothing about any celestial phenomenon seen by Constantine. 8 In VC 1.26-32, however, which was written after Constantine's death, he tells the fascinating story of Constantine's conversion, which is dealt with here as an intellectual curiosity.

(26) While, therefore, he regarded the entire world as one immense body, and perceived that the head of it all, the royal city of the Roman empire, was bowed down by the weight of a tyrannous oppression; at first he had left the task of liberation to those who governed the other divisions of the empire, as being his superiors in point of age. But when none of these proved able to afford relief, and those who had attempted it had experienced a disgraceful outcome of their enterprise, he said that life was not worth living for him as long as he saw the imperial city thus afflicted, and prepared himself for the overthrowal of the tyranny.

(27) Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he began to seek Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, for without the help of God he thought that these things could accomplish nothing, but believing the cooperating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, what God he should enlist as his helper. While engaged in this enquiry, the thought occurred to him that, of the many emperors who had preceded him, those who had rested their hopes in a multitude of gods, and served them with sacrifices and offerings, had in the first place been deceived by

8 H. Grégoire, "L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribué Eusèbe de Césarée" in Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres¬ 39 (1953), 472. Grégoire has made this point better than I can, and it is not my fault if insufficient attention has been paid to his argument. This oration (or orations) have been well discussed by H. A. Drake in In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations (Berkeley, 1976).

Page 64

flattering predictions, and oracles which promised them all prosperity, and at last had met with an unhappy end, while not one of their gods had stood by to warn them of the impending wrath of heaven; while his father alone who had pursued an entirely opposite course, who had condemned their error, and honored the one Supreme God during his whole life, had found him to be the Savior and Protector of his empire, and the Giver of every good thing. Reflecting on this, and well weighing the fact that they who had trusted in many gods had also fallen by manifold forms of death, without leaving behind them either family or offspring, stock, name, or memorial among men: while the God of his father had given him, on the other hand, very many clear displays of his power: and considering farther that those who had already taken arms against the tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field under the protection of a multitude of gods, had met with a dishonorable end (for one of them had shamefully retreated from the contest without a blow, and the other, being slain in the midst of his own troops, became, as it were, the mere sport of death); reviewing, I say, all these considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent upon him to honor his father's God alone.

(28) Accordingly he called on him, entreating and imploring him that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious (n.b.) emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light formed in the

Page 65

very heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on an expedition to some place, and witnessed the miracle.

(29) He said moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.

(30) At dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends; and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation the emperor saw fit to show me, God having granted this boon too.

(31) Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Savior's name, two letters indicated the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its center: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. From the cross-bar of the spear was suspended a cloth, a royal piece, covered with a profuse embroidery of most brilliant precious stones; and which, being also richly interlaced with gold, presented an indescribable beauty to the beholder. This banner was of a square form, and the upright staff, whose lower section was of great length, bore a golden half-length portrait of the pious emperor and of his children likewise on its upper part, beneath the trophy of the cross, and immediately above the embroidered banner.

The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a

Page 66

safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies.

(32) These things were done shortly afterwards. But at the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the extraordinary vision, and having resolved to worship no other God save Him who had appeared to him, he sent for those who were acquainted with the mysteries of His doctrines, and enquired who this God was, and what was intended by the sign of what he had seen.

They affirmed that He was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God: that the sign which had appeared was the symbol of immortality, and the trophy of that victory over death which He had gained in time past when sojourning on earth. They taught him also the causes of His advent, and explained to him the true account of his incarnation. Thus he was instructed in these matters, and was impressed with wonder at the divine manifestation which had been presented to his sight. Comparing, therefore, the heavenly vision with the interpretation given, he found his judgment confirmed, believing that the knowledge of these things had been imparted to him by Divine teaching. He determined thenceforth to devote himself to the reading of the Inspired writings.

Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion. And after this, being fortified by wellgrounded hopes in Him, he hastened to quench the fire of tyranny. 9

Eusebius is somewhat hazy about the conversion. In 1.27, just before the famous chapter on the miracle, he represents Constantine as having decided to worship his father's God alone before the miracle takes place, and in 1.32 he represents him as having learned the identity of that God

9 Richardson's translation, adapted.

Page 67

after the miracle and after he has given orders for the production of the labarum. On this account the effect of the miracle is not conversion, but action and knowledge. There is another oddity, in chapter 32, where he represents Constantine as ignorant of the identity of Constantius' god, despite the lifetime of success that that god had given Constantius, but as finding that the claims of his Christian advisors confirm his own opinion as to that god's identity. This self-contradiction occurs right in the center of the conversion story.

The claim that until Constantine questioned the Christians with him he did not know the identity of his father's God is quite incredible. On Eusebius' theatrical account in chapter 29, Christ Himself did not manage to teach Constantine who He was. This ridiculous presentation is the Eusebian contribution to a story of the labarum, which originated with Constantine. It is clear that Eusebius himself did not accept his own account in the way that modern scholars do, for if he had thought that Constantine had been converted by that miracle he would have said so plainly, fully, and triumphantly. Here again I make use of an argument from silence, without any embarrassment whatever: nobody with the least acquaintance with Eusebius' writings can doubt the truth of my assertion for a moment. I think that Eusebius invented the conversion while he found himself trapped between the Christianity of Constantius and the later victorious career of Constantine, and thereafter neglected it.

The rejection of the conversion element leaves Constantine's own story, which is of the miracle by which God showed him how to make the labarum. (It is the explosive mixture of Constantinian and Eusebian contributions to this story that has caused all the trouble with it.) In chapter 28 Eusebius gives two reasons for believing the story. The first is that the victorious emperor himself swore that it was true; the second is that later events confirmed the truth of it. What was confirmed by later events, as Constantine kept winning his battles, was the divine origin of the victory-bringing labarum, not a story of a conversion which could have been confirmed only by the testimony of the convert. 10 It is worth noting that in VC 2.7-9 Eusebius again refers to the occasion on which Constantine told him this story. The context is Constantine's victories over

10 Constantine might have been converted by the miracle and defeated by Maxentius.

Page 68

Licinius, and the subject of Constantine's speech is the labarum. Of course, it is true that this miracle, as Constantine saw it, did have an effect on his faith, as Eusebius knew. In VC 2.55 Constantine is quoted as saying that God's many demonstrations of His power confirmed Constantine's faith. ''Confirmed," he says, not "produced."

That Eusebius invented this conversion is also indicated by his problems with both the chronology and the geography. As has often been remarked, Eusebius seems to have had no idea where or when the labarum had been made, except that it was made before the campaign began. His location of Constantine at the time of the celestial phenomenon has every appearance of being based on something other than factual knowledge, and should not be preferred to the circumstantial account of Gelasius without argument. 11

The splendor of the conversion theme entitled it to a very large place, not only in the VC, but in Constantine's own sermonizing. In the latter it does not appear at all. In the former it is brought in along with the story of how God showed Constantine how to make the labarum, and requires patent absurdities in Eusebius' account. The fact that it is not mentioned at all in the panegyric on Constantine delivered by Eusebius on the occasion of the tricennalia 12is a clear indication that it could not be produced until the emperor was safely dead.

It is interesting to look at later sources relevant to the problem in the light of the foregoing arguments. In his Caesares 336 Julian the Apostate said that Constantine had gone to Jesus to get forgiveness for murders of Crispus and Fausta, i.e., in 326. 13 Later, some Arian or Arians, probably while engaged in defensive controversy during the reign of Theodosius, 14

11 It is interesting that Eusebius says that the sign in the sky was seen about noon. That detail is not found in Gelasius.

12 H. Grégoire, "L'authenticité" 472.

13 Libanius and other pagans assumed that Constantine had not started out as a Christian, but they placed any supposed conversion incredibly late, and their views are disregarded. Cf. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 626-627 and note 58 thereto for the references.

14 Sozomen, HE 7.9; 12; 13; 14; 17; 8.8. Cf. Rufinus, HE 10.5 ad fin. The Arians had to defend their predecessors who were accused of having lied when they subscribed the Nicene Creed, and they could do so only by inventing a good reason

Page 69

fabricated a story to the effect that after the Council of Nicaea several Arian priests, including Eusebius and Theognis, had acquiesced in the Nicene formula in 325, not because they believed it, but through fear lest Constantine, who had only recently become a Christian, should become annoyed by arguments, go back to paganism, and start persecuting the Church. 15 This worthless material was eventually to fool Sozomen, and it may have affected Socrates too. 16

Except for the Arians just mentioned the Christians were doing quite well without the conversion. The accounts of the campaign of 312 by Gelasius of Caesarea, Rufinus, and Prudentius have already been mentioned in chapter 3. It is in the first three chapters of Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, a century after Eusebius' Life, that the modern view of the events of 312 makes its first appearance. Socrates confidently 17 assumed the truth of the conversion element in Eusebius' account. He may have wished, as Sozomen did, to answer Julian, and he may have seen that the conversion story in the VC supplied a refutation of the Arian fabrication mentioned above. 18 In any case, Socrates was faithful to the account in the VC, so that in his re-telling of the story the result of the miracle remained the labarum.

Sozomen had Eusebius' story, Rufinus' garbling thereof, the Arian fabrication, and Socrates' confident assumption of a conversion. He

for the (apparent) falsehood.

15 Sozomen, HE 3.19.

16 See below. I have omitted discussion of Philostorgius, HE 1.6 because the reference-of what Philostorgius said about Constantine in 312-to a conversion of Constantine was made only by Photius.

17 I distinguish between the confusion and lack of interest in the conversion element, which is evident in Eusebius and Rufinus, and the confidence of Socrates, which is shared by modern scholars.

18 I accept the argument of Scheidweiler, in ByzZ 46 (1953), 299-300, that Socrates read the VC only after he had written the first edition of his first two books, and that his discovery of the VC was a factor which prompted his re-writing of those two books. This argument of Scheidweiler's is confirmed by the work of Winkelmann, who showed (cf. "Untersuchungen," 103-108) that the Rufinus, whom Socrates criticized in his HE 2.1 for having misdated the Council of Tyre and thereby having misled Socrates with regard to Athanasius, was probably a work written in Greek, consisting of the HE of Gelasius of Caesarea followed by translation from Book 11 of Rufinus' HE, and going under the name of Rufinus.

Page 70

wished to refute Julian's claim that Constantine had gone to Jesus in order to get forgiveness for the murders of Cripus and Fausta, and was sure that he could do so by adducing pro-Christian laws of Constantine and Crispus prior to 326. At the beginning of 1.3 he accepts Socrates' assumption of a conversion, and goes on to retail, briefly, the account of Rufinus, which had no conversion, down to the production of the labarum. He then begins anew by referring to Eusebius' account of how Constantine had declared on oath that he and his army had seen a cross in the sky with the words "Conquer by this." At this point Sozomen contradicts Eusebius by saying that when the marvel appeared, Constantine did not know where he should lead his army. Three more contradictions follow as he continues with Eusebius' account. First, he says that after the appearance of Christ in Constantine's dream "there was no further need of an interpreter for the emperor had been clearly shown what he should think about God." Second, he says that Constantine was amazed by what the priests told him. Third, he says that it was only after listening to the priests that he had the labarum made. All of these contradictions were necessary in order to change the story of the labarum into a story of conversion. I consider Sozomen's distortions important, because they show that a fifth-century Church historian did not find Eusebius' story satisfactory as an account of a conversion.

It is interesting to observe Sozomen's peculiar procedure in telling the conversion story. He started with Rufinus. This was not the Greek Rufinus (=Gelasius of Caesarea), but rather the Latin Rufinus, who presented Constantine as having a vision rather than as seeing something in the sky, and as hearing the "conquer by this" from some angels. Since the Latin Rufinus was not very helpful on the subject of the conversion, Sozomen abandoned him and started again with Eusebius. Now, before he did any of this he had probably been using the Greek Rufinus (=Gelasius), who was even less helpful than the Latin one. Sozomen's inability to find a conversion anywhere but in Eusebius is yet another indication that it was not to be found elsewhere.

For many Christians the miracle-conversion-victory connection now made available without any troublesome doubts was very satisfying. For their opponents that connection could be made the basis for skeptical argument about a cynical, opportunistic Constantine, using the Church as the footstool of his throne. When On the Deaths of the Persecutors was

Page 71

discovered in 1678 the battle over Constantine was well under way, and little attention was paid to Lactantius' statement about his legislation in 306.

Having disposed of Eusebius' unhelpful addition to Constantine's story, we may now return to Constantine near Rome. He was probably sure of victory, provided that he could get a battle. At this point he, and probably his whole army, saw something in the sky which Constantine took to signify Christ. 19 After a dream, 20 Constantine had some artisans produce the labarum, 21and ordered his men to mark their shields with the chi-rho monogram. 22

There is no evidence that the labarum replaced the other standards of Constantine's army, and no evidence that he publicly proclaimed himself a Christian at this time. 23 The troops would have found the removal of their familiar standards unsettling, whereas the addition of the standard with the sign which had been seen in the sky would have cheered them up. I do not think that Constantine's army became "officially Christian" 24 in any sense that pagan soldiers would have found disquieting. So far as Constantine's public professions are concerned, he had entered into a special and private relationship with a powerful deity 25 whose emblems

19 Eusebius, VC 1.28; Gelasius, HE 1.5. See A. H. M. Jones on the halo phenomenon in C&C, 96-97, and the article "Solar Halo Complexes" in Sky and Telescope 54 (1977/8), 185-187. According to J. L. Mosheim (in his Ecclesiastical History originally published in 1726, the English translation of 1833 [London], 90) the halo theory had been advanced by Jo. Aud. Schmidius and Jo. Alb. Fabricius.

20 This dream appears both in Lactantius, DMP 44.5 and in Eusebius VC 1.29. See DMP 46.3-4 for the dream of Licinius before his first battle with Maximinus.

21 Eusebius, VC 1.30.

22 Lactantius, DMP 44.5.

23 Barnes, in CE, 43, takes it that he did make such a declaration.

24 Barnes, CE 48 and note 42 thereto. This requires him to emend the date of CTh 7.20.2 (March 1 of 320) to March 1 of 307. I regard this as unnecessary. Ramsay MacMullen objected to the phrase "officially Christian" in his Christianizing the Roman Empire, p. 45. At one time I thought that there was nothing wrong with Barnes' phrase, but now I am not sure what it means. I take it that Constantine's pagan soldiers could pray that his god should preserve him without thereby becoming monotheists.

25 This is all that we find in the panegyrics of 313 and 321.

Page 72

looked like some of those of Christ. 26

Maxentius did not stay inside the walls. Whether this decision was part of a reasonable defensive plan or due to his consultations of the Sibylline books, 27 or because the Romans were starving, or because he feared that a siege would make victory for Constantine more likely, 28 we do not know. He had a bridge of boats built across the Tiber by the Milvian Bridge, which he had broken, and led his army out to face Constantine north of the city. 29 He was decisively defeated, and to the loss of life in battle was added that in the river, when his bridge of boats broke under his fleeing army. Maxentius himself was drowned in his heavy armor when he rode into the river. Constantine prepared to enter the city. He knew exactly what he wanted, and was ready to pay for it.

26 I accept Eusebius' story in VC 1.40 about the statue of Constantine in Rome, but that is not a declaration by the emperor that he was a Christian. This story is rejected by Wolfgang Kuhoff, "Ein Mythos in der römischen Geschichte: Der Sieg Konstantins des Grossen über Maxentius vor den Toren Roms am 28. Oktober 312 n.Chr." in Chiron 21 (1991), 167-171. David Woods is about to publish an argument concerning the Latin of the inscription of which Eusebius provides a translation that is not necessarily correct.

27 Lactantius, DMP 44.3ff.; Pan. lat. 12(9). 16. 1; 4(10).2.8ff.; Eusebius, HE 9.9. 1.

28 Barnes, CE, 42. Cf. n. 91 to ch. 3, above.

29 I accept the suggestions most recently made by Kuhoff (art. cit., 127-174) that the battle was begun in a rather disorderly fashion near Saxa Rubra, and ended with the drowning of Maxentius near the Milvian Bridge. Kuhoff stresses the basic soundness of Maxentius' defensive plans throughout the campaign.

Page 73

CHAPTER FIVE

THE DONATISTS, 312-337

The next day Constantine entered Rome. The streets were thronged with people struggling to get a glimpse of their deliverer. The head of Maxentius on a spear was subjected to their abuse before being sent to Carthage to announce his defeat. Constantine proceeded to the palace, and thence, apparently, to the senate-house.

Such is the evidence of the panegyrist of 313. Whether or not Constantine celebrated a Roman triumph is much debated. 1 If he did, we should have had some mention of his army in the panegyric, and a description of his ascent of the Capitoline, there to offer sacrifice to Jupiter. 2 I accept Straub's opinion 3 that there was no triumph, but that the traditional ceremony over the arrival of the emperor in Rome called for the visit to Jupiter's temple, which Constantine omitted. 4The confused testimony of Zosimus that he had celebrated triumphs early in his reign through fear of the soldiers, but later stopped the practice, is not worthless, 5 but Constantine could have pointed out to his soldiers that a

1 J. Straub, "Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol" in Historia 4 (1955), 297-313.

2 The fact that he leaves out the traditional climax of proceedings at a triumph suggests that he was told that it had not occurred.

3 "Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol," 300-309.

4 I do not think that that would have troubled the soldiers.

5 Zosimus is too polemical an author to be relied on when he has an axe to grind. His source, Eunapius, would have had nothing more on these western events than we have. Straub showed that Zosimus' view that Constantine had become converted in order to be cleansed of the guilt occasioned by the death of Crispus was consistent with this idea about the worship of Jupiter in the early years. Omission of a visit to the Capitol is dated to 326 by H. -U. Wiemer, "Libanios und Zosimos iiber den Rom-Besuch

Page 74

triumph was improper after a civil war.6

At the senate-house Constantine "restored the senate to its former authority" and promised that its memory would rest eternally in his breast. 7 He blamed Maxentius and a few of his followers for all of the crimes of the previous régime, and probably announced his ban on political accusations, which he followed up with an edict which prescribed the death penalty for informers. 8 Maxentius' rescripts, "except for those that were right," were annulled. 9 He probably indicated what he was later to do about reversing the practice of third-century emperors and opening once again to senators the way to office and power at court.10

The senate in return declared that Constantine was the senior Augustus, with the title maximus. 11By this declaration Constantine got the right to name the consuls of the year. More important, he also got the initiative in legislation, which was essential to an emperor who wanted to make some changes. The title of maximus Augustus was more than Diocletian had ever arrogated to himself, and Constantine began to exploit it quite promptly. This exchange with the Roman senate was important to his prospects of success in the future. When he had reached the east in 324 and defeated Licinius, the first thing he did was to found an eastern capital, so that the effectiveness of such a maneuver against himself would be reduced.

Constantine met Licinius at Milan between January 18 and February 16 of 313. 12 They celebrated the marriage of Licinius and Constantine's half-sister Constantia, and discussed imperial policy regarding the Christians. Then the news that Maximinus had arrived in Europe hastened

Konstantins I im Jahre 326" in Historia 43.4 (1994), 469-494.

6 Pagan writers of the fourth and fifth centuries have found too receptive an audience among modern scholars for their complaints about what they choose to call triumphs. The standard case in point is the loud objection of Ammianus Marcellinus over the celebration of the vicennalia of Constantius II in 357. See 16.10.

7 Pan. lat. 12.20,1.

8 CTh 10.10.2. Cf. Seeck, Regesten 160.

9 CTh 15.14.3;4.

10 Barnes, CE 46, cites in n. 12 Jones, LRE 24f; 45; 104ff; 525ff.

11 Lactantius, DMP 44.11.

12 Lactantius, DMP 45.1; 48.2; Origo 5,13.

Page 75

Licinius' departure.

We have now arrived at Constantine's first great setback-the Donatist schism in North Africa. He tried very hard to heal it, and failed. Given his actual circumstances in the years after 312, this was not surprising.

Between October 29 of 312 and April 15 of 313 the following correspondence is on record between Constantine and Anullinus, the proconsul of Africa, and Caecilian, the bishop of Carthage.

Greeting, our most honored Anullinus.

It is the custom of our Benevolence, to desire that those things which rightly belong to another not only should not be molested, but even should be restored, most honored Anullinus.

Therefore we desire that when you have received this letter, any property of the Christians' Catholic Church in any city or other places which is possessed now either by citizens or any others, you shall cause to be restored immediately to the said churches, since we have decided that what the said churches previously possessed should be restored to them.

Therefore, since your Devotion perceives that our command's ordinance is quite clear, hasten that all things, whether gardens or buildings or whatever belonging to the said churches, should be restored to them as quickly as possible, that we may learn that you have exhibited the most careful obedience to this our ordinance.

Farewell, our most honored and most cherished Anullinus. 13

Constantine Augustus to Caecilian, bishop of Carthage.

Since it has pleased me to provide something for expenses to certain specified ministers of the legitimate and most holy Catholic religion, through all provinces, namely, the African and

13 Eusebius, HE 10.5.15-17 = Soden, Urkunde 7 = Maier, Document 11. My translation.

Page 76

the Numidian and the Mauretanian, I have sent a letter to Ursus, the most illustrious catholicus of Africa, and I have notified him that he should take care to pay to your Constancy 3,000 folles. 14 Do you, therefore, when you have procured receipt of the aforesaid amount of money, give orders that this money should be distributed among all the aforementioned persons according to the brief sent to you by Ossius. But if you should learn that anything is lacking for the fulfilment of this my policy in regard to them all, you should demand unhesitatingly from Heraclides, the procurator of our estates, whatever you should consider to be necessary, for I ordered him, when he was present, that if your Firmness should ask any money from him he should take care to pay it without hesitation.

And since I have learned that certain persons of unsettled mind desire to divert by some base seduction the people of the most holy and Catholic Church, know that I have given orders to Anullinus, the proconsul, and also to Patricius, the vicar of the prefects, when they were present, that they should pay proper attention in all other matters and particularly in this should not permit themselves to overlook such an occurrence. Therefore, if you should observe any such persons continuing in this madness, go without hesitation to the aforementioned judges and bring this very matter to them, that they may correct them, exactly as I ordered them when they were present.

May the Divinity of the Great God guard you for many years. 15

14 In his discussion of thefollis in LRE 1.440, Jones refers to his article "The Origin and Early History of the Follis" in JRS 49 (1959), 34-38. The follis was worth 12,500 denarii or 1/10 lb. of gold in 307, and by 324 had declined to less than 1/24 lb. of gold. That would place the value of 3,000folles in 312 between 300 lb. and 125 lb. of gold, or 21.600 and 9,000 solidi. According to the Liber Pontificalis the annual revenues of Constantine's endowment of the Lateran basilica were about 14,000 solidi.

15 Eusebius, HE 10.6.1-5 = Soden, Urkunde 8 = Maier, Document 12. My translation.

Page 77

Greeting, our most honored Anullinus.

Since from many circumstances it is evident that the setting at naught of religious worship, in which the chief reverence for the holiest heavenly power is maintained, has brought great dangers upon public affairs while its lawful reception and preservation have furnished the greatest good fortune to the Roman name and remarkable felicity to all the affairs of men, for the divine benefactions provide this, it has seemed right that those men who give their services to the maintenance of divine worship, with due sanctity and with constant observance of this law, should reap the rewards of their own labors, most honored Anullinus.

That is why I wish that those who, within the province entrusted to you, in the Catholic Church over which Caecilian presides, furnish their service to this holy worship (they call them clerics), should be kept once for all entirely exempted from all the public services, that they may not be diverted from the worship due to the divinity by any error or sacrilegious lapse, but rather without any disturbance may give the utmost service to their own law. For it appears that when these persons perform the greatest service to the divinity, the greatest possible advantage will accrue to public affairs.

Good health to you, our most honored and most cherished Anullinus. 16

To Our Augusti Anullinus, vir clarissimus, proconsul of Africa.

Having received and adored Your Majesty's letters my Devotion saw to it that they were included among the records of my Insignificance for Caecilian and those who serve under him and are called clerics, and urged them, having established a unity by the consent of all, since they seemed to have been freed from every form of the compulsory public services (munera) by the

16 Eusebius, HE 10.7.1-2 = Soden, Urkunde 9 = Maier, Document 13. My translation.

Page 78

indulgence 17 of Your Majesty, to preserve the sanctity of the Catholic law with due reverence and observe the divine worship.

Nevertheless, after a few days certain persons arose, together with a multitude of the people, who saw fit to oppose Caecilian and who brought to my Reverence and earnestly desired that I direct to the sacred and venerable court of Your Worship a packet sealed in a purse and a letter unsealed, which my Insignificance took care to send on so that Your Majesty might decide everything, with Caecilian remaining in his office and the minutes of the hearing attached. Two documents have been forwarded, one sealed in a purse with the title ''petition of the catholic church of the charges against Caecilian handed in by the party of Majorinus," and likewise another unsealed, attached to the same purse.

Given on April 15 at Carthage, in the third consulship of our lord Constantine Augustus. 18

All of this correspondence occurred between October 28 of 312 and April 15 of 313. Constantine sent his initial law out to Anullinus; Anullinus experienced difficulty about the persons to whom he should give the money, and informed Constantine of his troubles. Constantine recalled Anullinus, Heraclides, and Patricius from Africa for instructions. In the meantime he sent a list drawn up by Ossius to Caecilian, a list which Ossius could have obtained only after correspondence with Caecilian. Then he heard that pagans and/or Donatists (as they were later called) were making trouble for Catholic clergy, and sent out the last law to Anullinus, regarding the tax exemptions for clerics. Anullinus continued to have trouble with Donatists, and sent his letter of April 15.

Since there is not time in all this for the summoning of Ossius from Corduba, most scholars have concluded that Ossius was with Constantine during the campaign against Maxentius, and that he advised Constantine to

17 Reading indulgentia for indulgentiae.

18 Augustine, Epp. 88.2 = Soden, Urkunde 10 = Maier, Document 14. My translation.

Page 79

favor the Catholics from the outset. Most people taking this view would argue further that the mention of the Catholic Church in the first letter to Anullinus was pointed. This seems to be a correct view, since his letter to Caecilian does not raise any new point with regard to his choice of the Catholic Church. The third letter, to Anullinus, makes clear to the officials on the spot exactly what he meant by the Catholic Church. However, I do not believe that Constantine needed Ossius to advise him to this pro- Catholic policy, and it must be admitted that there is no reliable evidence that Ossius did so. 19 The evidence is that Constantine had this policy, and used Ossius for the technical details. The view apparent in this letter that the proper worship of God will bring blessings upon the worshipers is worth noting, but it is not at all surprising in a Roman emperor, especially in one who required the co-operation of a pagan official.

Further introduction is necessary here regarding the Church in Carthage and North Africa. The bishops of Numidia had not shared the views of Mensurius, Caecilian's predecessor at Carthage, regarding some of the martyrs of the Persecution, namely those who had volunteered for martyrdom while yet unsought by the authorities. The Numidians applauded these volunteers, but the bishop of Carthage, probably reflecting the views of wealthier Christians in the city (as well as the instruction of Christ, for example, in Mt. 10.23), told his flock not to imitate them. 20 Volunteering was not, in fact, a thoroughly good idea, since it might annoy the authorities 21 and a Christian under torture might divulge the names of

19 On Ossius and the Donatists see V. C. De Clercq, Ossius of Cordova (Washington, D.C., 1954), 161-165, including his reference to Augustine, Contra epistulam Parmeniani 1.8.13 and 1.6.11. The Donatists later claimed that he had biased Constantine against them.

20 For the volunteer martyrs see W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (New York, 1967), 203; 216; 220; 260; 321. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (London, 1988) 441-442 treats the volunteer martyrs as a relatively new phenomenon in the Great Persecution. See also O. Nicholson, "Flight from Persecution as Imitation of Christ: Lactantius' Divine Institutes IV. 18,1-2" in JThS 40.1 (1989), 48-65. On the general question of traditio see B. Kriegbaum, Kirche der Traditoren oder Kirche der Mrtyrer: Die Vorgeschichte des Donatismus, 44-95.

21 Kriegbaum, 62, referring to Cyprian, ep. 81 (CSEL 3/2, 842); Augustine, Contra Gaudentium 1.31.40 (CSEL 53.239).

Page 80

fellow Christians who might not want them divulged. 22 If Mensurius actually ordered Christians to prevent other Christians from entering the prison with food for these volunteer martyrs, as the Donatists later said he did, this would indicate that he had become exasperated with those whom he thought too interested in martyrdom, and that there was already considerable trouble in the Church in Carthage. In the circumstances this had most unfortunate consequences. These volunteers, the spiritual heirs of the puritan Tertullian, could look back upon a long tradition of support for their views in the North African Church, and when they obtained the support of the Numidian bishops they no longer had to pay much attention to the bishops in the larger towns, whose authority had become a counterbalance, since Cyprian, to the prestige of the martyrs. Many of the martyrs had become fixated on martyrdom as the quick way into heaven, and were quite comfortable with a policy which set them in opposition to wealthier people in the towns. The Catholics were paying more attention to other means of getting to heaven, and may have hoped, reasonably enough, that Constantine's victory meant that martyrdom was going to disappear. Moreover, it seems clear that from the beginning Mensurius disagreed with Secundus of Tigisis in Numidia on the question of the handing over of Scriptures to the authorities. Mensurius said in a letter to Secundus that he had handed over heretical writings in order to get rid of officials: Secundus said that he had refused any sort of compromise measure. 23 This disagreement probably makes it impossible to discover whether anyone was a traditor during the years of active persecution, because, on Secundus' criteria, the accusation could have been made against almost any bishop who had not perished or been imprisoned in the persecution.

In addition to this problem, which affected all of North Africa, matters in Carthage were complicated by the activities of a wealthy widow named Lucilla, whom Optatus treats as an important factor in the origins of the

22 For an example of a Christian supplying the name of a fellow Christian while under torture, see Maier, Document 4.

23 Soden, Urkunde 4 = Augustine, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis (hereafter Brev. = PL 43.613-650) 3.13.25.

Page 81

schism. 24Maxentius formally ended the persecution in the west in the spring of 308, 25 but the brutality of his suppression of the usurper L. Domitius Alexander in 309 or 310 did not make him popular in North Africa. 26 A deacon of Mensurius named Felix published an attack on Maxentius, 27 and when he was accused he hid with Mensurius, who refused to give him up to the authorities. Mensurius was ordered to Rome, where he made a successful defense, but died before he could return to Carthage. 28 To replace him the Christians of Carthage elected the archdeacon Caecilian as their bishop. Felix of Abthungi and two other bishops consecrated him. A dispute then arose over Caecilian's election, in which his opponents secured the backing of Lucilla, whom Caecilian had offended. 29 The Numidian bishops, led by Secundus of Tigisis, intervened in the dispute, and put up an interventor in place of Caecilian until his right to be the bishop should be decided. When this person was murdered in his meetinghouse 30 the Numidian bishops and some others at a small council declared that Felix, who had consecrated Caecilian, was a traditor, and that his consecration of Caecilian was therefore invalid. 31 Caecilian, who had refused to attend this council, asked the bishops to consecrate him a second time, but they elected Majorinus, a favorite of Lucilla. 32 Caecilian ignored

24 Optatus, 1.16-18-feminam factiosam. She had been rebuked by Caecilian before the persecution for bringing the bone of a martyr to the communion.

25 I rely for this date on the arguments of Kriegbaum, op. cit., 130-149, despite the objection to it of T. D. Barnes in CTR 77 (1991), 95-96.

26 On the date see Barnes, NE 14 and V. Aiello, "Costantino, Lucio Domizio Alessandro e Cirta: un caso di rielaborazione storiographiche" in L'Africa Romana 6.1 (1991), 179-196, at 176.

27 I regard the arguments of J.-L. Maier in Le Dossier du Donatisme in Texte und Untersuchungen 134 (Berlin, 1987), 129-133 as conclusive in favor of the view that Maxentius, not Maximian, was the emperor mentioned by Felix.

28 Optatus, 1.17.

29 Soden, Urkunde 6 = Augustine, Brev. 3.13.26.

30 Augustine, Epp. 44.4.8. Cf. Sermo 46.15 (PL 38.279).

31 Soden, Urkunde 6A and B = Augustine, Brev. 3.13.26 and Optatus, 1.19-20.

32 Soden, Urkunde 6A and B. T. D. Barnes in "The Beginnings of Donatism" in JThS 26 (1975), 13-22, at 19-20, argued for a date of 307: Kriegbaum 130-149 argued for May of 308-310/311. Maier (Document 10, 128-134) argued very well for 311/312. How the claims of the people of Carthage figured in the election of

Page 82

this election and managed to retain possession of his see. When Majorinus died in 313 he was replaced by Donatus, who gave his name to the schism. 33 After the victory over Maxentius Constantine was faced with a Church in North Africa which had been deeply divided before the Persecution, and had seen that division embittered and finally turned into schism by the experience of the years 303-312. 34 It should be recognized at the outset that the restoration of unity to this Church was not going to be easy.

We could take it that Constantine bungled the matter-now impetuous, now vacillating, now venturing into Caesaropapism, always concerned mainly with the usefulness of the Church to the empire. But Constantine was the child of his age. His Christianizing mission, which had arisen with the Persecution, would have disposed him to favor the Catholic Church, since it was more ready to accept the conversion of the pagans than was any "Church of the Martyrs." 35 His aim of making the empire safe for Christianity must have entailed the prompt conversion of a large number of pagans. He did not have a doctrine of the separation of Church and State available to him: if he had accepted God's mission, how were Caesar's things to be distinguished from God's? He believed that the empire needed the prayers of Christians, that God had entrusted the empire to him, and that it was his responsibility to do as well as he could by the Church. 36 It is simply too much to expect that he should not have been worried about his own soul, as well as those of his subjects. If his hopes were realized there would be an end of martyrdom, and those interested in it were going to have to find another way to heaven. From Constantine's point of view, the whole basis of the Donatist party was quite out-of-date, in addition to being opposed to reasonable Catholic teaching in the first place. In these

Majorinus is not known.

33 Augustine, Brev. 3.12.24 = Soden, Urkunde 13C.

34 I doubt that the usurper L. Domitius Alexander, who revolted from Maxentius, ever received any response from Constantine to his overtures. See Barnes, NE 14 and V. Aiello in L'Africa Romana 6.1 (1991), 179-196.

35 It would also have been more understanding regarding the actions of Constantius and Constantine.

36 His views are well expressed in his speech to the bishops at Nicaea as quoted by Gelasius, HE 2.7.39-41.

Page 83

circumstances it is quite easy to understand why he should have favored the Catholic Church over the Donatists, and I see no need to suppose that he had Caesaropapist designs upon it. There was also, I think, a more personal reason for his pro-Catholic view-a reason which hampered his efforts to heal the schism.

It is in light of the opposition between more and less rigorous views of what should be done about those who lapsed during the Persecution that I would explain what appear to be Constantine's lies about his age. In 324, in his second letter to the eastern provincials, he described himself as just a child when the Great Persecution began. 37 He was in fact about thirty in 303. 38 The misrepresentation must have been deliberate and of long standing, for the panegyrists of 307, 310, and 321 greatly understate his age. 39 Furthermore, Eusebius' work on this is most peculiar. Although he was willing to give an elaborate, and presumably correct, statement of Constantine's age at death, 40 he had earlier given Constantine's age in 301/2 as about fourteen (apparently), 41 instead of about twenty-eight, and perhaps about sixteen in 303 42. Eusebius thus contradicts himself and Constantine.

It is, of course, Constantine who is at the bottom of all this. It is quite futile to suggest that he did it in an effort to dissociate himself from the persecutors because he was embarrassed at having done nothing to protect or defend the Christians in 303. 43 First, we do not know what he did in 303, although we have some idea of what his father did. If he argued against persecution, which was all that he could have done to protect Christians, he was unsuccessful. Second, in 324 his own testimony and his whole career were more than sufficient to dissociate him from the persecutors. He had gone to the trouble of a public pretense, beginning as

37 Eusebius, VC2.50-51.

38 Barnes, NE, 39-42.

39ibid., 40. Cf. Jones, "Notes" in JEH 5 (1954), 196.

40 Eusebius, VC 1.8 and 4.53.

41VC 1.19.

42 VC 1.12. Gelasius of Caesarea took this statement from Eusebius (cf. Winkelmann, "Charakter," 348-349), but rejected Eusebius' presentation of a conversion. Therefore the rejection must have been quite deliberate.

43 Cf. Barnes, NE, 40-41.

Page 84

early as 307, which would have invited ridicule, and was continuing it in 324.

A very common reason for lying about one's age is to dissociate oneself from one's past. In Constantine's case it seems that some religious consideration was involved, because, so far as we can tell, his concern was with the question of his age during the Persecution. Now, if he had been converted at some time between 306 and 312 he could have dissociated himself from the persecutors simply by saying that he had seen the light, become a Christian, and worked to end the persecution. He needed only to describe, as converts enjoy doing, his conversion. In 312 and thereafter, when he was trying to deal with the Donatists, it would have been very useful to be able to point to a conversion at any point after his departure from the court of Galerius in 305. He could have urged them not to worry about the lapsed, because their deliverer had himself only recently been a pagan, and an associate of the persecutors. The real job, he might have argued, was to make more converts like himself, and not waste time on a discussion which he himself had now rendered pointless. Such words would have come easily. They were never spoken. It is only if he had been a Christian during the Persecution that he would have wanted to lie about his age. The problem of dealing with the lapsed arose almost as soon as the Persecution began. At any time after Constantine's accession anyone could have raised embarrassing questions about a Christian's escape from the courts of Diocletian and Galerius-if he had thought it worthwhile.

I think that Constantine survived the Persecution by means which Catholics would have deplored and pardoned, in the case of an emperor, and which rigorist Christians, notably the Donatists, would have found quite unacceptable in a person of mature years. It seems fairly clear to me that Constantine did not share the views of the rigorists. 44 Although he always honored the martyrs, his own response to the Persecution was to put a stop to it. He regarded it as an outrageous civil war against the Christian population and he claimed that God had assigned him the task of Christianizing the empire. 45 In his circumstances he probably did not feel that he needed penitential discipline, and he certainly would not have

44 See below, p. 112, n.71.

45 Cf. Eusebius, VC 2.49; 2.28; 4.9.

Page 85

thought it safe or sensible to make a spectacle of himself. The thing to do was to avoid the subject. His solution was to declare "I was just a child at the time." In Britain and Gaul he got away with this, because Constantius had minimized the effects of the Persecution and there would have been little discussion there of what to do about the lapsed elsewhere. When the victory over Maxentius brought the Donatists under his rule he probably hoped that the storm in North Africa would soon blow over, and that he could quietly go back to acting his age.46

The stern opposition of the Donatists defeated and frustrated him. He did not want to tell them that his own behavior had been similar to that which they ascribed to their hated opponents. The Donatists were only too happy to find that they could continue to be martyrs under Constantine simply by remaining in schism and getting him to persecute them for that. Constantine felt obliged, when he saw that he was in trouble with his policy of favoring the Catholics, to bend over backwards to be fair to the Donatists, and thus deprived himself of any benefits of ruthless severity toward them. As the horrible affair dragged on and on he found himself stuck with a chronological problem and a need for reticence about a part of his life that has caused a great deal of trouble for scholars. 47

The performance of Eusebius regarding this question in the VC is interesting. The correct statement of Constantine's age at death suggests that he was not Constantine's accomplice in this particular matter, and yet it seems that he should not have mistaken a man of thirty, in 301/2, for a youth of fourteen. Carelessness and ignorance might have contributed to the production of this discrepancy. Eusebius was quite ignorant about Licinius until after the War of Cibalae in 316/7, 48 and his apparent

46 If Constantine became a Christian in late October of 312 the speed with which he embroiled himself in the Donatist controversy is most remarkable.

47 Lactantius' reticence about the religion of Constantius may also have been deliberate. If he had thought that Constantius had been, as I have suggested, a crypto- Christian, he would not have wished, after the terrible strains of the Great Persecution and during the struggle with the Donatists, to have set up such an imperial example as the Constantine presented here, beside that of the martyrs.

48 For recent discussions of the successive editions of his Ecclesiastical History cf. R.M. Grant, Eusebius as a Church Historian (Oxford, 1980), 1-21; T. D. Barnes, "The Editions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History" in GRBS 21 (1980), 192-201. I

Page 86

ignorance of Constantine's legislation of 306 seems to show that he never was very well informed about the early career of Constantine. Nevertheless, the temporary loss of a quarter of Constantine's life by a contemporary scholar with a strong interest in chronology is quite striking.

I return now to the correspondence with Anullinus. The message from the Donatists relayed by him to Constantine on April 15 of 313 reads as follows:

We ask you, Constantine, best of emperors, as you are of just stock, and your father did not enforce persecution along with the other emperors and Gaul has not been touched by this crime, 49 for in Africa between us and the rest of the bishops contentions have arisen, we ask that Your Piety order that arbitrators be given to us from Gaul. Given by Lucianus, Dignus, Nasutius, Capito, Fidentius and the other bishops of Donatus' party. 50

The boldness of this request deserves attention. The bishops who sent it knew that bishops from any part of the empire that had suffered persecution would be unsympathetic to their rigorist attitude. They hoped to put one over on Gallic bishops who had not had to face the questions raised by the Persecution. This shows a justifiable lack of confidence in the merits of their own case. It would be interesting to know whether at this point they had already decided that Constantine himself was one of their opponents.

am convinced by A. Louth, "The Date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica" in JThS 41.1 (1990), 111-123. It appears that for some time after 313 Eusebius really did think that Licinius was a champion of the Church, and that his purge of Maximinus' associates was intended as a purge of persecutors.

49 I take it that Barnes was right to suggest ("The Beginnings of Donatism" in JThS 26.1 (1975), 20-21) that the facinus was not persecution, but the quarreling of Christians.

50 Optatus 1.22 = Soden, Urkunde 11 = Maier, Document 15. My translation. I agree with Barnes (see n. 44) that the petition has not been quoted in its entirety, and that it asked for Gallic bishops as judges. I have not been persuaded by the argument most recently made by K. M. Girardet in "Die Petition der Donatisten an Kaiser Konstantin (Frühjahr 313)" in Chiron 19(1989), 185-206, that this petition asked for secular judges. Constantine, at any rate, assigned Gallic bishops.

Page 87

The emperor was not taken in.

He appointed as judges in the case Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of Autun and Marinus of Arles, but he directed that they go to Rome, where the bishop Miltiades would preside over a hearing of Caecilian and ten African bishops from each side. 51 The bishop of Rome convened all the persons named, but, for reasons best known to himself, added fifteen Italian bishops to this council. They met in a house of the empress Fausta on the old Lateran estate, and gave their decision on October 2 of 313. They found that the Donatists had nothing which they could prove against Caecilian and they decided that Donatus himself was wrong in rebaptizing Christian laymen who had lapsed during the Persecution. 52 In the cases of those bishops consecrated by Majorinus, a Donatist bishop consecrated by a council of Numidian bishops as a rival to Caecilian, they decided that of two rival bishops the one consecrated first should hold the see, and that the bishop consecrated later should be assigned a different see. 53

The Donatists were not satisfied with this decision against them, presumably because it had not been rendered by an exclusively Gallic council, and they appealed the verdict, alleging either haste or secrecy on the part of the bishops at Rome. 54 Of course, they had no right to prescribe the composition of the council which would hear them, and Constantine knew this quite well. If he had not been a Christian of long standing, he would have sensed at this point that the unifying influence on the empire to be expected of the Christians was a doubtful quantity, and would have dropped the whole subject. Instead, he persevered, concerned as he was about the scandal, 55 and about the attitude of the Almighty to his own efforts. 56 He convened a council which met at Arles beginning on August

51 Eusebius, HE 10.5.18-20 = Soden, Urkunde 12 = Maier, Document 16.

52 The prospect of rebaptism would have been a positive encouragement to lapse.

53 Soden, Urkunde 13 = Maier, Document 17. Barnes noted in CE 57 that this was an attempt to isolate Donatus from his supporters in Africa.

54 Soden, Urkunden 15.17-27 = Maier, Document 19 = Eusebius, HE 10.5.21-22; 14.38-41 = Optatus, App. 3.

55 His letters to the vicarius of Africa and to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse (Soden, Urkunden 14.31-33 = Maier, Document 18 and 15.25-27 = Maier, Document 19) make clear that he was worried about pagans finding the whole dispute laughable.

56 Soden, Urkunde 14.65-72. Maier, Document 18.

Page 88

1 of 314. 57 It was attended by bishops from all the western provinces, including delegations of the supporters and opponents of Caecilian. The result of the council is made clear by two documents: Constantine's letter after the council's decision to the bishops assembled (the beginning of which was quoted above in chapter 2) and a letter of the council to Silvester, bishop of Rome. Constantine's letter continues as follows.

I therefore rejoice, I especially rejoice now that at last, after a most equitable judicial examination, you have recalled to a better hope and fortune those whom the wickedness of the devil seemed to have diverted by his wretched persuasion from the clearest light of the Catholic law. O truly triumphant providence of Christ the Savior! that it could take thought even for those who, already defecting from truth and in some way taking arms against it, have joined themselves to the pagans; since if even now with pure faith they wish to render obedience to the most sacred law, they will be able to understand what has been provided for them by God's will. And this indeed, most holy brethren, I hoped could be recovered even in those in whom has been engendered the greatest hardness of heart. But a right judgement has done them no good, nor has a favorable divinity found an entry into their senses; for truly, not undeservedly must Christ's clemency have departed far from these men, in whom it is clear with manifest light that they are the sort of men whom we may behold hated even by heavenly providence. What great madness persists in these very persons, when with incredible arrogance they persuade themselves of things which may not properly be spoken nor heard, disregarding a right judgement given, on which, by Heavenly Providence, I have learned that they demand my decision! What power of wickedness perseveres in their hearts! How often have they been overwhelmed already by me personally in a reply quite deserved by their own most shameful approaches! Truly, if they had cared to keep this before their eyes, they would not have introduced this appeal! They demand my judgment,

57 Eusebius, HE 10.5.23.

Page 89

while I await Christ's judgment! For I declare, as is the truth, that the bishops' judgment ought to be regarded as if the Lord himself were sitting in judgment: for it is not lawful for them to have any other thought or judgment than that they have been taught by Christ's instruction. What then do these wicked men think, the servants of the devil, as I have truly said? Abandoning heavenly things, they seek worldly things. O raving audacity of rage! Just as happens usually in lawsuits of pagans, they have introduced an appeal. Indeed, pagans sometimes flee the lower courts, where justice quickly can be had, and resort to the higher courts by interposition of authority with an appeal. What about these detractors of the law, who, refusing the heavenly judgment, have thought that mine should be demanded? To think thus of Christ the Savior! Behold, they are already betrayers; behold, without any keener investigation they themselves of their own accord have betrayed their own misdeeds! What human feeling is felt by the monsters who have sprung upon God himself?

Dearest brethren, although these things appear to be detected in them, nevertheless do you, who follow the way of the Lord the Savior, show patience by giving them still a choice of the course to follow. And if you see them persevering in the same courses, straightway depart with those whom the Lord has judged worthy of his worship and return to your own sees and remember me, that our Savior ever may have mercy on me.

For the rest, I have directed my men to bring these same abominable deceivers of religion straightway to my court, that they may live there, and there behold something worse for them than death. I have sent also an appropriate letter to him who holds as vicar the prefecture of Africa, that, he should send straightway to my court as many as he shall discover like these madmen, lest any longer beneath so great a splendor of our God things should be done by them which might incite the great wrath of Heavenly Providence.

May Almighty God guard you, dearest brethren, safe through the

Page 90

pages by my and your prayers. 58

Constantine was now completely satisfied that the Donatists had gotten a fair hearing, and was very much offended by their immediate appeal. The second document, the letter of the bishops to Silvester of Rome, smugly described how they condemned or repulsed the Donatists (''you should have been here"), and then went on to deal with various matters of faith and practice. At the end of it all, referring to Constantine, they said: "Then, getting weary, he ordered all of us to go home. Amen." 59

Constantine's outburst to the bishops was due to the fact that he had received word that a Donatist at Carthage had brought a letter to one of the chief magistrates of the city which purported to be proof that Caecilian had been consecrated by a traditor, namely, Felix of Abthungi, who was alleged to have turned over the Scriptures in 303. 60 Constantine proceeded carefully, ordering an inquiry. He summoned Caecilian, and gave permission to four Donatist bishops and a priest to return to Africa using the cursus publicus on April 28, 315. A few days later he canceled this permit, and ordered the Donatists to face Caecilian, saying to them that he would consider all of their charges proven if they managed to prove any one of them. 61 Clearly he had received the news that his inquiry had shown that the letter entered into evidence by the Donatists in Carthage contained an obvious forgery in the incriminating evidence against Felix. He ordered that the forger Ingentius be sent to court, so that the Donatists could hear the story from him personally. 62 Eventually, 63Constantine heard the case in October of 315 at Milan, and again upheld Caecilian.

58 Optatus, Appendix 5 (=Soden, Urkunde 18 = Maier, Document 21). My translation.

59 This letter is Soden, Urkunde 16 = Maier, Document 20.

60 Soden, Urkunde 19.37ff. = Optatus, App. 2, p. 198.19ff. Maier, Document 22.

61 Soden, Urkunden 22 and 21 = Maier, Documents 23 and 25. This statement did not, of course, commit him to embrace the Donatist side of the dispute in case a charge could be proved: he could simply have allowed Caecilian to be replaced by another Catholic bishop.

62 Maier, Document 24 = Soden, Urkunde 20 = Augustine, Ep. 88.4 and Contra Cresconium 3.70.81.

63 For the peacemaking effort of the bishops Eunomius and Olympius see Barnes, NE 244.

Page 91

With Caecilian and Donatus both back in Carthage, the riots, which had begun earlier, continued. By 316 Constantine had written the following letter to Celsus, the vicarius of Africa.

The latest reports of your Gravity show that Menalius, who was long ago seized with madness, and the others, who have departed from the truth of God and given themselves over to a base error, are persevering in their course of action. You have also mentioned, dear Brother, that you followed my order concerning the punishment of their sedition and that the riot which they were planning was checked. Since it is clear that they are planning trouble from the fact that, when I decided to hold a full inquiry into the various allegations they and Caecilian were making against one another, they sought to flee from my presence 64--by this most disgraceful act of theirs they have admitted that they were hastening back to their former practices, in which they now persevere. But since there is no doubt that no one can draw any profit from his misdeeds, even though their punishment has been put off for a little while, I have seen fit to order your Gravity to leave them alone for the meantime and to recognize the necessity of discretion in dealing with them. But after you have read this letter, make it known both to Caecilian and to them as well that when by the favor of the Divine Love I come to Africa, I shall most fully demonstrate, by pronouncing a clear judgment to all, both Caecilian and those who appear to oppose him, what kind of veneration is to be rendered to the Supreme Divinity and what sort of worship seems to please Him; moreover, that I shall employ careful examination to learn to the fullest extent, and bring to light, things which some people, misled by the snares of their mental ignorance, now think that they can keep hidden; and that those persons who devise and carry out schemes of that sort, so that the Supreme God is not being worshiped with due reverence, I shall destroy and disperse. Since it is quite clear that

64 This was during the period before October of 315 when Constantine was trying to get the Donatists and Caecilian together, and Caecilian did not appear at Rome.

Page 92

nobody can gain the blessedness of martyrdom by a means which seems to be foreign to the truth of religion and unsuited to it, I shall without any hesitation exact the fitting punishment for their madness and reckless obstinacy from those whom I judge hostile to the divine law and religion itself, and find guilty of violence against the proper worship. And so (I shall cause them) to know for certain what they ought to hold after they have invoked even salvation as a witness to the fullness of their belief, because I am going to inquire very carefully, not only regarding the laity, but also regarding these clerics who are the leaders, and determine what is clearly most true and religious, and make plain to these people what kind of worship is to be offered to the Divinity. For I believe that there is no other way for me to escape the greatest guilt than by absolutely refusing to connive at this wickedness. What more important business do I have in view of my policy and my position as emperor than to dissipate errors and prune away all rashness so as to ensure that all men offer Almighty God true religion, honest concord, and due worship? 65

At least three points in this letter need to be noted. The first is Constantine's insistence on discretion in dealing with the Donatists, despite the fact that he is absolutely sure that they are wrong about their case. The second is his strong grasp of the doctrine that no one is a martyr if his thought is not that of the Church. Constantine seems to understand the point as well as any Catholic bishop could. In these circumstances the third point-his declaration of an intent to go to Africa and tell everyone what sort of worship they ought to be offering-is not entirely comical. I think that he could have done it. He may have been torn between his desire to go and settle the matter on the spot and a reluctance to deal with the Donatists when they could see him at close range. He never went.

Nevertheless he could, and did, try to deal with them more firmly. On November 10 of 316 he wrote to Eumelius, the vicarius Aficae, to describe his judgment of the case of Caecilian and the Donatists, 66 and it may have

65 Optatus, App. 6 = Soden, Urkunde 20. My translation, I think.

66 Soden, Urkunde 25 = Maier, Document 27.

Page 93

been in this letter that he gave the orders 67to confiscate the Donatist churches. On March 12 of 317 Roman soldiers and a Carthaginian mob attacked Donatist churches, and killed some Donatists. For the next few years trouble continued for them.68 It was possible for martyrdom to continue after all, 69 Christian emperor or no Christian emperor.

On May 5 of 321 Constantine wrote to Verinus, the vicarius Africae, to tell him to recall the Donatist exiles and to leave the punishment of the Donatists to God. 70 On the same day, apparently, he wrote the following to the bishops throughout Africa and to the people of the Catholic Church.

You know very well that I have tried, by every humane and moderate means in my power, within the constraints of prudence and purity, to do what our faith required, so that according to the teaching of our law, that peace of the most holy brotherhood, whose grace the supreme God has infused into the hearts of his servants should, through complete concord, be firmly established. But since the measures taken by me have not been able to subdue the criminal violence that has infected a few of them and stubbornly inheres in them, since a clique still supports this villainy in trying to prevent by every means the confiscation of places where they can rejoice over their sins, I must see to it that although the full extent of this evil has established itself in a few, it may, by the mercy of Almighty God, be mitigated among the people. For we must hope for a remedy from that source to which all our good wishes and deeds are reported. But, until the heavenly medicine comes forth, our plans must be so far moderated that we cultivate patience and whatever they attempt or do in their insolence with their habitual intemperance, we bear it all with the virtue of equanimity. We should not repay injury with injury; for it is in the nature of a fool to take into his own hands the vengeance which we should reserve for God, especially since our faith should trust that whatever it suffers from the fury

68 Soden, Urkunde 26. Barnes, CE 60.

69 Soden, Urkunde 29.

70 Soden, Urkunde 30.

Page 94

of such men, will count before God as martyrdom. For what else is victory in this world in the name of God than to endure with a steadfast heart the unruly attacks of men harassing the people of the law of peace? If you observe this sincerely, you will soon see by the grace of the supreme divinity, that as their rules and morals decline, those who offer themselves as standard-bearers of that wretched strife will all know that they should not be persuaded by a few to perish and give themselves to everlasting death, when they might, by the grace of repentance and the correction of their errors, be restored to eternal life.

Farewell in common prayer forever as God wills, dear brothers. 71

This has been represented as a complete about-face, forced upon Constantine by the propaganda requirements of the coming war with Licinius, 72 but such explanation is quite unsatisfactory. Catholics would have been more happy with a persecutor of the Donatists than with the more resigned Constantine, and so would pagans. A good dose of persecution of Donatists was just the sort of propaganda weapon that Constantine needed. Moreover, I am not sure that the letter represents a complete reversal of his policy. If the Catholics in Carthage had prevailed upon him to confiscate the Donatist churches 73 and this whole effort turned out badly, I see no reason to suppose that Constantine needed any other consideration to withdraw his order than those which he urges in the letter to the bishops and Catholics of Africa.

The same spirit permeates his much longer letter to the Catholic bishops of Numidia on February 5 of 330. 74 In Cirta the Donatists had seized a basilica which Constantine had built. Constantine was unwilling to fight to restore the basilica to the Catholics, and so gave land and money

71 Soden, Urkunde 31 = Maier, Document 30. My translation, I think.

72 Barnes, CE 60.

73 The presence of a Carthaginian mob with the Roman soldiers attacking the Donatist churches suggests that the Catholics were not completely meek and mild. Note Constantine's praise of the forbearance of the Catholics of Numidia in Soden, Urkunde 36,41-54 = Maier, Document 33, p. 249.

74 Soden, Urkunde 36 = Maier, Document 33.

Page 95

for the building of a second basilica for the use of the Catholics. Constantine approves of the patience of the Catholics in the face of this new outrage, and comforts them with the thought that the enemies of the Church will get a greater punishment in the hereafter if they are spared it in this world. He notes that he has issued a law providing that lectors, subdeacons and others, who are being called to the compulsory public services at the instigation of the Donatists, are to be exempt from those services. 75 At the end of the letter he leaves the Donatists to the judgment of God and concludes: "Let us, brothers, follow our own course, walk in the commandments, keep the divine precepts, and, freeing our lives from errors by good actions, let us direct our feet along the straight path through the mercy of God."

A few years later two hundred and seventy bishops attended a Donatist council at Carthage. Their cause seems to have been prospering, but I wonder whether that did not have something to do with their attitude. They were said to have decreed that traditores who did not wish to be baptized could communicate. 76

75 CTh 16.2.7 of 330, February 5.

76 Soden, Urkunde 38 = Augustine, Ep. 93.10.43.

Page 97

CHAPTER SIX

LEGISLATION

We have almost no record of those laws of Constantine which were issued before he became the senior Augustus. His legislation after October 29 of 312, however, was largely preserved in the Theodosian Code and other sources. We do not have all of it, but the roughly 420 laws that we do have, almost all of them in the Theodosian Code and Justinian's Code, 1 form a large body of law on a wide variety of subjects. I take it that what we have is a good guide to what there was, for his opponents would have made known any eccentric laws. This is an early point at which to discuss legislation which dates to the period after the Council of Nicaea, but I think that it can be kept together with the earlier legislation without prejudice to any general argument about the subject. 2

The laws can be arranged in chronological order using the dates for

1 The compilers of the Theodosian Code tore apart some documents (letters of Constantine to officials who had probably asked him two or more questions) in order to place Constantine's decisions on various points under the proper headings in the Code. Scholars since Paul Maas and Mommsen have therefore reduced the number of laws by recombining the various "fragments" into original "laws." I have relied on the compilers of the Code to recognize a law when they saw one, and have taken it that an entry in the Code is a law, several of which might have been sent out in a single document. Nothing turns on this point.

2 On the subject in general see recently M. Sargenti, "Costantino nella Storia del Diritto" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande vol. 2, 865-881.

Page 98

them argued by Otto Seeck 3 and, more recently, by Manlio Sargenti 4 and others. While there would not be universal agreement on all the dates of anyone's list because of the size of the body of legislation, Sargenti's dates, supplemented by the corrections here and there of other scholars, are unlikely to mislead seriously. Chronological arrangement of the laws enables us to see, during the various stages of his career, the effect of Constantine's Christianizing mission upon his legislation. For example, one might observe bursts of Christianizing laws in, say, 312-313, 317, and 324-25, or some increase or some decrease toward the end of his life. We might also see evidence of developing concerns.

When the laws are so arranged, there seems to be more general legislative activity during the years mentioned-22 laws in 313; 9 in 318, but 49 in 319, 21 in 320, 30 in 321; 23 in 325, 44 in 326-but the pattern of Christianizing legislation is not so clearly marked. The average number of laws in a complete year is 17. The highest number of laws in a year is 49, in 319, and the lowest number is 5, in 324. There are about 30 laws, to be discussed below, which would not have been made if Constantine had not been a Christian. 5 The dates of these are 313, 313, 315, before 316, 316, 316, 318, 319, 319, 320 (CTh 8.16.1,) 320, 320, 320, 321, 321, 321, 321, 323, 323, 324 general law on heretics, 325 CTh 15.12.1, 326, 326, 326, 326, 330, 330, 331, 331, 333, 333, 335. In addition to these there is a larger group of the laws, which Ehrhardt described as "Hellenistic," 6 although he was quite openly perplexed by the fact that Constantine, whom he regarded as an uneducated man, began introducing such legislation from the west. Hermann Dörries also has discussed about 150 laws which, he believed, either illuminated Constantine's thought or contributed to the

3 Seeck published his first views in "Die Zeitfolge der Gesetze Constantins" in Zeitschriftfür Rechtsgeschichte 10 (Rom. Abt.) (1909), 1-44 and 177-251, and his later views in his Regesten (of 1919). I accept his later views for the purposes of this discussion.

4 Dates of laws below are those given by Seeck. Where Sargenti has put forward a correction it is indicated in brackets [320S] thus. Sargenti published his views in a reprint of Seeck's "Zeitfolge" in Materiali per una Palingenesi delle Costituzioni Tardo-Imperiali (Milan, 1983, Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana 2).

5 In some cases there is scholarly argument over the influence of Christianity on a law.

6 At least one of them dates to the period before 312. See below, n. 34.

Page 99

understanding of his motives. 7 These laws, which are the 30 mentioned above plus Ehrhardt's "Hellenistic" laws and some others, are scattered through the list of all of Constantine's laws at a fairly uniform rate-that is, there is no period in which this "Hellenistic" or christianized legislation is particularly conspicuous. Neither is there any substantial period that is without such legislation. It starts in 312, 8 and there is one law of 313 9 which refers to earlier legislation of Constantine on the point as iam olim, i.e., presumably during his rule in Gaul. There is no indication in the legislation that Constantine ever repented of his "mission." 10 I would draw the same conclusions from Dörries' discussion as I do from the whole list. 11

The subject on which Constantine legislated most often was the decurions, the hapless municipal councillors of the empire, who were charged with the collection of taxes and various other compulsory publicservices, and whose efforts to escape from their position into the army, the bureaucracy, and the Church are clearly documented in the law codes. If we combine the laws on decurions in CTh 12.1.1-22 with various other laws concerning the sons of soldiers and other officials, we find over fifty laws dealing with the subject of decurions. There is nothing here that increases the burdens of the decurions, for that would have been done simply by the tax assessment in any given year. It seems reasonable to believe that Constantine, who fought three civil wars, did not make things any easier than they had been for the decurions, and it is not surprising that

7 Hermann Dörries, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins in Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse¬ 34 (Göttingen, 1954), 162-207. These 120 are in addition to the 30 laws mentioned above, to make up Dörries' total of 150.

8 There is also the legislation implied by Lactantius, which must have been in 306.

9 Fragmenta Vaticana 34 of 313, July 21.

10 This has some relevance to the cause of the war of 316/17 with Licinius.Constantine later represented that war as a part of his Christianizing mission, but scholars have generally rejected that presentation in favor of their own theories about Constantine's lust for power. It is apparent now that by 316 there could have been plenty of disagreement between the two rulers as a result of Constantine's legislation on behalf of the Christians.

11 In general I agree with the views of Constantine's legislation which Dörries has put forward in his Constantine the Great (New York, 1972 translated by Roland H. Bainton), esp. 77-142.

Page 100

he made so many laws trying to keep up the numbers of the curiales by shutting off their avenues of escape. He also supplemented their numbers by requiring the sons of veterans to serve either as soldiers or as municipal councillors. Constantine himself says that the effort to escape was general, 12 so that we are not dealing here with sporadic tax-dodging. It is tempting to accept the usual view that these laws are evidence of the miserable state of the curiales in the later empire, 13 but it is necessary to bear in mind the nature of the Roman administration, which employed many people who simply purchased their posts and decided how much of a career to make of them. 14 After Constantine the legislation on the curiales continued to pour forth at about the same rate. There are 192 laws in CTh 12.1 alone. In CJ 10.32 Diocletian's twelve laws are twice as numerous as those of Constantine.

Regarding appeals Constantine has 25 laws in CTh 11.30.1-9; 11.30.11-18; 11.34.1; 11.35.1; 11.36.1-3; 11.39.1-3. These start in 313 and end in 331. Constantine did have new ideas about what should have been happening in the courts, and had developed a very deep and completely justified distrust of the provincial governors trying cases, 15 and of the servants of the courts, all of whom were on the take. 16 I gather from his laws on the office of governor of a province 17 and on the office of praetorian prefect 18 that he had vastly more confidence in the praetorian prefects than in the governors. He was determined to make legitimate appeals easier for the appellants, 19 while getting rid of frivolous and dilatory appeals. 20 In 323, during his efforts in this Augean stable, he got the bright idea of establishing the jurisdiction of bishops. 21 It is perfectly

12 CTh 12.1.11; 13; 22.

13 Jean Gaudemet, "Constantin et les Curies municipales" in lura 2 (1951), 44-75.

14 See P. Veyne, "Clientèle et corruption au service de L'état: La vénalité des offices dans le bas-empire romain" in Annales 36 (1981), 339-360.

15 CTh 1.5.1; 1.5.2; 1.16.6; 1.16.7; 11.30.2; 4; 5; 6; 9; 13; 15; 16; 2.18.1.

16CTh 1.16.7; 8.10.1;

17CTh 1.16.1-7.

18 CTh 1.4.1-2.

19CTh 11.30.1-18.

20 CTh 11.34.1; 11.36.1-3.

21 Sargenti's date for CTh 1.27.1.

Page 101

clear that he intended to provide litigants with a way out of the civil courts, and the measure would have had the effect of prompting the magistrates to clean up their act to some extent. 22This sort of law must have been the despair of Licinius.

Constantine's laws establishing the jurisdiction of bishops are always put into the category of Christianizing legislation. I am inclined to connect them with the laws on appeals, which also provided a way out of the governor's court. It seems to me that both sets of laws are directed at the same problem-the contemptible state of affairs in the courts where what went on had so little to do with the great professions of the law-and that Constantine's first efforts were with the laws on appeals, the last of which is dated 331.

The fact that Roman law was a great achievement should not prejudice us against an emperor who was often impatient with it, and with the courts. Given the prevalence of the operation of patronage in Roman society, Roman ''justice" was ordinarily up for sale, and had been since the time of the Twelve Tables. "Corruption" as we would think of it was not so much a disease of Roman administration as it was an integral part of it. 23 The possibility that one of the little people should, on his own, successfully sue one of the big people cannot have been seriously contemplated, and the emperors had long been accustomed to dealing with other uses of the courts and the law. Constantine's legislation, like the rest of the legislation of the Codex Theodosianus, includes a good deal of moralizing which would have presented problems to those charged with the enforcement of the laws, 24 but which must express the hopes of the emperor, however forlorn.

The nine laws on shipmasters and their landed estates in CTh 13.5.1-8; 13.6.1 run a poor third in number of laws on a given subject,

22 H. Dörries (Constantine the Great 85) associated episcopal courts with the legislation on appeals.

23 The law was there to settle differences between big people or to prevent a Verres from so devastating a province that his successor should find nothing to take, or an unacceptable risk of revolt. See R. Talbert's review of R. MacMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome in Phoenix 45.1 (1991), 85-87; Veyne, art. cit., 351, 353. I do not mean to imply that the difference between the ancient Roman system and ours is that between night and day.

24 See P. Veyne, art. cit., 355, n. 26.

Page 102

and are closely followed by many other subjects. The laws are designed to keep up the number of the shippers, especially of cargoes into Rome and Constantinople, by confirming their exemptions from taxes and the compulsory public services, by sharing out their work equally, and by closing avenues of escape through purchased exemptions.

The great bulk of the legislation does not deal with the religious question. It raises other interesting questions, such as his general intellectual ability, and the scope of any revolutionary approach. The laws show a willingness to struggle with difficult subjects, such as appeals, as mentioned above. An amusing and instructive example of his legal doings may be found in CTh 9.43.1; 1.4.1; 1.4.2. In the first of these laws, of 321, September 14, concerning persons who have served a sentence and been restored, and the status of their sons, Constantine calmly preferred the opinion of Papinian to that found in the notes on Papinian of Ulpian and Paul, and ruled that the sons should return to the power of the restored father. Two weeks later he seems to have read all of the notes of Ulpian and Paul on Papinian, and to have become annoyed at what he regarded as their perverse ingenuity which, he said, distorted rather than elucidated Papinian. He ordered that their notes on Papinian be burned, in order to do away with the disputes of the jurisconsults. Years later, by the last law, he had to make it clear that the other works of Paul and Ulpian were good things, and not to be burned. Now, he did not get the advice to burn the notes of Paul and Ulpian on Papinian from his legal experts, but from his own reading in defiance of his expert advice, so that he must have felt himself reasonably well qualified to follow what must have been pretty technical legal argument, on an issue that had nothing to do with the religious question. He was not afraid to dispense with parts of the Roman legal tradition, even the most basic or most technical, on the basis of his own understanding.

His laws concerning wills are, I think, the best example of his contempt for paying attention to legal language instead of to the testator's intent, 25 to the point where sarcastic fulminations against legal quibbles

25 Frg. Vat. 291; C 3.36.26; CTh2.19.1; 4.4.10; CJ6.21.15; CTh 4.4.1; CJ 6.36.7; CTh 2.19.3.

Page 103

became attributed to him automatically by the CJ. 26These laws seem to me to come from an emperor who understands the system, and has the nerve to do away with the worst features of it that come before him. He differed from Diocletian (at least in Diocletian's early years) in his willingness to enact new laws instead of dealing with cases by rescript. 27 I take it that Constantine was a reasonably intelligent and well-educated emperor, whose religion had given him at least some of the advantage that comes to those who see the country, in this case the empire, from the outside.

This conclusion has to meet the objection, often urged by scholars, that some of Constantine's laws have an enraged (some say hysterical) tone, which indicates that he was a simple man, out of his depth in the law. I too take it that Constantine sometimes made laws while enraged, 28 but it seems to me that the number of these laws is very small. I certainly would not dispute the view that Constantine had a temper, but I cannot imagine why anyone should think that this proves a serious lack of intelligence or sophistication. It is an index of his frustration with the system.

Similarly, there are laws prescribing harsh punishments. 29 For example, in CTh 10.10.2 of 312, 30 December 1 Constantine became so carried away against informers that it seemed later to the compilers of the Code that he wanted the informer strangled before his tongue was cut out, whereas CTh 10.10.1 of 313, January 18 and 10.10.3 of 335, March 22 make it clear that the simple death of the informer satisfied him, and suggest that that was all that he meant by the violent phrases of 10.10.2. CTh 9.18.1 of 315, August 1 prescribed the gladiatorial games as the punishment for free kidnappers, the beasts in the arena for slave ones. This might strike some readers in the twentieth century as a very cruel law, but it would not have seemed unduly so to people in the fourth century, especially to those who had suffered at the hands of kidnappers, and it

26 See CJ 6.23.15; 6.9.9; 5.70.7,3a.

27 According to Ehrhardt (p. 419) there are 1,247 constitutions of Diocletian in the CJ.

28 CTh 1.16.7 and 10.10.2 are often cited. See Jones, C&C, 230; 248.

29 It is also easy to read Eusebius' complaint that one of Constantine's faults was that he was not tough enough.

30 Seeck's date is retained by Tullio Spagnuolo Vigorita, who discusses these laws in "Nuovi Indirizzi di Politica Fiscale nella Legislazione di Costantino" in Societ Romano e Impero Tardoantico edited by A. Giardina (Rome, 1986), 71-80.

Page 104

undoubtedly reflects his abhorrence of the crime, rather than a venting of sadism on kidnappers. 31 CTh 15.12.1 of 325, October 1 was the first attempt to outlaw gladiatorial games. 32

His efforts to keep families together, including families of slaves, may seem humane to some, inadequate to others, who expect him to legislate slavery out of existence. 33 Some think, of course, that he went much too far into family law in restricting the grounds for divorce and legislating against concubinage, but there is never general agreement on this subject.

Ehrhardt, who believed firmly in a conversion of Constantine in 312, and who also considered the emperor an uneducated man, could not explain Constantine's introduction from the west of legislation indicating a broader sympathy in the emperor, even before 312, than is evident in the laws of earlier emperors. 34 I take it that the broadening of Constantine's outlook is due to Christian elements in his thinking, and that this would have been evident at all periods while he was an emperor. 35 It is to the influence of his religion that I would attribute Constantine's concern, such as it was, for the little people of the empire, and much of his disgust with the courts and lawyers. 36 However, during the years 312-337, for which the laws are preserved, Constantine does not seem to have considered legislation the

31 Constantine was careful about cases involving freedom, in the interest of the petitioner. See CTh 4.8.5; 6.

32 This turned out to be only a preliminary effort. The games were finally outlawed at the beginning of the fifth century by the emperor Honorius, according to Theodoret, HE 5.26. Cf. Prudentius, contra Symmachum 1113-1128.

33 Ramsay MacMullen pursued the question "What difference did Christianity make?" in Historia 35.3 (1986), 322-343. On this question see Dörries' useful chapter in Constantine the Great, 92-103. The Church had no doctrine that the slave had a right to emancipation. Constantine had earlier tried to ease up the effect of the SC Claudianum, by CTh 4.12.3 of 320, January 31.

34 A. A. T. Ehrhardt, "Constantin d. Gr. Religionspolitik und Gesetzgebung" in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftungfir Rechtsgeschichte 72 (1955), 127-190; reprinted in Konstantin der Grosse, ed. Heinrich Kraft, Wege der Forschung 131 (Darmstadt, 1974), 388-456.

35 I include 306-312, when we have both the legislation implied by Lactantius, and that indicated by Frag. Vat. 34.

36 On the little people, CTh 13.10.1; 11.27.2; 11.16.3; CJ 11.50.1; CTh 9.7.1; 11.16.4; 11.27.1; CJ 4.62.4.

Page 105

best means of Christianizing the empire. He did not try to force Christianity upon his subjects. 37 Toleration and restitution for damage done during the Persecution, which had been his policies from the beginning, were very effective. So were his gifts to the Church, to be described below. 38 His sermonizing undoubtedly had an effect. Among some of the pagans it got him a reputation as a scoffer, 39 and he certainly was that. Among other pagans it could have contributed to the abandonment of their religion. All of these methods would have presented fewer problems than most legislation. It seems to me that in his Christianized laws, such as that allowing people to bequeath to the Catholic Church, 40 as in his others, Constantine legislated as a Roman emperor, as cases came to him. The tax exemptions for clerics, for example, were obviously influenced by the Donatist struggle, and might not have occurred (at least not in their present form) but for that. They were followed, at a distance, by modified exemptions for some Jews devoted to the worship of the synagogues, 41 and for paganflamines. As one watches the gradual accumulation of this law, one sees how misleading it is to regard Constantine as a fanatic, or a redhot convert.

In general I would agree with Ullmann's judgment that "the thread that runs through his hundreds of edicts, laws, decrees, etc., was his care for the Roman empire and its subjects." 42 Even the post animals got his attention. He disapproved of the use of clubs to make them go faster, and prescribed a switch, "or at most a whip in the tip of which a short prick has been inserted, by which the lazy limbs of the animals may be gently tickled into action...." 43

I think, therefore, that several of the qualities of post-classical law

37 Nor does he seem to me to have tried to get rid of pagan sacrifice, as Barnes argues on the basis of Eusebius, VC 2.45. See T. G. Elliott, "Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini" in Phoenix 45.2 (1991), 169-170.

38 See chapter 13.

39 Epitome de Caesaribus 41.16--rrisorpotius quam blandus. See ch. 14 below.

40 On this law see W. Ullmann, "The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement" in JEH 27.1 (1976), 1-16.

41 Cth 16.8.4.

42 W. Ullmann, art. cit., p. 2.

43 CTh 8.5.2.

Page 106

which scholars have seen as beginning with Constantine are due to Christian influence, but that "vulgar law" 44 does not imply an incompetent legislator. Of course, such law cannot be made indefinitely without causing its own problems.

I return now to those laws which would certainly not have been made if Constantine had not been a Christian. The first of these are CTh 16.2.2 of 313, October 21 and 16.2.1 of 313, October 31, by which Christian clerics were exempted from the compulsory public services. These laws had been preceded by almost a year by the correspondence with Anullinus discussed above in chapter 5. I note Seeck's argument that all three documents are the same law. 45 This law and its successors have already been mentioned in connection with the Donatists, and I have made the point that they were not intended to enrich the clergy, but to make sure that they were free to take the Sunday services or do other Church work.

All of the correspondence with Anullinus and Caecilian discussed above in chapter 5 makes it clear that Constantine's policy of restoration of property confiscated during the Persecution was extended to North Africa, and followed soon after by grants to the Catholic clergy for expenses, and finally, by grants of exemptions from the compulsory public services to the same clergy. CTh 16.2.2 of 313, October 21 46 addressed to Octavianus, the

44 F. Wieacker, "Vulgarismus und Klassizismus im Recht der Sptantike" in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philologischhistorische Klasse (1955, Abh. 3), 7-64. H. Dörries summed up Wieacker's views in his Constantine the Great, p. 82 as follows: "the revolutionary touches as against the old Roman legal concepts predominate in Constantine. He sets equity against the law, stresses the social import, and scorns the formalism of the old jurisprudence." But see also M. Sargenti, "Costantino nella Storia del Diritto" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande vol. 2, 865-881.

45 Seeck's argument was discussed by J. Gaudemet, "La législation religeuse de Constantin" in Revue d'histoire de l'église de France 33 (1947), 25-61, at 27-28. I would say that the same legislative measure was directed to another official.

46 Seeck's date, accepted by J. Gaudemet, "La legislation religeuse de Constantin" in Revue de l'histoire de l'Église de France 33 (1947), 27-28 and by C. Dupont, "Les privileges des clercs sous Constantin" in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 62 (1967), 731. M. Nuyens, in Le statut obligatoire des décurions dans le droit de Constantin (Louvain, 1964), 72-73, did not accept it, and said at 46-47 that the date at which the initial privilege referred to in CTh 16.2.1 was conferred is not known.

Page 107

corrector of Lucania and Bruttium, exempts clerics from all compulsory public services, "lest, through the sacrilegious malice of certain persons, they should be called away from divine services." This law is substantially later than Constantine's letter to Anullinus quoted above from Eusebius, HE 10.7, so that the law conferring the privilege initially was either that letter or has been lost. In the meantime the council at Rome in 313, October, had condemned the Donatists, and Constantine returned to the charge. 47 He does not say in 16.2.2 whether it is pagans or heretics who are causing the trouble for the clerics. Ten days later, by CTh 16.2.1, he repeats his provision, specifying a faction of heretics as the troublemakers. This presumably was just the correction of the oversight in 16.2.2.

Much later, by CTh 16.2.6 of 329, 48 June 1, Constantine restricted the exemption from the public services. It was not to be granted by popular consent, nor to all who claimed it as clerics. Constantine even created a legal qualification for entrance to the ranks of the clergy; the clerical replacement for a dead cleric was not to be related to a decurion family, nor to having enough wealth to be a decurion. "For the wealthy must assume secular obligations, and the poor must be supported by the wealth of the churches." 49 The treasury was not to suffer. By CTh 16.2.3 of 329 [320S], July 18 Constantine came to the defense of curiales who had become clerics before the law of June 1, and were being disturbed because of that law. He makes it clear that 16.2.6 was not to be considered retroactive. It is interesting to see how promptly the Donatists began making trouble after 16.2.6. CTh 16.2.7 (of 330, February 5) addressed to the governor of Numidia, provides that, as in the Orient, minor clerics shall not be called to service as decurions. The references in this law to the injustice of heretics indicates that the law did not extend, but merely confirmed the exemptions conferred by the initial legislation.

These laws do not exhaust Constantine's grants of exemptions to the clerics. In CTh 16.2.14 (of 356, December 6) Constantius II refers to manifold regulations of his father which conferred tax exemptions on

47 J. Gaudemet, "La législation religeuse de Constantin" in Revue d'histoire de l'église de France 33 (1947), 25-61, at 27

48 I think that Sargenti's dates for 16.2.6 (329) and 16.2.3 (320) are incorrect.

49 Constantius II made different, and better, arrangements later on.

Page 108

clerics employed in trade, and CTh 16.2.8 (of 343, August 27) is also taken to refer to a law of Constantine on this or a similar point. The mention in it of exemptions from new tax payments draws into this discussion CTh 13.1.1 (of 357, February 6), which deals with taxes to be paid by businessmen, except "clerics who are called grave diggers"-i.e., sextons, who got paid for digging graves and who, it was argued by someone, should have been paying the same taxes as paid by undertakers.

Well before the War of Cibalae in 316 Constantine abolished crucifixion as a legal punishment. 50 By CTh 9.40.2 of 315, March 21 (Habicht and S) Constantine forbade the branding of convicts on the face, which he described as "made in the likeness of celestial beauty," 51 prescribing instead branding on the calves.

CJ 1.13.1 of 316, Dec. 8 (Barnes' emendation in NE 73; June 8 Sargenti; 323, Seeck; 321, April 18 Gaudemet) allows clerics to manumit by will or by words. It was followed by CTh 4.7.1 of 321, April 18. Both laws allow the manumission of slaves in churches. This made it possible to avoid the magistrate with his forms and complications, and would have had the effect, which Constantine would have thought desirable, of creating an association of Church and freedom in the mind of the ex-slave.

Cth 9.16.3 of 318, May 23 condemns black magic while allowing white magic. 52 CTh 9.16.2 of 319, May 15 (after Sept.?) is against private soothsaying, making more specific the fact that soothsaying in public is allowed; "for We do not prohibit the open conduct of the ceremonies of a bygone perversion." 53 CTh 9.16.1 of 320 [319S], February 1 decrees that anyone found approaching a house for the purpose of private soothsaying shall be burned alive, and the person who summoned him shall have his property confiscated and be relegated to an island; "For those persons who wish to serve their own superstition will be able to perform their own

50 See p. 124 below.

51 Gen. 1.26-27.

52 Such a law might have been made by a pagan, but I think that there are indications, in Constantine's laws on soothsaying, that his reasons for this legislation were religious.

53 This law, and the next two, flatly contradict the claim of Eusebius in VC 2.45.1 that Constantine banned divination, and should prompt us to reflect on the concomitant claim that he also banned sacrifice.

Page 109

ceremonies publicly. We consider, moreover, that an accuser of this crime is not an informer, but rather is worthy of reward." 54 CTh 16.10.1 of 320, December 17 prescribes the consultation of the soothsayers (publicly only) and the keeping of careful records of the transaction, if lightning strikes the palace or any other public building. In all of this Constantine was well supported by the legislation of the early emperors, 55 but the laws seem to have been occasioned by officials who knew what his religious views were. 56

By CTh 1.27.1 of 318, 57 June 23, which is re-iterated by Const. Sirm. 1 of 333, May 5, Constantine made it possible for a litigant, right up until the moment when the judge was giving his decision and had not yet finished, to transfer the case to the court of the local bishop. It has not been completely clear to scholars whether this could be done even if the other party objected, but it must have been the case, since a judge in the process of giving his decision might well have indicated what it would be at a moment when a litigant was still eligible to effect the transfer to a bishop's court. Some scholars have been troubled by this, 58 but I take it that Constantine simply assumed that no honest man in his right mind would want to be in a Roman civil court, unless he were a powerful person, and that he provided poor litigants with an avenue of escape. This law was modified in 408, when conditions had changed.

By CTh 8.16.1 of 320, January 31 Constantine took the step of at last removing the penalties for failure to marry which had been established by

54 Pharr's translation.

55 Gaudemet ( 51, note 33) cites Suetonius, Tiberius 63 for that emperor's ban on secret consultations of haruspices.

56 Roberto Giordani, "Note sulla cronologie della costruzione della basilica Vaticana" in Studi Romani 35 (1987), 346-358, argued that this last law, which seems to reverse direction, was a sop to pagans in Rome for the coming destruction of the Vatican cemetery in preparation of the site for St. Peter's. See also J. Gaudemet, "La legislation anti-païenne de Constantin Justinien" in Cristianesimo nella Storia 11 (1990), 449-455, arguing for the political rather than religious background of these laws.

57 Sargenti says that the year is unknown.

58 This law is discussed by Gaudemet, "La législation religeuse de Constantin" in Revue d'histoire de l'église de France 33 (1947), at 32-38.

Page 110

Augustus. So far as we know, every single emperor after Augustus had deferred to his policy in this matter. Eusebius of Caesarea mistakenly claimed that the law applied to childless couples, whereas it clearly applies to celibate persons. 59

CJ 3.12.2 of 321, July 3 [March 5? S 60] made Sunday a legal holiday and forbade all business and manufacturing on that day, while allowing necessary agricultural work because of its dependence on the weather. CTh 2.8.1 of 321, July 3 refers to the ending of "noxious controversies" in the courts on that day and goes on to allow manumissions in church on Sundays.

Cth 16.2.4 of 321, July 3 allowed people to make bequests to the Catholic Church. The constitutional significance of this measure has been discussed above. 61 The practical significance was greatly to enrich the Church, to the point where later legislation had to deal with abuses by clerics. 62

By CTh 4.12.3 of 320, January 31 Constantine had softened the penalties of the senatusconsultum Claudianum against women who cohabited with slaves owned by the emperor. 63 CTh 9.24.1 of 320 (Mommsen, Sargenti; 326, Seeck, Barnes, Evans-Grubbs), April 1, from which CJ 7.13.3 of 320, March 31 is clearly taken, is a tough (in some respects, most of us would say, a cruel) law directed against abduction marriage, and any one having anything to do with it. 64 In 326 Constantine made various laws relating to sexual matters. By CTh 9.8.1 of April 4 a tutor of a girl coming to an age for marriage had to first prove that she was a virgin, and then could marry her if he wished. By CTh 9.7.2 of April 25

59 B. H. Warmington, "Eusebius of Caesarea's Versions of Constantine's Laws in the Codes" in Studia Patristica 24 (1993), 201-207, at 204.

60 I prefer Seeck's date.

61 The omission of this law by Eusebius is discussed by Warmington on pp. 206-207.

62 CTh 16.2.20, of 370.

63 Cf. CTh 4.12.1 of 314 Apr. 1, probably by Licinius. See J. Evans-Grubbs, "Marriage more shameful than Adultery": Slave-Mistress Relationships, "Mixed Marriages," and Late Roman Law" in Phoenix 47.2 (1993), 125-154, esp. 140-154.

64 Judith Evans-Grubbs, "Abduction Marriage in Antiquity: A Law of Constantine (CTh 9.24.1) and its Social Context" in JRS 79 (1989), 59-83. She discusses the date on p. 60.

Page 111

accusations for adultery were restricted to husbands, fathers, and cousins. CJ 5.26 of June 14 forbade married men to have concubines.

Discussion of these laws has been much complicated by the attempts of Seeck and others to find a suitable place for the transmitted date of CTh 9.24.1namely, ''the Kalends of April at Aquileia in the sixth consulship of Constantine and of Constantius Caesar." On April 1 of only 318 and 326, so far as we know, Constantine was at Aquileia. His sixth consulship was in 320, with Constantine Caesar, his seventh in 326 with Constantius Caesar. Seeck first picked 318, then decided on 326, and connected the laws of 326 with the executions of Crispus and Fausta 65 Upon this work Barnes built his picture in CE219-221 of Constantine acting as a Christian crank, punishing sexual offences with a big "morbid and unwholesome" law, of which CTh 9.8.1, 9.7.2 and CJ 5.26 were some parts, and executing his son Crispus for some sort of sexual offence, of which he was wrongfully accused by the empress Fausta. 66 I believe that the date of CTh 9.24.1 has to be kept in connection with CJ 7.13.3, and would agree with Mommsen and Sargenti in emending Constantio to Constantino, and suppose that Constantine was in Aquileia on April 1 of 320. He was at Serdica on January 31 and May 19. 67 I think that CTh 9.8.1, 9.7.2 and CJ 5.26 were not parts of the same law. If Crispus had been unjustly accused of adultery by Fausta, as Barnes believed, it is hard to see why his damnatio memoriaewas not revoked after the execution of Fausta. 68 I am persuaded by the recent argument of Judith Evans-Grubbs to acknowledge that a motive other than the religious one helped to produce CTh 9.24.1, where Constantine is more severe than the Christians were, and CJ 7.13.3. It is CJ 5.26, forbidding concubinage, which must have been very strongly influenced by Christianity. The number of these laws in 326 may be significant, but may indicate nothing more than that it is harder to stop legislating on this matter than it is to start.

65 O. Seeck, "Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin's des Grossen" in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftlichen Theologie 33 (1890), 63-77, esp. 71-73.

66 Unfortunately the date of the execution of Crispus is not known. Dates from late March to September/October have been suggested (cf. NE 8, n. 30), so that it is not certain that these laws have anything to do with Crispus.

67 Jan. 31 (CTh 8.16.1; 11.7.3) and May 19 (CTh 10.1.4).

68 A. H. M. Jones, C&C, 200.

Page 112

Other laws of 326 which I have included are CTh 16.5.1 of September 1 and CTh 16.5.2 of September 25. The first of these withdraws from heretics (obviously Arians, since the law was issued from the west to the comes Orientis) the tax exemptions which had earlier been granted to the Catholic clerics. The second exempts the Novatians (a rigorist sect) from a blanket condemnation of heretics which must date to 324, and which Eusebius quotes in VC 3.64, implying a later date. 69 The Novatians had been found doctrinally satisfactory by the Council of Nicaea 70 and I think it interesting that it was a whole year before Constantine exempted them from his general disapproval of heretics. He probably disliked their rigorist views, and decided to let them sweat for a while. 71 A fourth law regarding heretics was that of 333, which branded the Arians as Porphyrians, and threatened with capital punishment anyone found failing to burn Arius' books. 72

Constantine made several laws regarding Jews, in which conflicting attitudes may be discerned. 73 CTh 16.8.1 of 315, [S; 339s] October 18 ordered that any Jews found stoning or otherwise assaulting persons who had left their "feral sect" for the Church should be burned alive, together with his accomplices, including converts to Judaism. 74 By CTh 16.8.3 of 321, 75 December 11 he allowed all municipal senates to nominate Jews to the council. "But in order that something of the former rule may be left to them as a solace, We extend to two or three persons from each group the perpetual privilege of not being disturbed by any nominations." It would appear that all Jews had hitherto been exempt. Presumably Constantine's laws (Cf. CTh 16.2.5 of 323, December [MayS] 25) forbidding the

69 On this see T. G. Elliott, "Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini,"167-169.

70 Canon 8

71 See the story of his reaction to Acesius at Nicaea in Socrates HE 1.10.

72 Gelasius, HE 2.36.1 (Opitz, Urkunde 33) gives the text of the law, whose authenticity is demonstrated by CTh 16.5.66 of 435, Aug. 3.

73 Note Barnes, CE 392, note 74.

74 Barnes (CE 252 and 392) thought that CTh 16.9.2 and 16.8.6 were parts of this law, which he dated to 329. The Mss date 16.8.6 (and less clearly 16.9.2) to 339. Seeck accepted these dates, as has Sargenti.

75 Sargenti attributes the 331 date to Seeck, who gives 321, which fits better with the later laws.

Page 113

requirement of Christians to perform lustral sacrifices at public ceremonies 76opened the way to inclusion of Jews as well as Christians. By CTh 16.8.2 of 330, November 29 he exempted patriarchs and priests from the compulsory public services, and exempted Jewish decurions from service as official escorts, so that they should not be compelled to depart from their places. CTh 16.8.4 of 330, [331S] December 1 exempts from compulsory public services of a corporal nature "priests, rulers of the synagogues, fathers of the synagogues and all others who serve the synagogues." CTh 16.8.5, 16.9.1 = Const. Sirm. 4 of 335, October 21 forbids Jews from disturbing or assailing anyone who has been converted from Judaism to Christianity, and directs that any Christian slave, or slave of any sect whatever, who has been circumcised by his Jewish owner, shall be freed.77 I do not find this legislation, on the whole, very anti-Jewish, 78 although it is clear from other documents that Constantine deplored Judaism and Jews. 79

By CTh 3.16.1 of 331 Constantine restricted the freedom of divorce. A woman might no longer divorce her husband as a drunkard, gambler or philanderer, but only as a homicide, sorcerer, or tomb violator. A man might divorce only an adulteress, sorceress, or procuress. 80 Loss of dowry was the penalty for infractions, and a wife unjustly divorced might seize the entire dowry of the later wife. Constantine had earlier restricted the right of accusation under the Lex Julia de adulteriis to close kin by CTh 9.7.2 of 326, April 25, clearly in the hope of protecting marriages: nevertheless, his conservative tendency is well brought out by what he has to say there about the emperors of olden times. I think that if Constantine were trying to make a big law on sexual matters in 326, he should have included his

76 Here is proof that there was no prohibition of pagan sacrifice in the west in 323.

77 Eusebius, in VC 4.27.1, misrepresented this law as a blanket prohibition on the owning of Christian slaves by Jews. See Warmington, 205.

78 However, see note 73 above.

79 VC 3.18-19. See Jones, C&C 220-222. I recall in this connection Cochrane's remark that by the time of the execution of Crispus in 326 Constantine's "point of view was becoming more and more Hebraic"; see Christianity and Classical Culture 207.

80In CTh 11.36.1 of 313 Nov. 3-314 Apr. 17 Constantine had grouped homicides, adulterers, magicians, and sorcerers as atrocious criminals.

Page 114

legislation against divorce there, along with CTh 9.7.2, instead of waiting five more years.

The scattering of these laws over a period of 25 years among 400 other laws indicates that Constantine never had any program of Christian legislation in mind that he had decided to apply when he obtained sole control of the empire. He thought that Christianity was concerned with the life of the world to come, and that in this world the prayers of Christians to the true God would bring His blessings upon the empire. The persistence of these laws until his death in 337 indicates that his views did not change. In these circumstances I see no reason to be surprised by the lack of overwhelming impact of his religion upon his legislation. His first desires regarding his religion, so far as I can see, were to make the empire safe for Christianity, by increasing the number of Christians, and it is to his credit that he refused to do that by making laws.

Page 115

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONSTANTINE AND LICINIUS,

311-324

When Galerius issued his edict of toleration in 311 Maximinus found himself in an awkward position, since he was quite happy with the Persecution. He suppressed the edict of Galerius, and instructed some of his governors orally (and they informed the rest in writing) to relax the Persecution. Such is Eusebius' account, 1 and he quotes a letter of one Sabinus, Maximinus' praetorian prefect, relaying the emperor's instructions. 2 Within six months, however (i.e., by October of 311), Maximinus was listening sympathetically to one Theotecnus of Antioch, a man who erected a statue of Zeus Philios and began producing oracles given by it. Theotecnus aroused Maximinus against the Christians again, and the eastern governors followed suit. 3 Maximinus threw three Christians to the beasts at Emesa, among them the bishop Silvanus; had the bishop Peter of Alexandria beheaded; and put to death the scholarly priest Lucian of Antioch. He issued a rescript to the citizens of Tyre applauding their zeal for paganism and telling them to drive the Christians out of the city. The persecution was renewed. 4 The difference between this and the earlier persecution seems to have been that Maximinus' government was

1 HE 9.1. See above, ch. 1, note 31.

2 Eusebius, HE 9.1.3.

3 Eusebius, HE 9.2-5; Lactantius, DMP 36. For a contrast between Maximinus' treatment of the pagan priesthoods and the later reforms of Julian the Apostate see 0. Nicholson, "The 'Pagan Churches' of Maximinus Daia and Julian the Apostate" in JEH 45.1 (1994), 1-9.

4 HE 9.6-7. See S. Mitchell, "Maximinus and the Christians in A.D. 312: A New Latin Inscription" in JRS 78 (1988), 103-124.

Page 116

not doing it alone; he had obtained some volunteer help from pagans in the east. At this point, Eusebius says, 5 plague and famine came upon the east.

Hereupon Constantine and Licinius, after Constantine's victory in Italy, "drew up a full and most complete decree on behalf of the Christians," and sent a copy of it to Maximinus. 6 According to Eusebius this frightened Maximinus, and he gave orders to Sabinus to stop the volunteer persecution which he himself had been fomenting. According to Lactantius this was a sham, and he continued his aggression against the Christians secretly. 7 Maximinus appears to have done this not through fear, but as part of his preparations for a war against Licinius. He now took the title of Maximus Augustus. 8 Before winter was over he advanced to Thrace, losing many pack animals because of bad weather. He negotiated the surrender of Byzantium. After his meeting with Constantine Licinius arrived at Hadrianople, while Maximinus received the surrender of Perinthus and went on to the next staging post with about seventy thousand troops. Licinius got together about thirty thousand of his own scattered troops and prepared to fight a delaying action. 9

While Licinius slept, says Lactantius, 10 an angel of God stood over him and told him in a dream that he would be victorious if he and his army said a prayer to the supreme God. Licinius had copies of the prayer distributed, and the next day the troops recited the prayer before engaging Maximinus' troops on a plain called Campus Ergenus. 11 Despite the odds, Licinius' army was victorious. Maximinus fled in the clothing of a slave, and two

5 HE 9.8.

6 On the date see p. 53, n. 74 above.

7 DMP 37.1; HE 9.9.13-24.

8DMP 44.11-12; HE 9.10.

9 DMP 45. During 313 Constantine was consul with Maximinus, and officially neutral in this war. See Grünewald, Constantinus 92-97, written without benefit of P. Bruun, "The Heraclean coinage of Maximinus Daza: a drastic proposal" first published in Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics presented to Rudi Thomsen (Aarhus, 1988), 179-194, reprinted in Bruun's Studies in Constantinian Numismatics (Rome, 1991), 175-182.

10 DMP 46.3-4.

11 The location was identified as such by H. Grégoire in Byzantion 13 (1938), 585-586.

Page 117

nights later was in Nicomedia, 160 miles from the battlefield. Taking his wife and children and a few companions from the palace, he made for Cappadocia, where he collected some troops and again assumed the purple. 12 Licinius, meanwhile, entered Nicomedia, where he gave the governor the letter known as the Edict of Milan. 13

When I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, happily met at Milan and had under consideration all matters which concerned the public advantage and safety, we thought that, among all the other things that we saw would benefit the majority of men, the arrangements which above all needed to be made were those which ensured reverence for the Divinity, so that we might grant both to Christians and to all men freedom to follow whatever religion each one wished, in order that whatever divinity there is in the seat of heaven may be appeased and made propitious toward us and toward all who have been set under our power. We thought therefore that in accordance with salutary and most correct reasoning we ought to follow the policy of regarding this opportunity as one not to be denied to anyone at all, whether he wished to give his mind to the observances of the Christians or to that religion which he felt was most fitting to himself, so that the supreme Divinity, whose religion we obey with free minds, may be able to show in all matters His accustomed favor and benevolence toward us. For this reason we wish your Devotedness to know that we have resolved that, all the conditions which were contained in letters previously sent to your office about the Christian name being completely set aside, those measures should be repealed which seemed utterly inauspicious and foreign to our clemency, and that each individual one of those who share this same wish to observe the religion of the Christians should freely and straightforwardly hasten to do so without any anxiety or interference. We thought that this should be very fully communicated to your Solicitude, so that you should know that we have given a free and absolute permission to these same

12 DMP 47; HE 9.10.1-6.

13 Lactantius dates this to June 13 in DMP 48.1.

Page 118

Christians to practice their religion. And when you perceive that this indulgence has been accorded by us to these people, your Devotedness understands that others too have been granted a similarly open and free permission to follow their own religion and worship as befits the peacefulness of our times, so that each man may have a free opportunity to engage in whatever worship he has chosen. This we have done to ensure that no cult or religion may seem to have been impaired by us.

We have also decided that we should decree as follows about the Christians as a body: if, during the period that has passed, any appear to have purchased either from our treasury or from anyone else those places in which the Christians had previously been accustomed to assemble, and about which before now a definite rule had been laid down in the letters that were sent to your office, they should now restore these same places to the Christians without receiving any money for them or making any request for payment, and without any question of obstruction or equivocation; those who received such places as a gift should return them in the same way but the more speedily to these same Christians; both those who bought them and those who received them as gifts should, if they seek something from our benevolence, make a request of the deputy for their interests to be consulted by our clemency. All these places must be handed over to the body of Christians through your intervention and without any delay.

And since these same Christians are known to have possessed not only the places in which they had the habit of assembling but other property too which belongs by right to their body-that is, to the churches, not to individuals-you will order all this property, in accordance with the law which we have explained above, to be given back without any equivocation or dispute at all to these same Christians, that is, to their body and assemblies, preserving always the principle stated above, that those who restore this same property as we have enjoined without receiving a price for it may hope to secure indemnity from our

Page 119

benevolence. In all these matters you will be bound to offer the aforesaid body of Christians your most effective support so that our instructions can be the more rapidly carried out and the interests of public tranquility thereby served in this matter too by our clemency. In this way it will come about, as we have explained above, that the divine favor towards us, which we have experienced in such important matters, will continue for all time to prosper our achievements along with the public well-being. Furthermore, so that the character of this ordinance and of our benevolence can be brought to the knowledge of all, it will be desirable for you to publish this document everywhere above a proclamation of your own, and to convey it to the attention of everyone, so that the ordaining of this benevolence of ours cannot remain hidden. 14

A. H. M. Jones thought that this letter showed that Licinius was trying to backtrack from the more generous policy of Constantine. 15 It certainly is a wordy way of prescribing toleration and restitution. Disagreement between the two rulers is evident in two areas. Licinius presumably wanted it made clear that the toleration extended to pagans as well as Christians, for we need not imagine Constantine as so solicitous for the rights of pagans, which he would have taken for granted. On the other hand, Constantine wanted the property of the churches restored immediately, whether or not compensation had been provided to those who had bought the property from the fisc. It seems to have been expected that in Licinius' realm such restoration would be halted by demands for payment. This law went further than Galerius' edict of toleration in 311, "by the raising, in a formal juristic manner, of each individual church, and therefore the whole, the universal Church, to the level of a full juristic personality: this was the acknowledgment of the Church as a corpus in a juristic sense." Ullmann went on to argue that the right by which Constantine did this was his position as legislator in charge of the public

14 Lactantius' version translated by J. L. Creed in his (Oxford, 1984) edition of the DMP, reprinted with the permission of the Oxford University Press.

15 Jones, C&C, 88-89. See also Torben Christensen, "The So-called Edict of Milan" in Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984), 129-175.

Page 120

law of the empire. 16 Barnes has disputed the first of these conclusions, pointing out that churches had long owned property whose possession had been confirmed by earlier emperors. 17 However, it must be acknowledged that the odd judgment in particular cases during a period of precarious toleration had certainly been outweighed by the Great Persecution, and that the "Edict of Milan" was qualitatively different from the judgments of earlier emperors. The Church was now on a new footing in the secular world. 18

Maximinus issued an edict of toleration of Christians. 19 Licinius continued his pursuit of Maximinus, who was unable to hold the pass through the Taurus mountains against his troops, and finally took refuge in Tarsus. There he poisoned himself and ended very badly. 20

Licinius then did a very thorough job of eliminating any dynastic threats to himself. He had Maximinus' wife thrown into the Orontes River. He ordered the death of Diocletian's daughter Valeria, whom Maximinus had harassed without killing, and killed Galerius' son Candidianus, Severus' son Severianus, Maximinus' son Maximus and seven-year-old daughter, who had been betrothed to Candidianus. Valeria was captured in Thessalonica and put to death, along with her mother Prisca. 21 He also had other associates of Maximinus executed. Peucetius, Culcianus, and Theotecnus are mentioned by Eusebius, 22 as is the priest of Apollo at Miletus, who in the winter of 302/3 had given Diocletian the oracle which persuaded him to begin the Great Persecution. 23 The execution of the last two, and Eusebius' notion early on that Licinius was a Christian, seems to have led him into the belief that Licinius was engaged in a purge of persecutors. The occupational hazards of oracle-mongering must be remembered: these victims were probably on record as having foretold

16 W. Ullmann, "The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement" in JEH 27.1 (1976), 1-16.

17 Barnes, CE 49-50.

18 See Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution 322.

19 HE 10.10.7-11.

20DMP 49; HE 10.10.12-16.

21 DMP 50-51.

22 HE 9.11.

23 PE 4.2.11; the person is identified by Barnes in CE 64.

Page 121

Licinius' death.

The relations between Constantine and Licinius from the defeat of Maximinus in 313 until the War of Cibalae, the first civil war between the two brothers-in-law, form an obscure subject that has been further clouded by the dispute over the date of the war, which has only recently been concluded. 24

In the VC, left unfinished in 339, Eusebius almost conflated the two wars with Licinius, both of which he placed after the beginning of the celebrations of Constantine's decennalia in 315, and gave religious conflict as the reason for both. 25 However, in the second and third (perhaps) editions of his Ecclesiastical History, written in 313-315 (perhaps) Eusebius had represented Licinius as a Christian deliverer of the east from Maximinus in 313, 26 and it is clear that Eusebius then wished to represent Licinius' purge of Maximinus' associates as action directed against the persecutors. Since there was evidence that the War of Cibalae was fought in 314, Eusebius' apparent confusion or dissimulation cast doubt on both his presentations of the war and his date for it.

In 1665 Godefroy's argument was published in his edition of the Codex Theodosianus 27that the way to solve the problem posed by the conflicting ancient sources regarding the date of this war was to accept the date given by the so-called Fasti Hydatiani: 28314. This argument was accepted by Tillemont, who saw that those persecuting activities of Licinius specifically mentioned by Eusebius dated to the period before 324, not

24 I take it that C. T. H. R. Ehrhardt has ended the dispute by his argument that the war must postdate the portraits of Licinius on the arch of Constantine in Rome. See "Monumental Evidence for the Date of Constantine's First War against Licinius" in Ancient World 23.2 (1992), 87-96.

25VC 1.48 -2.18.

26HE 9. 11. For recent discussion of the successive editions of the HE, see T. D. Barnes, "The editions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History" in GRBS 21 (1980), 192-201 and the persuasive reply by A. Louth, "The Date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica" in JThS 41.1 (1990), 111-123.

27 A "Chronologia Codicis Theodosiani" is to be found in his (posthumously published) edition of the CTh.

28Consularia Constantinopolitana p. 231 of Chronica Minora ed. T. Mommsen in MGH vol. 9 (Berlin 1892); ed. R. W. Burgess (Oxford, 1993), who would prefer to use the title Descriptio Consulum (see pp. vi and 175).

Page 122

before 314. 29 Godefroy's successors emended the dates of various laws, and various events surrounding the Council of ArLes in 314, to conform to the 314 date. Everyone worked with 314 for the first war and 323 or 324 for the second.

It is easy to see why scholars working with this chronology arrived at very different, and very strongly held, views of Constantine. So much simply depended on the part of the evidence concerning him which one wished to stress. In the space of just a couple of years Constantine marries his sister to Licinius, has him get rid of Maximinus, and tries to get rid of him in turn. A persuasive explanation of all this is that he was driven by ruthless ambition. The idealized Constantine of Eusebius' VC could be accounted for by supposing that that work was a fraud or forgery, and this was done. Scholars with more positive opinions of Constantine-Baynes, for example-might suppose that there was some justification for the War of Cibalae on Constantine's side, and that Eusebius' presentation of him was not seriously misleading. This was the situation until the 1950s.

In 1951 it was learned that the London Papyrus 878, dated to 319-320, contained, on its reverse side, part of a copy of the document quoted by Eusebius as Constantine's letter of 324 to the eastern provincials. The letter was shown to be authentic, and Eusebius' quotation to be correct. 30 On the question of the trustworthiness of the Constantinian documents as provided by Eusebius, Baynes' stock went up and Grégoire's went down. 31 Then, in 1953 Patrick Bruun presented cogent numismatic arguments for dating the War of Cibalae to 316/17. 32 His argument did not make much of an impression when it first appeared, but in 1958 it was

29 L. S. Lenain de Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs (Paris, 1700), vol. 4, 644f.

30 A. H. M. Jones, "Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius's Life of Constantine" in JEH 5 (1954), 196, note --regarding VC 2.26-28.

31 See H. Chadwick's preface to the second edition of Baynes' Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (repr. 1972, London), iii-v.

32 The Constantinian Coinage of Arelate. Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 52.2 (Helsinki, 1953), 15ff. and 49. There are actually two arguments.

Page 123

reinforced by Christian Habicht, 33 and has been generally accepted. 34 In recent years Thomas Griinewald has pointed to the fact that in the territories won by Constantine in this war there are no inscriptions, and from its mints no coins, celebrating his decennalia in 315/16. 35 This is admittedly an argument from silence, but I think that it should put the 316/17 date beyond dispute. We may return to the subject of the relations between the two.

Jones' argument regarding Licinius' attempt in the 'Edict of Milan' to withdraw from the more pro-Christian position of Constantine has already been mentioned. It was later supported by Nesselhauf, but does not seem

33 "Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Konstantin" in Hermes 86 (1958), 360-378.

34 The acceptance is not universal. The date was discussed carefully in an edition of the Origo Constantini (Trier, 1987) by Ingemar König, who decided in favor of the 314 date. I have not been persuaded by König, whose argument seems to me to have the following faults. 1. König regards the archaeological and numismatic arguments of M. R. Alföldi ["Die Niederemmeler 'Kaiserfibel'. Zum Datum des ersten Krieges zwischen Konstantin und Licinius" in Bonner Jahrbücher 176 (1976), 183-200] as a sufficient counterweight to Bruun. However, Alföldi's assumption that the clasp was made at Trier cannot be proven, and her assumption that the mint of Thessalonica would not have issued coins celebrating Constantine's decennalia in 315 unless Constantine had been in possession of that mint is simply wrong [cf. P. Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Chronology. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 146 (New York, 1961), 22 for the mint at Nicomedia in 315/16]. It is clear from her note 68 on pp. 199-200 that Alföldi misunderstood Bruun's argument regarding the coin in question. Bruun said that there could be no satisfactory explanation for those extraordinary circumstances on the hypothesis that the war was fought in 314 and Thessalonica was ceded to Constantine in 314-315 (my italics). He went on to give an explanation of the matter on pp. 18-19 and 54-56. 2. König accepts some very strained interpretations by Alföldi of the literary texts. 3. Eusebius' evidence in VC 1.48-50 is not mentioned. 4. The argument regarding the victory titles of Constantine in ILS 8942 and 696 [for which now cf. T. D. Barnes, NE, 81 and note 145] is not mentioned. See also Dietmar Kienast, "Das Bellum Cibalense und die Morde des Licinius" in Roma Renascens: Festschr. Ilona Opelt (Frankfurt, 1988), 149-171.

35 Thomas Grünewald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Überlieferung (Stuttgart, 1990), Historia Einzelschriften 64, 111-112.

Page 124

to have made much of an impression on others.36To me it seems quite correct. I think that Jones would have made more of his argument if he had not so seriously overrated the value of the coins as indicators of the emperors' personal religious beliefs. 37 His idea is the more important because it deals with a document ten years earlier than the time when Constantine began to say publicly that his whole career had been a Christianizing mission.

It was argued by A. A. T. Ehrhardt (and then independently by T. D. Barnes) that Codex Theodosianus 9.5.1 38 of January 1, 314, which prescribes crucifixion as a punishment for slaves who inform on their masters, is a law of Licinius. 39I accept Barnes' argument that it never was a law of Constantine. The law is to be read with Aurelius Victor 41, 2-5, which says that Constantine and Licinius fought the war ob diversos mores (''because of differences in their characters"). The mores of Licinius referred to by Victor are crucifixion and parsimony. The first indicates a religious factor. 40 The second, which may seem a very odd reason for a

36 For Constantine's letter cf. Lactantius, DMP 44,11; Eusebius, HE 9.9.12; N. H. Baynes, "Two Notes on the Great Persecution" in CQ 18 (1924), 193-194. For Licinius' constitution cf. Lactantius, DMP 48,2ff.; Eusebius, HE 10.5.2ff.; H. Nesselhauf, "Der Toleranzgesetz des Licinius" in Historisches Jahrbuch 74 (1954), 44-61; A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964), vol. 1, 80-81.

37 Jones, C&C, 93-94.

38 (=FIRA² 1.94).

39 A. A. T. Ehrhardt, "Some Aspects of Constantine's Legislation" in Studia Patristica 2. Texte und Untersuchungen 64 (Berlin, 1957), 114-121; T. D. Barnes, "Three Imperial Edicts" in ZPE 21 (1976), 276. Ramsay MacMullen objected to Barnes' argument there in his article "What Difference Did Christianity Make?" in Historia 35 (1986), 334. However, either the (non-imperial) consular date or the (name or) title of the addressee must be emended, and Barnes' remedy was a simple one. His argument was somewhat confirmed after his ZPE article. See his New Empire 127-128, and now C. Habicht, "Ein neues Fragment des Edictum de Accusationibus" in Museum Helveticum 43 (1986), 135-144, esp. 138.

40 Given some of the punishments prescribed by Constantine, I do not think that mere humanitarianism would explain his ban on crucifixion. [CTh 9.24,1; 1.16,7; 9.18,1; 9.15,1 and 10.10,2 are discussed by R. MacMullen in "What Difference did Christianity Make?" in Historia 35.3 (1986), 333.] It seems to me that the pagan sources reflect neutral language of Constantine's public propaganda.

Page 125

civil war, would make good sense if it stemmed from disagreement over expenditures required by Constantine's restitution of property confiscated during the persecution, in accordance with the Edict of Milan. Constantine's propaganda was silent on the religious difference.

The statements in the Epitome de Caesaribus 41, 8-10 about Licinius' rusticity, avarice, distrust of education and hatred of forensic activity are not inconsistent with opposition to Christianizing innovation or to legislation in the Christian interest. Like the statements in Victor, they go back to the propaganda of the period. 41

In his edition of Lactantius' De mortibus persecutorum J. L. Creed dates the work to 314-15 and argues that it shows "subdued hostility" towards Licinius. 42 I accept this argument, which indicates contemporary religious antagonism. I note also that at 36.1 Lactantius seems to blame Licinius for delays in attacking Maximinus, while the Christians were being persecuted.

From accounts in the VC and the Origo 43it appears that in 315 Constantine asked Licinius to allow that Constantine's brother-in-law Bassianus be made Caesar in charge of Italy, that Licinius had Senecio, Bassianus' brother, persuade Bassianus to murder Constantine, and that Bassianus was apprehended in the attempt and killed. 44 The text of the Origo at the end of sec. 14 is uncertain, but it seems to contemplate an existing disagreement between Constantine and Licinius before the proposal about Bassianus. 45 Constantine also objected to Licinius' order that pictures

41 Eutropius has no trace of a controversy. At 10.5 he says that Constantine defeated Licinius, who was preparing to attack him, in order to obtain sole rule. This is somewhat self-contradictory, and has no force against Eusebius' view. In Eutropius the war of 324 occurs for no reason at all. The sole rule motive would, however, cover both wars.

42 J. L. Creed, ed. Lactantius, Liber de mortibus persecutorum (Oxford, 1984), xxxiii-xxxv.

43 VC 1.50; Origo 5.14-15.

44 M. Grant, The Emperor Constantine (London, 1993), 40-41 follows Barnes and thinks that the Bassianus affair resulted from a plot by Constantine to get rid of Bassianus, as a threat to the prospects of Crispus.

45 On this see the remarks of Dietmar Kienast in his "Das Bellum Cibalense und die Morde des Licinius" in Roma Renascens: Festschr. Ilona Opelt (Frankfurt, 1988), 149-171, at 159.

Page 126

and statues of himself be pulled down at Emona, which was near the boundary between himself and Licinius. 46On August 13 of 316 Constantine was at Arles, 47and on October 8 48 he attacked Licinius at Cibalae, more than two hundred miles inside his territory.

The Origo gives the number of Constantine's forces as twenty thousand, of Licinius' as thirty-five thousand, and says that in an indecisive contest Licinius lost twenty thousand foot and some horse, and escaped with some of his cavalry to Sirmium. 49 From there he fled with his wife, son, and treasury to Dacia, and made one of his frontier commanders, one Valens, an Augustus. 50 Valens assembled a large force at Hadrianople, and Licinius sent envoys to Constantine to treat for peace. These were rejected and another indecisive battle was fought at Campus Ardiensis, 51 after which the troops of Licinius escaped at nightfall. Licinius and Valens thought that Constantine would press on toward Byzantium, and so turned aside toward Beroea. As Constantine pushed on he learned that Licinius was behind him. Then, when his men were worn out with marching and fighting, a man called Mestrianus arrived with a proposal of peace, declaring that Licinius would do as he was told. Constantine ordered that Valens be returned to a private station. 52 That done, peace was concluded on these terms: that Licinius should possess the Orient, Asia, Thrace, Moesia, and Lesser Scythia. Constantine went back to Serdica, where he arranged with the absent Licinius that his sons Crispus and Constantine should be Caesars along with Licinius' son Licinius. Constantine and Licinius held a joint consulship in 319.

Origo 18 says that at the end of the war Licinius asked for terms,

46 Origo 15.

47 CTh 11.30.5; 11.30.6. Barnes thinks that on Sept. 29 of 316 Constantine was in Verona. The year of Frag. Vat. 290 is missing from the MS.

48 I follow Barnes in supposing that Chron. Min. gives the day correctly, even though the year (314) is wrong.

49 Zosimus' account is in 2.18-20.

50 See P. Bruun in RIC VII, 67.

51 For the place see H. Grégoire in Byzantion 13 (1938), 586.

52 Origo 5.18.

Page 127

promising that he would do as he was told. 53 This indicates that he had been disagreeing with Constantine before the war. That the quarrel was over policy rather than personal (from Constantine's point of view) is further confirmed by frg. 15 of Petrus Patricius, 54 which quotes a reply by Constantine to Licinius' envoy in 317. I think that Constantine's meaning may be rendered as follows: "I repudiated my own brother-in-law as a colleague because of his offences. I have not come campaigning from the ocean all the way to this place just to receive a slave along with him into the imperial college. Tell him to forget about Valens." A second important point about this fragment is the mention of the ocean, which is a long way from any possible starting-point for this campaign. 55 Constantine is thinking here of the mission which he mentions in the letters quoted by Eusebius in VC 2.28 and 4.9-the Christianizing mission which, he says, began at the western ocean. It is worth noting that the remarks quoted in the fragment, which Petrus describes as being delivered by a man almost choked with rage, antedate by more than seven years the public statements of Constantine discussed above.

In his letter of December 8, 316 to the bishop Protogenes (of Serdica, apparently 56) Constantine extended to the territories being won in the war of Cibalae his law recognizing the validity of manumissions performed in church. 57 The war had been going on for two months, and was to continue for four more, so that Constantine's attention to this matter was very prompt.

Between 324 and 330 the pagan historian Praxagoras of Athens wrote in two books a laudatory history of Constantine. 58 Praxagoras gave the cause of the war as follows: "When Constantine learned that Licinius was treating his subjects in a cruel and inhuman manner, he would not tolerate

53missus deinde Mestrianus pacem petiit, Licinio postulante ac pollicente se imperata facturum.

54 This is in Müller, FHG, vol. 4, 189-190. Cf. Origo 17.

55 It might have been considered to have started from Arles or Verona. Cf. Barnes, New Empire, 73.

56 Cf. F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca, 1977), 591, and Barnes, NE 73, note 116.

57 CJ 1.13.1.

58 219FGrH T. 1.5. This history was briefly summarized by Photius.

Page 128

his kinsman's unbearable hubris, and made war upon him in order to change him from a tyrant into a kingly ruler." The point is clearly made that Licinius would not do as Constantine wished, and so Constantine fought in order to change him. 59

Most scholars dismiss Praxagoras' statements about this war as Constantinian propaganda, on the view that Constantine did not get what he wanted out of the war. Moreau 60 and Habicht 61 have argued that Constantine wanted the two wars against Licinius conflated in order to obscure failure in the first. Barnes has asserted 62 that Licinius and his Caesar, Valens, managed to force Constantine to genuine negotiations by breaking his lines of communication. These views are not convincing. Constantine won both wars. He should have been happy to claim later that he had defeated his reprehensible brother-in-law, given him another chance, and fought him again only when he proved incorrigible. There really is no motive for the false propaganda effort alleged by Moreau. 63 As for the military situation in 317, Jones took the view that each side had cut the other's communications. 64 I think that it would be more accurate to say that Licinius was in a position to threaten Constantine's communications; 65 his own were probably broken. In any case, the result of those negotiations does not suggest that Constantine was in much danger. Licinius eventually killed Valens, he gave up Europe as far as Thrace, and he later accepted dynastic arrangements providing for the eventual takeover of the empire by the Constantinian house. Constantine made good his claim to legislate for

59 In view of the contemporary Christian use of "tyrant" as a code word for "persecutor," (Barnes, "The Beginnings of Donatism" in JThS 26.1 (1975), 13-22, at 19) I suspect that religious differences lay behind the Constantinian propaganda which Praxagoras has copied here.

60 J. Moreau, "Zum Problem der Vita Constantini" in Historia 4 (1955), 237-242.

61 art. cit., 375.

62 CE, 51.

63 The logic of Moreau's argument is peculiar, for if Constantine had failed in a nonreligious war of Cibalae and succeeded in the crusade of 324 he should have stressed the differences of motives and results on the two occasions. Constantine did not claim that he personally was invincible; he always said that God gave him victory.

64 Jones, C&C, 110.

65 The Origo simply says that Licinius retreated toward Beroea.

Page 129

the whole empire. 66 If Licinius was as effective a general as Barnes describes him, he was not much of a negotiator. It seems clear enough that he had been forced to the obedience which Praxagoras said Constantine had fought to obtain, and which the Origo says Licinius promised. I therefore accept Constantine's claim discussed above in chapter 3 that all his civil wars were part of his Christianizing mission.

Propaganda against Licinius did not have to refer to religious differences. In 316 it could have been "Licinius is cruel and stingy, refuses to co-operate with the senior Augustus, has plotted against him, and is now planning an attack." In 324 "Licinius is a troublemaker who has presumed too much on his kinsman's indulgence. He has now broken his oaths and started a civil war." These are the terms which Constantine would have used in public, and some of the pagans never went beyond them. 67 The neutrality of these terms as regards religion does not, however, weigh against the view that the war was fought for religious reasons, and the sources, both pagan and Christian, which provide evidence of the disagreement are not to be disregarded.

It would, indeed, be surprising if Licinius had never displayed irritation. He had been made an Augustus by Galerius in 308, the year after Constantine had assumed that title, when his old friend was persecuting Christians and had not yet become ill. When the wars with Maxentius and Maximinus were over Licinius was faced with a senior Augustus (that position confirmed by the pagan senate of Rome) who expected him, now married to a Christian, to execute a revolutionary policy on behalf of the new religion, of which he was not, and would not be, an adherent. About seven years Constantine's senior, the choice of Galerius, confident in his own abilities and policies, Licinius wanted a way out. But there was none. If he acquiesced in the new policy he would be despised by influential pagans, and become the sick man of the east. If he wanted to stop Constantine, how was he to go about it? Eusebius says "first deviously, then openly." 68 That is not at all implausible. Eusebius'

66 Cf. Habicht, art. cit., 366-370.

67 T. G. Elliott, "The Language of Constantine's Propaganda" in TAPA 120 (1990), 349-353.

68 VC 1.50; 2.1.

Page 130

implication that he had no conspicuous anti-Christian activity of Licinius to record during the years immediately after 313 allows for the possibility that Licinius was not so much doing things which Constantine did not want done as refusing to do things which Constantine did want done.

Constantine's laws concerning crucifixion, and manumissions in church, have already been mentioned. To those may be added the general thrust of Constantine's legislation and the laws about bishops' courts 69 and about tax exemptions for clerics. 70 Licinius would not have approved. He had shown his reluctance to be an assistant emperor. His remaining choices were to allow his house to be phased out of the imperial college, or to resist Constantine. He presumably persuaded Bassianus that he (Bassianus) would one day be discarded too. It is easy for some, but not necessarily for all, to see Constantine as acting in bad faith at this juncture. To the present writer it seems more probable that he was determined to make his junior colleague either obey or agree to be phased out.

Thus, I see no reason to reject either pagan or Christian assertions about this war. In all probability Constantine did criticize Licinius' mores, and did fight in order to change him. The change desired, however, was a change into an instrument of his own Christianizing policy. That the disagreement was over policy is confirmed by Constantine's insistence on his power to legislate for the whole empire, and the sequel to the war shows that the policy in question was the religious one.

Deterioration in relations between the two rulers had occurred again by 321, when Constantine's consuls were not recognized in the east. In June of 322 Constantine won a victory over the Sarmatians. 71 He then crossed the Danube, and later distributed booty at Bononia. 72 In 323 Constantine's consuls were again not recognized in the east, and in February of 323 Constantine was fighting the Goths from Thessalonica. 73 Licinius took offence at this trespass on his territory.

Both the causes of the second war and the war itself are best told by

69 Cf. Barnes, CE, 51.

70 These are CTh 16.23.1-7, and others, for which, see ch. 6.

71 Porphyrius, Carmen VI 18; Zos. 2.21.

72 Porphyrius, Carmen VI 26.

73 Origo 5,21; CTh 16.2.5 of Dec. 25.

Page 131

the Origo, whose brief account presents the essential elements. 74 The passages in square brackets are interpolated from the later Christian writer Orosius.

20. [In the regions of the Orient, while Licinius and Constantine were consuls, Licinius was stirred by sudden madness and ordered that all the Christians should be driven from the palace. Soon war flamed out again between Licinius himself and Constantine.] 75 21. Also, when Constantine was at Thessalonica, the Goths broke through the neglected frontiers, devastated Thrace and Moesia, and began to drive off booty. Then because of fear of Constantine and his check of their attack they returned their prisoners to him and peace was granted them. But Licinius complained of this action as a breach of faith, on the ground that his function had been usurped by another. 22. Finally, by using sometimes humble entreaties and sometimes arrogant threats, he aroused the deserved wrath of Constantine. During the interval before the civil war began, but while it was in preparation, Licinius gave himself up to a frenzy of wickedness, cruelty, avarice, and lust; he put many men to death for the sake of their riches, and violated their wives. 23. Now peace was broken by the consent of both sides; Constantine sent Crispus Caesar with a large fleet to take possession of Asia, and on the side of Licinius, Amandus opposed him, likewise with naval forces. 24. Licinius himself had covered the slopes of a high mountain near Hadrianopolis with a huge army. Hither Constantine turned his march with his entire force. While the war went on slowly by land and sea, although Constantine's army had great difficulty in scaling the heights, at last his good fortune and the discipline of his army prevailed, and he defeated the confused and disorganized army of Licinius; but Constantine was slightly wounded in the thigh. 25. Then Licinius fled to Byzantium; and while his scattered forces were on the way to the city, Licinius closed it,

74 Rolfe's translation, reprinted with the permission of the Harvard University Press.

75 Orosius, 7.28.18.

Page 132

and feeling secure against an attack by sea, planned to meet a siege from the land-side. But Constantine got together a fleet from Thrace. Then Licinius, with his usual lack of consideration, chose Martinianus as his Caesar. 26. But Crispus, with Constantine's fleet, sailed to Callipolis, where in a sea-fight he so utterly defeated Amandus that the latter barely made his escape with the help of the forces which he had left on shore. But Licinius' fleet was in part destroyed and in part captured. 27. Licinius, abandoning hope on the sea, by way of which he saw that he would be blockaded, fled with his treasures to Chalcedon. Constantine entered Byzantium, where he met Crispus and learned of his naval victory. Then Licinius began a battle at Chrysopolis, being especially aided by the Gothic auxiliaries which their prince Alica had brought; whereupon the army of Constantine was victorious, slaying 25,000 soldiers of the opposing side and putting the rest to flight. 28. Later, when they saw Constantine's legions coming in Liburnian galleys, the survivors threw down their arms and gave themselves up. But on the following day Constantia, sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, came to her brother's camp and begged that her husband's life be spared, which was granted. Thus Licinius became a private citizen, and was entertained at a banquet by Constantine. Martinianus' life was also spared. 29. Licinius was sent to Thessalonica; [but Constantine, influenced by the example of his father-in-law Herculius Maximianus, for fear that Licinius might again, with disastrous consequences to the state, resume the purple which he had laid down], 76 and also because the soldiers mutinously demanded his death, had him killed 77 at Thessalonica, and Martinianus in Cappadocia. Licinius reigned nineteen years and was survived by his wife and a son. [And yet, after all the other participants in the abominable persecution had already perished, the penalty he deserved would surely demand this man

76 Orosius, 7.28.20.

77occidi is translated "assassinated" by Rolfe.

Page 133

also, a persecutor so far as he could act as such.] 78

This preserves the moralizing reasons for the war in 321-22. Another clear trace of contemporary public statements regarding the war of 324 is the statement of Praxagoras that the reason for the war was that Licinius broke his oaths and went in for all kinds of wickedness. 79

In the last of the panegyrics on Constantine, that of 321, the orator names no pagan god, and Licinius is never mentioned. 80 At the beginning and end of the speech, which is largely concerned to recommend the dynasty, Constantine's sons are prominent. The rest describes how Constantine got rid of the tyrant Maxentius, again attacked on moral grounds-for greed, lust, cowardice, perfidy, cruelty, arrogance, etc.-who had made Rome miserable. 81 The whole campaign of 312 is recounted, and three times we are told that Constantine's god helped him. 82 The implication is that this anonymous being will help Constantine against the new tyrant also, by a private and discreet arrangement. We are three years from the open effort to Christianize the empire.

This raises the interesting question whether or not the Christianizing purpose was made public before the war in 324. The fact that Eusebius says that Constantine fought the war as a crusade against a persecutor does not mean that Constantine said at the time that that was his purpose. In the panegyric of 321, Praxagoras and the Origo are all neutral regarding the religious question. I think that in 324 Constantine was still pretty quiet about his religious mission.

Soon after he reached Nicomedia in late September of 324 he addressed, as "Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus," an extraordinary letter to the pagan 83 provincials of the eastern empire. Eusebius quotes this letter in full in VC 2.24-42, and it may be summarized as follows.

The difference between Christians and those who treat this religion with contempt has long been evident, and is even more clear now that God

78 Orosius 7.28.21.

79 219FGrH T. 1.5.

80 Pan. Lat. 4(10).

81 ibid., 9,1; 9,3; 9,4; 9,5; 30,1; 31,3; 32,2.

82 ibid., 13; 16,1; 26,1.

83 In VC 2.23 Eusebius says that he sent a different letter to the churches.

Page 134

has rewarded his worshipers and punished the impious (24). Any student of history will realize that God has rewarded the pious and punished those guilty of oppression or injustice (25). Those who have feared God and kept the faith may, for a season, have suffered painful trials, but they had the hope of better things to come, while those who behaved unjustly and refused to honor God have suffered the loss of their armies, and ruin and defeat (26). From their injustice came terrible wars and devastations, and the authors of these impieties met dreadful deaths, or dragged out an existence worse than death as the punishment for their crimes (27). With all this impiety oppressing the world God sought my services in Britain as his instrument for freeing the world, as I did, so that the human race might worship God, and our faith might prosper under His guidance (28). 84 Mindful of His grace I proceeded as far as the east, to free it from the calamities it suffered. I owe my life and breath, my inmost secret thoughts to God. Those who sincerely pursue the heavenly hope have no need of my favor, but I feel it incumbent on me to apply justice, rather than injustice, to their sufferings (29). All those, therefore, who have been exiled for their adherence to Christianity to foreign lands, or enrolled in the registers of the courts, shall be restored to their hereditary property and families (30). The same goes for those exiled to islands (31) or condemned to labor in the mines or on public works, or who lost their liberty or honor (32). Those who lost their rank in the army through their allegiance to God shall have the choice of either regaining it or retiring with an honorable discharge (33). Finally, those deprived of the privileges of noble lineage, and condemned to the miserable labor of women or the service of the public treasury, are to return to their stations, and those enslaved are also to return as free men (34).

The property of martyrs or confessors no longer alive is transferred to their nearest kindred (35), and failing such people, to the church locally nearest them-except for such gifts as they made while alive (36). Those now occupying the land of the victims of persecution shall acknowledge the fact, and make restitution without delay. The profits that they made in the meantime shall be theirs, but they should declare the amount and ask our pardon for their offence, so that God may pardon their covetousness (37).

Chapters 26-28 were those found on the London Papyrus 878.

Page 135

Those who seek to excuse their possession on the grounds that they obtained the property in times of incessant seizures shall be properly punished, as examples to others (38). The treasury shall restore immediately all property seized from the churches (39), the tombs of martyrs shall be given up to the churches (40), and those who purchased from the treasury or received as a gift the property of churches shall receive my clemency as far as is proper in each case (41). And now, let us all take to heart the lessons of history which God has taught us (42).

Toleration is here taken for granted. Restoration and restitution are the main concerns of the letter, and Constantine says in chapter 40 that restitution to the churches must be prompt, and that he will get around to dealing with reasonable requests for compensation in his own good time. His own personal attitude on the religious question is no longer left in any doubt. He is a Christian, as was his father, and he insists on proper restitution, immediately. The civil war begun by the persecutors is over.

The quality of the argumentation of the letter would probably have seemed more impressive to ancient pagans than it does to modern scholars. The pagans would have been thinking of the immediate past, and Constantine's confidence regarding the fate of the martyrs would not have been scorned by most of them. The martyrs are in heaven: the persecutors are in hell. As for his past success, of which there had been too much to be lightly ignored by pagans, Constantine attributes that entirely to God, to whom he looks for guidance for the future.

Constantine also wrote a letter to all the inhabitants of the eastern provinces 85 concerning polytheism. This letter is shorter, but just as extraordinary and more controversial. I would summarize it as follows.

All nature conveys to men the knowledge of the divine order, and the minds that are directed to that know that reason and sense, under the influence of virtue, lead to knowledge of God. This is why the wise man will not be surprised to see the mass of mankind influenced by opposite sentiments. For the beauty of virtue 86 would be useless and unperceived,

85 In VC 2.47 Eusebius says that he sent it to every province, but it is addressed only to the eastern ones.

86 Same phrase used in the Speech to the assembly of the saints 11 (Heikel p. 166, 1. 9)

Page 136

unless contrasted with vice. Hence the rewards of virtue, and the punishment by God of the latter. And now I will lay before you the nature of my own hopes of future happiness (48). I have no sympathy for the former emperors because of the savagery of their character. Only my father practiced the duties of humanity, and called for the blessings of the Savior God on all his actions. The rest in their fury declared a civil war on the Christian population of the empire (49). About that time Apollo gave an oracle saying that the righteous men on earth were impeding him from speaking the truth (50). I call on God to witness: while yet a boy 87 I heard Diocletian ask who these righteous men were, and the pagan priest replied that they were doubtless the Christians. Diocletian immediately issued his bloody edicts (51). There followed all sorts of tortures of Christians without regard to age or sex (52), so that now the barbarians can boast that they treated the Christians better than the Romans did (53). But now the persecutors have been destroyed, a calamity which would never have befallen them but for that impious oracle (54).88 I pray to God to heal the eastern provinces of the miseries which they have suffered. I have fought under your guidance, my armies have marched behind your sacred sign to victory. I have dedicated to your service a mind tempered by love and fear, and I reverence the power of which you have given abundant proofs, to the increase 89 of my faith. I hasten to restore the churches wrecked by those impious men (55).

I desire that all men should live in peace and concord. Perhaps those who live in error will be led by toleration into the straight path. Only those can live a life of holiness and purity whom you call to reliance on your holy laws. Let the pagans have their temples of lies: we have the glorious edifice of your truth. We pray that the pagans too may enjoy this blessing (56). Our worship you have laid down from the foundations of the universe, and although mankind have deeply fallen, you have revealed the light in the person of your Son, so that the power of evil should not utterly prevail (57). The revolutions of the planets, the returning seasons, the

87 Constantine is calling God to witness that he was a boy (pais) in 303.

88 Constantine indicates here that he would have had no Christianizing mission without the Persecution.

89 Not "which produced."

Page 137

winds and waters, all are made for wondrous ends. Were it not so, such diversity would have brought ruin on the human race (58). Thanks be to you, O God, whose precepts are made known to those who think rightly. Those who do not accept you are to blame no one but themselves. Let there be no more persecution, but let us all enjoy the blessing of peace (59). Again, let no one use his religion against his neighbor, but rather for him. It is one thing to suffer for the sake of immortality, another to compel others to do so from fear of punishment. I have said this at length because I did not wish to be false to the true faith, and because I understand that there are some who say that pagan sacrifice has been entirely removed. I would indeed have recommended removing it, but ingrained error discourages the hope of a general restoration of mankind to the ways of truth (60).

The last words here, in chapter 60, dispose of any argument to the effect that Constantine banned pagan sacrifice in 324 for any considerable time. 90 Constantine again proclaims the toleration of paganism which Licinius had sought in the Edict of Milan in 314. Constantine's religious position is made completely clear. He wants religious toleration, but hopes that each and every pagan in the empire will eventually wake up and embrace the true religion. 91 The effort to christianize the empire is now completely public. This change is, I am sure, due to the fact that Constantine no longer has a rival, rather than to a change of attitude

90 T. D. Barnes initially made this argument in CE 246ff., despite Jones in C&C 210, and successive refutations by H. A. Drake in AJP 103 (1982), R. M. Errington in GRBS 29 (1988), myself in Phoenix 45.2 (1991) (and there have undoubtedly been others) have stimulated him to repeat his contention. His argument has been amplified, improved, and somewhat watered down by Scott Bradbury, "Constantine and the Problem of Anti-pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century" in CP 89 (1994), 120-139. I have not been persuaded by either version of this argument. See my remarks in the preceding chapter regarding Constantine's law on soothsayers in note 53. See Tillemont's note 48 to vol. 4 of the Histoire at p. 647 regarding the Speech to the assembly of the saints 11 (bottom of p. 167 of Heikel's edition), and recently H. U. Wiemer, "Libanius on Constantine" in CQ 44.2 (1994), 522-523; G. Bonamente, "Sulla Confisca dei Beni Mobili dei Templi in Epoca Costantiniana" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 1, 170-201.

91 The subject was well discussed by H. Dörries, Constantine and Religious Liberty (New Haven, 1960).

Page 138

on his part.

We should note once again the argument about the whole creation leading to the knowledge of God. We can be quite sure that this letter, like the preceding one, is genuine. If we find similar argument in Constantine's Speech to the assembly of the saints it is not evidence that that speech is not genuine. Constantine was a thoughtful person.

At some time before the Council of Nicaea, and after the victory over Licinius, Constantine issued the following edict against the heretics. Eusebius quotes this letter at the end of Book 3 of the VC, as if it were issued well after the Council, in order to give his reader the impression that Constantine did not include the Arians among the heretics. However, the Council of Nicaea found the Novatians orthodox, and Constantine accepted that verdict in CTh 16.5.2 of 326, September 25, so that the edict must antedate the Council. The references to the felicity and prosperity of our times point clearly to the period after the defeat of Licinius. I quote the edict here in order to show that Constantine had not become more tolerant of heretics because of his troubles with the Donatists.

Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to the heretics.

Understand now by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full of absurdities and fictions; and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves

Page 139

demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one's ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure and simple eagerness of one's own faith be impaired. Why then will I any longer bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure?

Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and our care in this respect extends so far as to forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever. Let those of you, therefore, who are desirous of embracing the true and pure religion, take the far better course of entering the catholic Church, and uniting with it in holy fellowship, whereby you will be enabled to arrive at the knowledge of the truth. In any case, the delusions of your perverted understandings must entirely cease to mingle with and mar the felicity of our present times: I mean the impious and wretched double-mindedness of heretics and schismatics. For it is an object worthy of that prosperity which we enjoy through the favor of God, to endeavor to bring back those who in time past were living in the hope of future blessing, from all irregularity and error to the right path, from darkness to light, from vanity to truth, from death to salvation. And in order that this remedy may be applied with effectual power, we have commanded, as before said, that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer, if such be worthy of the name, which belong to heretics, and that these be made over

Page 140

without delay to the catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and that no facility whatever be left for any future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public. 92

In 3.66 Eusebius brazenly adds that Constantine had search made for the books of the heretics. The only heretic of whom such an action by Constantine is known is Arius, by a law of 333. 93 Eusebius' flagrant misrepresentations of the law of 324/5 are very disquieting. 94

It was at this point that the pagan sources parted company with Constantine. We have very little in them on the last twelve years of his reign. They were faced with an anomaly-a ''good" emperor with a bad policy-and under Constantine's Christian successors they fell silent.

92 Richardson's translation, adapted.

93 The text of the law is given by Athanasius in Gelasius of Cyzicus, in HE 2.36.1, and the existence of this law is vouched for in CTh 16.5.66 of 435, August 3.

94 I have not been persuaded by the argument of S. G. Hall, "The Sects under Constantine" in Voluntary Religion: Studies in Church History no. 23 (Blackwell, 1986), 1-13 that this law should be dated to 328 or later.

Page 141

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE MELITIANS AND THE ARIANS

The Donatists were by no means the last schismatics to trouble the Church in the time of Constantine, and after his defeat of Licinius he found himself faced with even more serious problems in the east. The Great Persecution brought to the Church in Egypt troubles similar to those which we have seen already in North Africa. Christians had to decide between martyrdom and some form of escape from it. In Egypt the situation differed from North Africa in that traditores (those who handed over the Scriptures) were not blamed either by Catholics or by rigorists, but in Egypt someone who handed over the Scriptures may not have escaped by doing that, so that the difference may have been one of circumstances rather than policy. 1 In any case, dispute arose over the treatment of those who had sacrificed or taken part in pagan festivals.

Peter of Alexandria had been bishop for three years when the first edict arrived in the spring of 303. He went into hiding. Accounts of his martyrdom say that he went to Palestine, Phoenicia, and Mesopotamia, and this may be true. However, we do not have any information on how long he was away from the neighborhood of Alexandria. In any case, the effects of his policies with regard to the Persecution were felt in the years 303 to 306, and a rigorist bishop of Lycopolis in the Thebaid named Melitius reacted against them. He had replaced Apollonius of Lycopolis, who had sacrificed, and whose people, the governor Arrianus had said to a Christian

1 In ch. 15 of his Martyrdom and Persecution Frend contrasts the approaches of the authorities in the east and west. The accessibility of paper in Egypt may have made a difference.

Page 142

whom he was trying to persuade to sacrifice, "had been most understanding. " 2

Peter's views are presumably reflected in the fourteen canons which he set forth in a circular letter to Egyptian bishops before Easter of 306. 3 1. Those who had given way only under extreme torture, and had been "mourners" for three years already without being admitted to regular penance, might communicate after forty days more of strict fasting. 2. Those who had endured imprisonment might be received after another year's penance. 3. Those who had endured nothing, and lapsed under sheer terror, were to do four years' penance. 4. Lamentation over the lapsed who had not repented. 5. Those who had feigned epilepsy, or promised conformity in writing, or put forward pagans to throw on the incense in their stead, were to do penance for six months more-even though some had already been received into communion by steadfast confessors. 6. Christian slaves of Christian masters who had been forced to face the trial of their masters in their stead, were to "show the works of repentance" for a year. 7. The masters were to repent for three years. 8. Those who had lapsed and returned to the conflict, enduring imprisonment and torture, were to be received joyfully into full communion. 9. Those who voluntarily exposed themselves to the trial are to be received to communion even though such exposure was contrary to Scripture. 10. Clerics who had denounced themselves only to lapse, and had returned to the conflict, might communicate but not officiate. If they had not lapsed their rashness might be excused. 11. Those who voluntarily avowed their own faith in order to encourage their fellow-Christians to persevere to martyrdom were exempt from blame. Requests for prayer on their behalf, if they gave way under imprisonment and torture, were to be granted. 12. Those who paid for indemnity were not to be censured, since they gave up their money to save their souls. 13. Neither should those who fled be blamed, as if they had left others to bear the brunt. 14. Persons compelled by sheer force to sacrifice were to be regarded as confessors, like those whom torture had rendered utterly insensible.

2 R. Williams, Arius, note 40 on p. 259 cites E. A. E. Reymond and J. W. B. Barns, Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices (Oxford, 1973), 147.

3 PG 18.467-508.

Page 143

Behind these canons must have lain instruction to Christians to lie low during the Persecution. Canons 9-11 deal with those who voluntarily exposed themselves to danger, and it is clear that Peter took a dim view of volunteer martyrs, who might worsen matters by irritating the authorities. 4 This sort of instruction must have been published soon after the Persecution began, so that it is not necessary to date the disagreement between Catholics and rigorists to 306, when Peter published his canons. Particular cases would have caused trouble from the beginning. It is also clear that some clerics had followed Peter's example of flight, and had left their congregations to the care of visitors. This too created room for disagreement with those who declared that the clerics should stay at their posts.

Canon 10 may be thought to refute the opinion of Epiphanius, 5derived from Melitian sources, that Peter was in favor of restoring lapsed clerics to their ministry. In fact the canon, like the ones preceding and following it, deals only with persons who had voluntarily denounced themselves. It seems pretty clear from Canon 8 that Peter would have favored the restoration of lapsed clergy who had returned to the conflict and suffered imprisonment and torture. Such a policy is not discreditable, but it obviously leaves room for disagreement by those who say that under no condition shall a lapsed cleric return to his ministry. Epiphanius' opinion is not to be flatly rejected.

Probably before the canons were issued Melitius had set himself against Peter's more lenient policy. In 306 6 four bishops-Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas of Thmuis 7-wrote a letter from prison to Melitius. They address him as their dear fellow minister in the Lord, which shows that at the time of writing there was no open schism, but they

4 On this point see now O. Nicholson, "Flight from Persecution as Imitation of Christ: Lactantius' Divine Institutes IV. 18, 1-2" in JThS 40 (1989), 48-65. Martyrdom was a gift from God. Voluntary martyrdom made you an accomplice in your own murder.

5 Panarion 68.1.1-68.3.4.

6 Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti 22, implies that the Melitian schism began 19 years before the Council of Nicaea.

7 Feb. 4 is given as the day of his martyrdom in Acta Sanctorum, Nov. 22 (1931), 77. That the year was 307 is argued by Lawlor and Oulton in vol. 2 of their edition of Eusebius' HE (London, 1928), 276-277.

Page 144

go on to complain of his having ordained ministers in their dioceses, which have nothing to do with him, without consulting them, and without obtaining permission to ordain from Peter. There was no need to do this, they say, because there were many clerics going about with power to visit congregations, and if these were not doing their job properly, Melitius should have consulted the bishops. The people he was talking to did not come to him because they required ministers, sciebant quod monentes eos ab hac inquisitione aut dimittebamus aut cum omni scrupulositate fiebat quod utile videbatur, sub enim arguente et in manibus probitate constituta cogitabatur. 8Melitius should have refrained from ordaining those with whom, unlike their own bishops, he was not intimately acquainted. The results of his hasty actions have been schisms, since many people are displeased by his ordinations.

The writer of the dossier containing this letter adds the note that after receiving it Melitius did not reply, nor go to the bishops in prison, nor go to Peter, but that when all these bishops, priests, and deacons had been martyred in prison, he immediately entered Alexandria. 9 There he met two malcontents, Isidorus and Arius, 10 who pointed out to him the priests to whom Peter had given authority to visit congregations. Melitius, so the text seems to say, excommunicated these priests, and himself ordained two (priests?), one in the prison and the other in the mines. 11 When Peter learned of this he wrote to the people of Alexandria, telling them not to communicate with Melitius until Peter could meet him, together with wise men, and find out what he was thinking.

8 This Latin defeats me, and I do not know of any attempt to translate it. It may mean something like "They knew that in spite of their warning we either sent them away from this enquiry, or that the decision was made very carefully, with due regard for opposing views and in an upright manner."

9 EOMIA 1.634-636.

10 There is no reliable evidence that this was the Arius of the heresy, and it is easier to ignore that possibility than it is to explain the silence of Athanasius on such a point. See R. Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London, 1987), 34-41.

11 I take it that the translation "for the prison and for the mines" is ruled out by the fact that in his letter to the Alexandrians Peter refers only to the prison as the place where Melitius ordained priests. It would seem that Melitius had not yet gotten to the mines.

Page 145

Peter then returned to Alexandria where he convened some bishops and excommunicated Melitius. 12 Melitius, however, continued his activities, whether actually imprisoned and sent to the mines or going there voluntarily, so that a "Martyrs' Church" arose in Egypt beside the Catholic Church. 13 It continued despite the martyrdom of Peter on November 26 of 311. 14 According to A. Martin, more than half of the bishops in Egypt were Melitians. 15

This division in the Egyptian Church was very serious, but we cannot know whether or not it was as serious as the later troubles of Athanasius with the Melitians lead us to think it was, because the remedies prescribed by the Council of Nicaea in 325 may not have been given a chance to work by Alexander or Athanasius. 16 The situation in Egypt was complicated by the Arian heresy, which cut across the division existing between Melitians and Catholics, and made a divided Church into a fragmented one. The bishop of Alexandria did not have an easy life.

The heresy which takes its name from Arius was one which arose naturally as Christians sought to reconcile monotheism with their worship of Jesus Christ as divine. These two elements "were part of the very fabric of Christianity, and both arose "directly from the earliest Christian tradition. 17 By the third century, attempts at this reconciliation had produced various monarchian theologies (among others), and in particular had resulted in the condemnation of Paul of Samosata by a council at Antioch in 268. Paul seems to have opined that Christ was a mere man in whom the Word acted in an unprecedented degree. The council condemned Paul's use of the word homoousios as descriptive of the relationship between Father and Son. 18 At any rate, theology in the east entered the

12 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 59.1.

13 Epiphanius, Panarion 68.1.4ff.

14 Eusebius, HE 9.6.2; W. Telfer, "St. Peter of Alexandria and Arius" in Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949), 127f.

15 A. Martin, "Athanase et les Mélitiens (325-335)" in Politique et Théologie chez Athanase d' Alexandrie, ed. C. Kannengiesser (Paris, 1974), 33-61, at 33.

16 See below, pp. 212-213; ch. 14.

17 Hanson, Search xx.

18 On Paul see Hanson, Search 193-195; 148.

Page 146

fourth century with the notion well established that God (ho theos) was God the Father. 19 The relationship between the Father and Son remained unsettled, and became controversial.

An attempt to find the origins of Arianism in third-century thinking would be out of place here, and may be of limited usefulness. 20 Arianism can arise at any moment when a Christian confronts the problem of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It results from a natural way (not the best way) of thinking about this problem, and is always widespread. Arians are everywhere, and when a fourth-century bishop says that they are everywhere, we should not be surprised. Readers interested in the origins of Arianism may consult the discussions by Williams and Hanson. 21 I am more interested in the development of Arius' doctrine as the debate went on.

Athanasius persisted throughout his career in writing as if Arius thought to his dying day in 336 everything that he had written in his poems, afterwards called the "Thalia, " 22 which were composed at a very early date in the dispute, and long before the Council of Nicaea. 23 That Athanasius' polemic was readily swallowed by the later orthodox will surprise no one. However, when it is eagerly accepted by later Arians also, such as the fifth-century Eunomian (i.e., extreme Arian) Philostorgius, it can begin to seem more convincing, unless we remember that Philostorgius was eagerly looking for Arian forerunners of his own sect. We should note his wishful thinking (based on Athanasius' contention described above) that the Thalia was produced after Nicaea. 24 He is not a reliable witness for this early period. Our Athanasian tradition regarding Arius is a very hostile one, to be balanced by the documents of the period, and not by appeals to

19 C. Luibhéid, "The Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia" in ITQ 43.1 (1976), 12.

20 Hanson, Search, xx-xxi.

21 R. Williams, Arius; Hanson, Search, 60-98.

22 This title is derived from Athanasius' quotation from the poem in De synodis 15, where he says that Arius wrote "as if in a song for a dinner party." Since this remark was intended as an insult, I think that the title was Athanasius' invention.

23 I judge by the doctrinal content. For the early date of the Thalia see Hanson, Search, 138, referring to Kannengiesser and Lorenz.

24 Philostorgius, HE 2.2.

Page 147

the agreement of someone on the Arian side at a much later date. 25

In studying Constantine's role in the dispute we have to remember that Arius stimulated an ongoing debate, during which people were changing their minds. 26 Even the Council of Nicaea was only a step in this process, not the final solution that so many, led by Athanasius, were prone to think it. For the early years of the dispute I will follow Hanson's account, which is largely based on the chronology of Opitz, 27 but I will cite Opitz' documents as evidence of what Arius and others were thinking at a given point. I realize that Opitz' chronology was attacked by Rowan Williams in 1987, at a time when Hanson could not take account of it, but I have not been persuaded by Williams' arguments for reversing the chronological order of Opitz' documents 4b and 14, Alexander of Alexandria's letters henos sômatos and hé philarchos. 28It seems to me that Alexander's increasing confidence and fullness in hé philarchos reflects a much later stage in the debate, as does his statement at the end of hé philarchos 29that he has found nothing so effective at leading stray laymen back to the fold as the agreement of his brother bishops. This last point, incidentally, seems to me to reflect a period when Alexander has begun to triumph over his foes, namely, the period before the Council of Nicaea. 30

I employ this somewhat cautious procedure because I do not think that Arius was a heretic, and I do not wish to present him as more wedded to his Arian ideas than he was. He invented what turned out to be a heresy, and he was for some years before 325 fairly busy with it, resisting his bishop and seeking support from other bishops. However, when his ideas were declared heretical by the Council of Nicaea in 325, he did not continue, so far as I can see, to develop them. He got back into the

25 See the discussion of Philostorgius below, ch. 11.

26 On Paulinus of Tyre see below.

27 Hanson, Search, 133-138.

28 These arguments have been described as very plausible by Alastair H. B. Logan in his "Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of 325: Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea" in JThS 43.2 (1992), 433.

29 Opitz, Urkunde 14.60.

30 At Urkunde 14.59 Alexander refers to the Arians as exciting a persecution in time of peace, which may mean Licinius' actions against Christians toward the time of his final defeat. For the date of this letter see note 63 below.

Page 148

Church. I take it that Arius did not have the will to be a heretic, and that in the absence of such a will, he could not have been one. The reason why Arians or suspected Arians of the later fourth century knew little or nothing of Arius is that he was not one of them. 31 The narrative that follows is based on Hanson's reconstruction of the course of events, which depends on that of Opitz.

The Thalia of Arius, which presents the view that the Son is mutable, must be dated prior to any of Opitz' documents, except, perhaps, Alexander's letter to the presbyters and deacons of Alexandria and the Mareotis 32 --i.e., to 318. 33 Of the two places where Athanasius quotes the Thalia, namely Oratio I contra Arianos and De synodis, he is more aggressive in the quotations in Or. I Contra Arianos, pressing to their logical conclusion points which Arius had not pressed. We may be sure that if we take this quotation, we have all (and more than all) of Arius' "blasphemy." 34 It may be summarized as follows:

God was not eternally a father. Once he was alone, but then, wishing to make us, he made the Son, the Word, out of nothing. There are two wisdoms of God, the one proper to him, and the Son who has been brought into being through that wisdom. Likewise, the Son also as Word, participates in the word that is God's, by grace and favor. Like all other creatures the Word is mutable. God, knowing that he would go on being good, gave him his glory in anticipation. The Word is not true God, but may be called God. The Word, like all creatures, is unlike the Father's substance and property. The Father is invisible to the Son, who cannot have clear knowledge of Him, but knows Him only according to his own capacity. Moreover, the Son does not know his own substance. The substances of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate in nature, and foreign to each other, infinitely unlike.

31 I am thinking especially of Auxentius of Milan, who was treated in such a boorish manner by Ambrose at the Council of Aquileia in 381. See Hanson, Search, 123-128.

32 Opitz, Urkunde 4a.

33 On the date see R. Lorenz, Ariusjudaizans? (Göttingen, 1980), 49-52.

34 See Hanson, Search, 11-15.

Page 149

In about 318 Alexander of Alexandria learned that Arius, one of his priests, was teaching a doctrine of the Son's relation to the Father that was at variance with his own. He summoned both pro and anti-Arian groups to a discussion. When Arius maintained his views, Alexander called a council of bishops, and eventually asked Arius to sign a confession of his (Alexander's) version of orthodoxy. Arius refused. Alexander excommunicated him, along with many other clergy, including bishops, who followed him. Alexander later wrote a letter to his clergy, 35 in which he reminded them of his earlier letter to the Arians and asked for their concurrence in his excommunication of Arius, his fellow priests Chares and Pistus, and the deacons Sarapion, Parammon, Zosimus, and Irenaeus.

Arius found some support in Alexandria, where he must have been when he wrote the Thalia, and the Arians traveled to obtain more episcopal support. Epiphanius says that Arius went to Palestine. 36 It was presumably during this period that Arius exchanged letters with Eusebius of Nicomedia.

To my lord, the longed-for man faithful to God, the orthodox Eusebius, Arius, unjustly persecuted by Pope Alexander on account of all-conquering truth which you too champion, sends greeting in the Lord.

Since my father Ammonius has arrived in Nicomedia, I thought it reasonable and indeed required of me that I should tell you through him, and at the same time remind you of the innate charity and affection which you bear to the brethren through God and His Christ, that my bishop has vehemently cast me out and persecutes me and moves everything against me, so as to expel us like godless men from the city because we do not agree with what he has publicly declared, namely, that the Son co-exists unbegotten with the Father, is ever in the process of being begotten, is unbegottenly, begotten; God does not precede the Son in existence by one inkling or by one jot; God ever, the Son ever; the Son is from God himself.

35 Opitz, Urkunde 4a.

36Panarion c. 69.3-5.

Page 150

Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus and Paulinus and Athanasius, 37 and Gregory and Aetius and all the easterners say God precedes the Son, and without beginning. Because of this they have been made anathema, that is, with the exception of Philogonius, Hellanicus and Macarius, heretical, ignorant men, one of whom says the Son is an effusion, another that he is an emission (probole), another even that he is co-unbegotten. We could not listen to such impieties, even if the heretics were to threaten us with a thousand deaths.

As for us, what do we say and think, what have we taught and what do we teach? It is that the Son is not unbegotten nor from some substratum (ex hypokeimenou tinos) but that by the Father's will and counsel he existed before time and the ages as God full (of grace and truth), only-begotten, immutable. Before he was begotten or created, purposed or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted for saying the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning. We are also persecuted for saying he is from what is not. This is what we say because he is neither a portion of God nor from some substratum. Hence our persecution. 38

We should note that in this letter Arius, perhaps encouraged by Eusebius of Caesarea, is quite aggressive against those whom he regards as heretics on the other side, and attacks Alexander's statement that the Son is from God himself. What he says suggests that Alexander was not too choosy at this point about either his doctrine or his allies in this dispute. I note also four points in the final paragraph: first, the use of the wordy phrase ''begotten or created, purposed or established" for the simple "made" or "created" of Athanasius' attack; second, Arius' doctrine here of the immutability of the Son; third, Arius' claim that the Son was generated before the ages, in contrast to his view in the Thalia that the generation occurred in time; fourth, his statement that the Son came to be

37 Of Anazarbus.

38 Mostly Luibhéid's translation.

Page 151

from what is not. Athanasius quotes Eusebius as having replied as follows: 39

Yours is a good point of view; pray that all men may adopt it. For it is plain to everyone that that which was made was not, before its coming to be. What came to be has a beginning of being.

These two sentences have usually been read as an endorsement of the whole Arian heresy, but in fact they are restricted to Arius' doctrine that the Son had a beginning. Since Athanasius quotes only this, and since Eusebius was not writing a telegram, Athanasius found remarkably little to object to in his letter. It is important to recognize this, because Athanasius was not trying to spare Eusebius any embarrassment, and may have seriously misrepresented his position.

Arius' campaign met with some success with bishops outside Egypt, including Eusebius of Caesarea, 40 although other bishops opposed him. Opitz dates to 318 a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea to Euphration of Balanea, 41 in which Eusebius insists on the prior existence and superior greatness of the Father, and says that the Son is a god, but not the true God, who has nothing before Him. His letter echoes the concern of Eusebius of Nicomedia about the priority of the Father, and goes further, by accepting the doctrine of Arius' Thalia that the Son was not truly God. These parts of the letter are quite Arian, even if we allow for the fact that they are extracted from the letter as proof of heresy.

In 319, according to Opitz, Alexander sent a letter to all the bishops telling them of the deposition of Arius, and warning them against Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia. 42 He says he had hoped that the controversy would die out, but that the mischievous Eusebius of Nicomedia has supported the apostates, and written letters everywhere on their behalf. He names the

39 Opitz, Urkunde 2; Athanasius, De synodis 17.

40 For the theology of Eusebius in this context (and also of Marcellus of Ancyra), see Colm Luibhéid, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis (Galway, 1981), 128 pp.

41 Opitz, Urkunde 3. The extracts are quoted from the Acta of the second council of Nicaea in 787. See Mansi 13.176.

42 Opitz, Urkunde 4b.

Page 152

clergy excommunicated along with Arius 43 and says that they all had declared at a meeting of the bishops of Egypt and Libya that the Son was created from what was not, and was mutable. Since their excommunication, he concludes, they have been received by Eusebius of Nicomedia and his fellows.

Alexander here attacked the Arianism of the Thalia, which he wrongfully represented Eusebius of Nicomedia as supporting. He went on to refute from Scripture the Arian propositions to his own satisfaction, and then said:

5. By these arguments and references from the sacred Scriptures we frequently overthrew them; but they changed like chameleons ....

He went on to compare Arius to Judas Iscariot, warned his readers against the Arians and Eusebius of Nicomedia, and concluded. 44 Hanson says: 45 "This letter in fact excommunicated Pistus and his group without mentioning them. It was the intervention of Eusebius of Nicomedia which had made this letter necessary." The complaint about the Arians changing like chameleons and shifting their ground may make some readers suspicious of them, but it need indicate nothing more than that Alexander attacked the Thalia and that Arius replied that he had since modified his views. 46Arius may also have been struck by points made by Alexander, presumably on the basis of recent research.

At a council in Bithynia, dated by Opitz c. 320, Arius' views were declared orthodox. The council sought his restoration by Alexander, 47 and

43 They are Achilles, Aeithales, Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime presbyters; Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime deacons; and with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called bishops.

44 Robertson's translation.

45 Search 135, note 21.

46 R. C. Gregg and D. E. Groh, in their Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia, 1981) take a very different view of the subject from that presented here. At pp. 18-21 they argue that Arius meant "mutable" only as "improvable," and thought that Christ after the resurrection was no longer mutable, so that he gave up nothing by dropping this point.

47 Opitz, Urkunde 5.

Page 153

Arius and company sent a letter to Alexander. 48

To our blessed Pope and Bishop Alexander the presbyters and deacons send health in the Lord.

Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee, blessed Pope, is this: We acknowledge one God, alone ingenerate, alone everlasting, alone unbegun, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign; judge, governor, and providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of law and prophets and New Testament; who begot an only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom he has made both the ages and the universe; and begot him, not in substance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue; nor as Manichaeans taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in essence; or as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Sonand-Father; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp divided in two; nor that He who was before, was afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, as thou too thyself, blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church and in session hast often confessed; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times and before ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the fountain of all things. Thus there are three subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is unbegun and altogether sole, but the Son being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before all ages, was not before His generation, but being begotten apart from time before all things,

48 The letter (Opitz, Urkunde 5) is in Athanasius' De Synodis 16. Robertson's translation. Again, Athanasius quotes only part of the letter.

Page 154

alone was made to subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from thy preaching in the midst of the Church. So far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. For He is above Him, as being his God, and before Him. But if the terms "from Him," and "from the womb," and "I came forth from the Father," and "I am come'' (Rom. 11.36; Ps. 110.3; John 16.28) be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, who is the incorporeal God.

It must have been these views rather than those of the Thalia which the council in Bithynia declared orthodox. Here again Arius has no doctrine of the mutability of the Son, whom he declares to be unchangeable, and he backs away somewhat from his earlier claim that the Son was not true God. In contrast to his attack in the letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia on Alexander's view that the Son was from God himself, he here says that the Son has his life and being from the Father. 49He also uses the phrase "begotten" and "created and founded" instead of his earlier "created, 50 and says that the Son was begotten not in substance but in truth. The creation out of what did not exist has disappeared. The Son is now the "perfect creature of God but not as one of the creatures," and begotten before all ages. Arius is quite firm in getting the generation of the Son outside of time. Alexander made no reply to this letter, and the Arians went to Palestine. The words "nor that He who was before, was afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, as thou too thyself, blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church and in session hast often confessed" indicate that

49 C. Stead, "'Eusebius' and the Council of Nicaea" in JThS n.s. 24 (1973), 86.

50 Proverbs 8.22 is behind this, and it may be worth noting that at this stage of the debate it worked against Arius' original position.

Page 155

the bishop too had been having trouble with the problem which Arius was addressing. Clearly Alexander had the common problem of finding it easier to say what orthodoxy was not than what it was. At this stage of the debate one cannot help thinking of Williams' statement that "Assertions like those of Alexander and his supporters reflect a careless and unthinking hermeneutic, unwilling to grapple with the substantive doctrinal problems raised by the scriptural witness as a whole to the relation of God with his Son." 51

At a small council in Palestine, dated by Opitz to 321 or 322, at which Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and Paulinus of Tyre 52 were present, Arius' views (and I mean his current views) were again vindicated, and the bishops wrote to Alexander asking that he be reinstated. By this time Eusebius of Caesarea had written a firm letter to Alexander, of which the following extract, selected for its heresy, has been preserved. 53

Your letters accuse them of saying that the Son came into being from what was not, like one of all the creatures. But they have brought forward their letter which they wrote to you, in which they set forth their faith in these words: "The God of the law and the prophets and the new testament, having begotten His onlybegotten Son before all ages, through whom He made all the ages and all the world, having begotten Him not apparently but truly, and having subjected Him to His own will unchanging and unalterable, the perfect creation of God, but not as one of the creatures." If their letters tell the truth, certainly it is taken from the letter with you, in which they confess the Son of God before all ages, through whom He made the ages, to be unchanging and the perfect creation of God, but not as one of the creatures. But your letter accuses them of saying that the Son came into being like one of the creatures. Since they do not say this, but clearly

51 Williams, Arius, 111.

52 See Arius' remarks on Paulinus in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, above, p.150.

53 Opitz, Urkunde 7. This is extracted from the acts of the second Council of Nicaea in 787 (on Mansi's reckoning).

Page 156

distinguish, saying "not as one of the creatures," consider whether an opportunity has not immediately been given to them to attack and promptly complain of whatever they wish. Again, you accuse them of saying that "He who is begot Him who was not." I wonder whether anyone can say otherwise. For if He who is is one, it is clear that everything that has come into being from Him is after Him. But if He who is is not alone, but the Son also was, then how did He who is beget Him who was? for in that case they who are would be two.

By this letter Alexander got his reward for ignoring Arius' letter to him, and trying to deal with the problem as if nothing had happened since the production of the Thalia. Eusebius has been able here to score his points quite easily. Eusebius of Nicomedia got a copy of this letter, knew that Paulinus of Tyre had not written to Alexander about it, 54 and wrote to him urging him to do so. 55 In the central part of the letter he dealt at length with the theological issue.

We have never heard that there are two unbegotten beings, nor one divided in two. We have never learned nor believed, master, that this being experienced anything corporeal. Rather there is one who is unbegotten and one brought to being by him, not, however, from his own substance. He (i.e. the begotten one) is entirely without share in the unbegotten nature or its substance. He has come into being as one entirely distinct in nature and power. In character and power he is completely like the one who made him. We believe that his beginning is not only inexpressible but is incomprehensible to the intelligence as much of man as of every superior to man. We say this, not by advancing our own process of reasoning, but as things we have learned from holy scripture. We have learned that he was created, established and begotten in respect of his being but of immutable and unspeakable nature like the one who made him.

54 Earlier in the letter he tells Paulinus that he has written nothing, and later in it he urges him to do so.

55 Opitz, Urkunde 8.

Page 157

As the Lord himself said "God created me, the beginning of his ways. Before time he established me. Before the hills he begot me." He would not have been described as created or established if he were from him, that is if he were from him by way of being an effluence of his being. You yourself, my lord, are not unaware of this. For that which proceeds from the unbegotten would neither be created nor established either by him or by another since he would come forth as one who was begotten from the beginning.

But if the description of him as begotten gives some grounds for saying that he came to be from the being of his father and has thereby the same nature, we recognize that scripture does not speak of him alone as begotten but also of things entirely dissimilar to him by nature. Of man it is said: "I have begotten and brought up sons and they have rebelled against me" and "You have forgotten the God who begot you" and elsewhere "Who begot the drops of dew?" This is not the description of a nature derived from the divine nature but rather of the fact that everything was formed according to his will. There is nothing which is formed of his substance. Each and every thing, in coming into being, has done so by his will. He is God, and as for likeness to him all things would be so through a logos, and all would come to be by his will. All things were made by God through the Son. All things are from God . .56

In his discussion of this letter Colm Luibhéid argued persuasively that Eusebius, working in a tradition in which God (ho theos) was God the Father, was trying to deal with the problem raised by Arius of the priority of the Father. Eusebius differs noticeably from Arius in asserting that the beginning of the Son is inexpressible and incomprehensible, whereas Arius had simply said that He was created out of nothing. Clearly it was Eusebius who had earlier persuaded Arius to drop the view that the Son was created out of what was not. 57

56 Luibhéid's translation.

57 See Hanson, Search 8; 24; 37.

Page 158

A few brief scraps of Paulinus can be extracted from the quotations by Eusebius of Caesarea of Marcellus of Ancyra's work against Asterius. 58 These show Paulinus as concerned to state that the Father is Father without distinction or division of the Son, and as referring to the Son sometimes as a second or more manlike God, sometimes as a more recent God, sometimes as a creature. Paulinus would seem to have been about as Arian as Eusebius of Caesarea, but to have kept, quite wisely, a lower profile in the dispute. Since he signed the provisional excommunication of Eusebius by the council held by Ossius at Antioch in 325, he was a persuadable character rather than a reliable Arian. His decision at that council should warn us of the difference that might occur between a bishop's doctrine in isolation and what he decided when he was talking with his brother bishops, and of the fluidity of doctrine at this stage of the debate.

We can now see how Arianism fared in the hands of the eastern bishops who took up Arius' cause. It may have been Eusebius of Caesarea who persuaded Arius to drop the doctrine of the mutability of the Son. 59 Since this doctrine does not appear in Athanasius' quotation in De synodis, Williams is surely right in arguing that it was not one of Arius' central concerns. 60 Eusebius may also have persuaded him to lean more to "begotten" than to "created" as the means whereby the Father brought the Son into being. Eusebius of Nicomedia endorsed this tendency, with his use of "created, established and begot" and his argument that the begetting of the Son was "inexpressible," and his attention to Proverbs 8:22 disposed of Arius' idea that the Son was begotten in time. By this time we may suppose that Arius had dropped the creation of the Son out of what did not exist. Furthermore, Eusebius of Nicomedia seems to be responsible for Arius' change to "perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures,'' for in this letter (i.e., the letter to Paulinus of Tyre) he "entirely dissociates

58 Opitz, Urkunde 9. These extracts are to be found on pp. 21 and 28 of the edition of Eusebius' Contra Marcellum by E. Klostermann (Eusebius' Werke, vol. 4 in GCS of 1906), which was revised with unchanged pagination by G. C. Hansen (GCS of 1972). They are Contra Marcellum 1.4.18-20; 1.4.49; 1.4.50; 1.4.51. On the subject of Asterius here see W. Kinzig, In Search of Asterius (Göttingen, 1990), esp. p. 18.

59 Arius could have dropped it himself.

60 Arius, 104-105. See note 42 above.

Page 159

the Word from mankind." 61 Eusebius of Caesarea appears to have accepted that view, so that when the bishops met in Palestine, they agreed on the basis of Arius' letter to Alexander that Arius was orthodox. I note that in that letter Arius says that the begetting of the Son was an act of will by the Father, and that this differs from Eusebius of Nicomedia's letter to Paulinus of Tyre, which declares the Son's begetting "inexpressible and incomprehensible." 62 These bishops presumably thought that orthodoxy was not to be defined within very narrow limits. In any case, it is a considerable distance from Athanasius' quotation of the Thalia to Arius' letter to Alexander, and it is that letter, or something even closer to the later orthodoxy, that the bishops agreed on in 322. The point that Arius and the two Eusebii could not get over was that in a theology in which ho theos is the Father, He must somehow precede the Son. There were other consequences of that view which seem to have been regarded as debatable. So far as I can see, Alexander's doctrine on this point was not particularly helpful, but his scriptural attack on the Thalia was impressive, for this stage in the debate. Eusebius of Nicomedia seems to me to have been some sort of subordinationist, rather than an Arian, and Arius himself seems to have been willing to accept quite a bit of alteration to the doctrines of the Thalia as he went through these eastern councils.

At this point Licinius' ban on meetings of bishops supervened, and the whole question could no longer be dealt with by councils.

In the meantime, as appears from Alexander's very long letter to Alexander of Byzantium, 63Alexander went right on attacking the Thalia, as if nothing had happened. "God, they say, created all things out of that which was non-existent, and they include in the number of the creatures, both rational and irrational, even the Son of God. Consistently with this doctrine they, as a necessary consequence, affirm that He is by nature liable to change, and capable both of virtue and vice .. ." Alexander goes on to an impressive argument from Scripture against Arian views. Toward the

61 G.C. Stead, in his review of Gregg and Groh, Early Arianism in JThS 33 (1982), 285-289, at p. 288.

62 Luibhéid's argument will be discussed below.

63 Opitz, Urkunde 14. On the addressee see Barnes CE 206 and n. 151. Opitz followed Schwartz in dating this letter to 324, but it had to be written before the death of Philogonius of Antioch on Dec. 20 of 323. (I owe this date to Richard Burgess.)

Page 160

end of the letter he turns to Arius' argument about the priority of the Father.

These inventors of silly tales assert that we, who reject their impious and unscriptural blasphemy concerning the creation of Christ from the non-existent, teach that there are two unbegotten beings. For these ill-instructed men contend that one of these alternatives must hold; either He must be believed to have come out of the non-existent, or there are two unbegotten Beings. In their ignorance and want of practice in theology they do not realize how vast must be the distance between the Father who is uncreate, and the creatures, whether rational or irrational, which He created out of the non-existent; and that the only-begotten nature of Him Who is the Word of God, by Whom the Father created the universe out of the non-existent, standing, as it were, in the middle of the two, was begotten of the self-existent Father, as the Lord Himself testified when He said, "Every one that loveth the Father, loveth also the Son that is begotten of Him."

We believe, as is taught by the apostolical Church, in an only unbegotten Father, Who of His being hath no cause, immutable and invariable, and Who subsists always in one state of being, admitting neither of progression nor of diminution; Who gave the law, and the prophets, and the gospel; of patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints, Lord: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the onlybegotten Son of God, begotten not out of that which is not, but of the Father, Who is; yet not after the manner of material bodies, by severance or emanation, as Sabellius and Valentinus taught; but in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner according to the saying which we quoted above, "Who shall declare His generation?" since no mortal intellect can comprehend the nature of His Person, as the Father Himself cannot be comprehended, because the nature of reasonable beings is unable to grasp the manner in which He was begotten of the Father.

In spite of his earlier attack on the Thalia, Alexander here brazenly incorporates views from Arius' letter to him, and from Eusebius of Nicomedia's letter to Paulinus of Tyre. He continues.

Page 161

... We have learnt that the Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, lacking only His "unbegotten." He is the exact and precisely similar image of His Father. For it is clear that the image fully contains everything by which the greater likeness exists, as the Lord taught us when He said, "My Father is greater than I." And in accordance with this we believe that the Son always existed of the Father; for he is the "brightness of His glory." and the express ''image of His Father's Person." But let no one be led by the word "always" to imagine that the Son is unbegotten, as is thought by some who have their intellects blinded: for to say that He was, that He has always been, and that before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten.

The mind of man could not possibly invent a term expressive of what is meant by being unbegotten. I believe that you are of this opinion; and, indeed, I feel confident in your orthodox view that none of these terms in any way signifies the unbegotten. For all the terms appear to signify merely the extension of time, and are not adequate to express the divinity and, as it were, the primaeval being of the only-begotten Son. They were used by the holy men who earnestly endeavored to clear up the mystery, and who asked pardon from those who heard them, with a reasonable excuse for their failure, by saying "as far as our comprehension has reached." But if those who allege that what was "known in part" has been "done away" for them, expect from human lips anything beyond human powers, it is plain that the terms "was" and "ever" and "before all ages" fall far short of this expectation. But whatever they may mean, it is not the same as "the unbegotten." Therefore His own individual dignity must be reserved to the Father as the Unbegotten One, no one being called the cause of His existence: to the Son likewise must be given the honor which befits Him, there being to him a generation from the Father which has no beginning; we must render Him worship, as we have already said, only piously and religiously ascribing to Him the "was" and the "ever" and the "before all ages;" not, however, rejecting His divinity, but ascribing to Him a perfect likeness in all things to His Father, while at the same time we

Page 162

ascribe to the Father alone His own proper glory of "the unbegotten," even as the Savior himself says, "My Father is greater than I." 64

There were fourth-century clerics who did not feel that this was a perfect solution to the problem which Arius had addressed. Alexander is still saying that the Son "stands in the middle" between the Father and the creatures, while denying Him a beginning of being, so that he shared the conviction that ho theos was God the Father. "With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355. Subordinationism might, indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." 65It was another, and conflicting, strain in Alexander's thought-his insistence on the equal status of the Son-that was to triumph at Nicaea.

64 The translation of this letter, from Theodoret HE 1.4.44-52 is that of Blomfield Jackson in LNPF² vol. 3.

65 Hanson, Search, 83.

Page 163

CHAPTER NINE

PREPARATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL

At the end of Book Two of the VC Eusebius has eleven chapters on Constantine's first attempt to settle the Arian controversy. Chapter 63 introduces a quotation in chapters 64-72 of a long letter of Constantine to Alexander and Arius, which is followed by concluding remarks in chapter 73. This letter has long been central to the discussion of Constantine, because it contains many remarks which indicate a lack of understanding of the nature or importance of the dispute, and stresses the emperor's desire for unity of all Christians-a desire which he urges the disputants to share. It has therefore provided much evidence to support the view that the emperor's religion was very strongly influenced by political considerations, and also the view that he had no understanding of the theological argument involved. It follows naturally on the presentation of the emperor as a military man converted to Christianity by an event in 312, who has since that time learned very little about the religion, and it precedes naturally a discussion of Constantine's actions regarding the Arian controversy in which he appears now on one side, now on the other, as it suits his political interest. Most scholars have taken the document to be both genuine and a sincere expression of the emperor's views, although there has been some dissent on both points. The question of the extent to which the letter expresses the emperor's views is complicated at the outset by the fact that Eusebius' presentation of the letter is not trustworthy. His introductory and concluding chapters are as follows:

(63) As soon as the emperor was informed of these facts, which

Page 164

he heard with much sorrow of heart, considering them in the light of a calamity personally affecting himself, he forthwith selected from the Christians in his train 1 one whom he well knew to be approved for the sobriety and genuineness of his faith, and who had before this time distinguished himself by the boldness of his religious profession, and sent him to negotiate peace between the dissentient parties at Alexandria. He also made him the bearer of a most needful and appropriate letter to the original movers of the strife: and this letter, as exhibiting a specimen of his watchful care over God's people, it may be well to introduce into this our narrative of his life. Its purport was as follows.

(73) In this manner the pious emperor endeavored by means of the foregoing letter to promote the peace of the Church of God. And the man to whom it was intrusted performed his part not merely by communicating the letter itself, but also by seconding the views of him who sent it well and truly; for he was, as I have said, in all respects a person of pious character. The evil, however, was greater than could be remedied by a single letter, insomuch that the acrimony of the contending parties continually increased, and the effects of the mischief extended to all the Eastern provinces. These things jealousy and some evil spirit who looked with an envious eye on the prosperity of the Church, wrought.

Now, it happens that we know from Athanasius that the messenger who carried the letter, and whom Eusebius does not name, was Ossius. 2 This means that Eusebius' praise of the messenger in chapter 73 is fraudulent, because Eusebius knew perfectly well that Ossius had not acted

1 Does tôn amph' auton imply that Eusebius knew that Constantine was on the move at the time?

2 Apologia contra Arianos 74.4; 76.3; Socrates, HE 1.7; Sozomen, HE 1.16.5. In arguing that the messenger was the notarius Marianus, B. H. Warmington neglected the Athanasius passages in "The Sources of Some Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine" in Studia Patristica 18.1 (Oxford, 1983), 93-98.

Page 165

as a peacemaker on this expedition. This is demonstrated by the synodal letter of a council which met at Antioch early in 325, after Ossius had been to Alexandria, and before the Council of Nicaea. 3 Signed by Ossius and fifty-five other bishops, and addressed to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium (now New Rome), 4 it continues as follows:

Since the Catholic Church is one body everywhere, and the churches, though they be in various places, are as limbs of the one body, it is proper for you, beloved, to know what was discussed and enacted by me and our holy brethren, your likeminded fellow-servants, in order that you too may speak as one present in the spirit with us, and may give instructions concerning what we have determined and done soundly and in accordance with Church canons. For having arrived at Antioch and seen the Church greatly disturbed by tares on account of the teaching of some persons and of strife, it seemed best to me not to expel and ward off such a thing by myself, but rather that it was necessary to summon, concerning an urgent matter and one most necessary to our brethren, our like-minded fellow-servants from the surrounding area-those of Palestine and Arabia and Phoenicia and Coele-Syria and Cilicia and some of those of Cappadocia-so that when we had resolved and arranged matters together, we might set the affairs of the Church in good order. For the city is inhabited by many righteous folk.

Accordingly, when the grace of God had brought us together for our sojourn in Antioch, and we had become occupied with those things which are normal and helpful and useful to the Church of God, we found considerable disorder, especially in that in many respects during the intervening period Church discipline and the

3 Translation of Opitz, Urkunde 18, being a translation of the translation of the document by E. Schwartz from Syriac into Greek. The historical circumstances have been discussed, and the creed in the document translated into English, by J. N. D. Kelly in his Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (New York: Longman, 1982), 205-211 Kelly's translation is reprinted with the permission of the Longman Group.

4 Barnes CE 206 and note 151.

Page 166

canons had been disregarded, despised, and made completely inoperative by worldly men. Since any council of bishops had been prevented from meeting in these parts, it seemed best to consider first the most weighty and important matter, or rather the entire revelation of our faith, namely, the doctrine concerning our Savior, the Son of the living God. For since our brother and fellow-servant, the honored and beloved Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, had excommunicated some of his priests associated with Arius for the blasphemy which they had directed against our Savior, even though they had been able to delude some people so far by their impious teaching as to be received into communion by them, on this account it seemed best to the holy synod to consider this first, so that when we had disposed of the chief doctrinal issue as best we could, all the other particulars might be duly arranged. So then, when we had met together with some of our learned brothers and had had a long discussion regarding the faith of the Church which we have been taught by the Scriptures and the Apostles and have received from the fathers, we brought forward the actions of Alexander the bishop of Alexandria against those with Arius, so that if any persons appear to have been corrupted by teaching opposite to this and have themselves become foreign to the Church, they may not be able, by remaining inside, to drag down some of the simpler brethren.

Accordingly the faith, which was set forth by men inspired, whom it would be wrong to consider as living or thinking according to the flesh, but rather to have been trained in the holy writings of the divinely-inspired books, is this: that we believe in one God, Father, almighty, incomprehensible, immutable and unchangeable, protector and ruler of the universe, just, good, the maker of heaven and earth and of all things in them, the Lord of the law and the prophets and of the new covenant; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son, begotten not from that which does not exist, but of the Father, not as something made but as properly an offspring, begotten in a manner which is

Page 167

ineffable and indescribable, 5 since only the Father who begot and the Son who was begotten know it. And no one knows the Father except the Son, or the Son, who existed always and was not earlier not in existence, except the Father. For we have learned from the Holy Scriptures that He alone is the image, not (clearly) as if he might have remained unbegotten of the Father, and not by adoption (for it is impious and blasphemous to say this); but the Scriptures say that He was begotten properly and truly as Son, so that we believe Him immutable and unalterable, and not begotten or brought into existence by an act of will or by adoption, so that it could appear that He came into existence out of that which did not exist, but rather that He was begotten as befitted Him, and not, as it is not lawful to think, according to likeness or nature or commixture with any of the things which came into being through Him; but in a way which passes all understanding or conception or reasoning we confess that He was begotten of the unbegotten Father, the divine Logos, the true light, righteousness, Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of all. For He is not the image of the will or of anything else, but of the very substance of the Father. This Son, the divine Logos, having been born in flesh from Mary the Mother of God and made incarnate, having suffered and died, rose from the dead and was taken up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Majesty most high, and is coming to judge the living and the dead. Furthermore, as in our Savior, the Holy Scriptures teach us to believe also in one Spirit, one Catholic Church, the resurrection of the dead, a judgment in requital for what we have done of good or ill in the flesh. And we anathematize those who say or think or proclaim that the Son of God is a creature or has come into being or has been made and not truly begotten, or that there was when He was notfor we believe that He was and is, and that He is lightand moreover we anathematize also those who think that He is immutable by His

5 This is the phrase used by Eusebius of Nicomedia in his letter to Paulinus of Tyre.

Page 168

own act of will, 6 just as those who derive His birth from that which does not exist and deny that He is immutable as having his Father's nature. For as our Savior is the image of the Father in all respects, so He was proclaimed to be the Father's image especially in this one.

Accordingly this creed was set down and the entire holy synod agreed and confessed that this was the apostolic and saving teaching. Only Theodotus of Laodicaea and Narcissus of Neronias and Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, as if they had forgotten the Holy Scriptures and the apostolic teaching, and indeed having tried by many devices to escape notice and to conceal the errors of them (i.e., the Arians) by specious arguments, nevertheless were seen to have introduced beliefs opposite to these set down. And clearly, as a result of what they were asked and of what they answered, they were convicted of sharing the opinions of those with Arius, and of thinking the opposite of what we had agreed on. Wherefore, since they were so obstinate and did not have reverence for the advice and disapproval of the holy synod, all of us fellow-servants in the synod determined not to communicate with them, nor to consider them worthy of communion with us, because their faith is foreign to that of the Catholic Church. And in order that you may know, we are writing to you so that you too may refrain from communion with them and writing to them and receiving letters of communion from them. And know this, that because of the great brotherly love of the synod we have given to them an opportunity to change their minds and recognize the truth at the great and holy synod at Ancyra. Accordingly, hasten to send this on to our like-minded brethren, that they too may be able to learn of these things and to know who are the apostates from the Church who have not agreed. Greet all the brethren with and near you. We and our brethren with us greet you.

6 This point is discussed by R. C. Gregg and D. Groh in Early Arianism: A View of Salvation, (Philadelphia, 1981), 19-24.

Page 169

It appears that between his trips to Alexandria and Nicaea Ossius stopped for yet another council in Antioch, which he had summoned while he was there with Constantine in December, and at which he, as president, examined Eusebius, provisionally excommunicated him, and took him along to Nicaea to have him required either to change his theology or to have his excommunication confirmed. This presents a problem, in that Eusebius was not so much devoted to Arianism or so blind to his own interests as to be unable to subscribe this creed and thus escape from the council. 7 How were he and Narcissus and Theodotus trapped? The answer is presumably to be sought in the sentence of Narcissus quoted by Marcellus in Eusebius' Contra Marcellum 1.4.39, 8 where Narcissus answers Ossius asking him if he believed, like Eusebius, that there were two ousiai in God with the statement that he believed.that there were three. Recently A. H. B. Logan has posed the question "Where did Ossius get the idea of questioning the bishops in this way?" 9 and has answered that the anti-Origenistic attitude of the question, like the venue for the upcoming council, points to Marcellus of Ancyra, whose views were shared by Eustathius, now of Antioch. Before the council at Antioch Marcellus had been involved in a propaganda fight with Arians like Eusebius of Caesarea visiting Ancyra. 10 He knew how to expose Eusebius' heresy (as he saw it), and had probably communicated his knowledge to Ossius. 11

Because of the attitude expressed in Constantine's letter to Alexander and Arius, there has been more than a little doubt about Constantine's knowledge of Ossius' policy and activities.12 On this point it is necessary to quote part of a letter which Constantine wrote to the people of

7 But see T. E. Pollard, "Eusebius of Caesarea and the Synod of Antioch (324/25)" in Texte und Untersuchungen 125 (1981), 457-464.

8 Opitz, Urkunde 19. See Hanson, Search 45.

9 Alastair H. B. Logan, "Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of 325: Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea" in JThS 43.2 (1992), 428-446.

10art. cit., 436-439.

11 Perhaps Ossius and Constantine had gone through Ancyra on their way from Nicomedia to Antioch. Marcellus' theology is well discussed by Colm Luibhéid, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis (Galway, 1981), 64-97.

12 See, e.g., H. Chadwick, "Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, 325" in JThS n.s. 9.2 (1958), 292-304.

Page 170

Nicomedia a few months after the Council of Nicaea, explaining to them why he had banished their bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia.

I had some Alexandrian heretics sent here because the flames of discord had been stirred up by their efforts. But these fine bishops, whom once the truth of the synod had preserved for repentance, not only received them and kept them safe in their houses, but also shared in their wickedness. For this reason I decided thus concerning these ingrates; I ordered them taken off to exile as far away as possible. 13

Because Constantine had already exiled two Arian bishops after the Council of Nicaea, there has been some doubt about the identity of the heretics mentioned in this letter. Were they Arians, or, as Barnes suggests, 14 Melitians or Colluthians? The question of their identity is settled by a letter which Constantine wrote at the same time to Theodotus of Laodicaea, who was one of the bishops excommunicated along with Eusebius of Caesarea by Ossius' council at Antioch.

Victor Constantine Augustus to Theodotus.

How great the strength of the divine wrath has become. It is easy even for you to learn from what both Eusebius and Theognius have suffered who, defiling the most holy religion, sullied the Savior God's name by their own band of robbers even after they had gained pardon. For when, especially after the synod's consentient harmony it was necessary that they should correct their earlier error, then they were caught persisting in the same absurdities. On this account, then, Divine Providence has expelled them from its own people. Since it did not endure to see

13 My translation. The passage is at the end of the letter as quoted by Gelasius in HE 3, Suppl. 1 and Theodoret, HE, 1.20, 1-10: this = Opitz, Urkunde 27.15-16. Rufinus, HE 1.1 (PL 21. 467-468), says that Constantine commanded Arius to be present at Nicaea.

14 Barnes (CE 217; 226) depended on Opitz, Urkunde 23.4f. and Philostorgius HE 1.9c; 10 for his view that Arius was already in exile, but there were other Alexandrians involved.

Page 171

guileless souls corrupted by a few persons' senselessness and now has demanded proper punishment from them and will exact even greater thereafter throughout all time.

Therefore I have thought that it ought to be made manifest to your Sagacity that, if any evil advice of such persons-as I myself do not suppose-should settle in your disposition, you, after having removed this from your mind, should be zealous to show pure thought-as is proper-and sincere consecration and undefiled faith in the Savior God. For this is a proper course of action for one who would desire to be deemed worthy of the eternal life's inviolate rewards.

May God guard you, beloved brother. 15

The references to their having ''sullied the Savior God's name" and "cleaving to their absurdities" must refer to some form of Arianism, and shows that the people with whom Eusebius and Theognis were associating were suspected of Arianism.

I return now to VC 2.63-73, especially to Eusebius' treatment of Ossius in chapter 73, which requires explanation. It is not simply a case of astonishing flattery of the western bishop who had handled him so roughly. His statement that the messenger acted in accordance with the neutral views expressed in the letter is false, and he knew that it was false.

The immediate purpose of Eusebius' statements about the messenger was clearly to misrepresent the conduct of Ossius as being in accord with the views expressed in the letter. He did not do that in order to improve the reputation of Ossius.16He must have done it to confirm the letter's presentation of Constantine as a neutral, because he knew that that was going to seem odd.17 This suggests that the views expressed in the letter

15 Coleman-Norton's translation.

16 He might cheerfully have presented Ossius as going beyond his commission. The co-operation of the two at Nicaea apparently made any such presentation incredible.

17 Of the twenty-two documents issued by Constantine regarding the Church in the East, Eusebius published fourteen, omitting all those in which the emperor attacked Arianism. See P. S. Davies, "Constantine's Editor" in JThS 42.2 (1991), 610-618, at 616.

Page 172

were not the views of Constantine. The text should be carefully examined.

(64) Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Alexander and Arius.

I call that God to witness, as well I may, who is the helper of my endeavors, and the Preserver of all men, that I had a twofold reason for undertaking the duty which I have now performed.

(65) My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments formed by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, secondly, to restore to health the body, as it were, of the whole world, then suffering from a grievous wound. Keeping these objects in view, I was reasoning about the one with the secret eye of thought, while the other I tried to rectify by the power of military authority. For I was aware that, if I should succeed in establishing according to my hopes, a common harmony of sentiment among all the servants of God, the general course of affairs would also experience a change correspondent to the pious desires of them all.

(66) Finding, then, that the whole of Africa was pervaded by an intolerable spirit of mad folly, through the influence of those who with heedless frivolity had presumed to rend the religion of the people into diverse sects; I was anxious to check this disorder, and could discover no other remedy equal to the occasion, except in sending some of yourselves to aid in restoring mutual harmony among the disputants, after I had removed the common enemy of mankind who had interposed his lawless sentence for the prohibition of your holy synods.

(67) For since the power of Divine light, and the law of sacred worship, which, proceeding in the first instance, through the favor of God, from the bosom, as it were, of the East, have illumined the world, by their sacred radiance, I naturally believed that you would be the first to promote the salvation of other nations, and resolved with all energy of thought and diligence of enquiry to seek your aid. As soon, therefore, as I had secured

Page 173

my decisive victory and unquestionable triumph over my enemies, my first enquiry was concerning that object which I felt to be of paramount interest and importance.

(68) But, O glorious Providence of God! how deep a wound did not my ears only, but my very heart receive in the report that divisions existed among yourselves more grievous still than those which continued in that country! so that you, through whose aid I had hoped to procure a remedy for the errors of others, are in a state which needs healing even more than theirs. And yet, having made a careful enquiry into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find the cause to be of a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy of such fierce contention. Feeling myself, therefore, compelled to address you in this letter, and to appeal at the same time to your unanimity and sagacity, I call on Divine Providence to assist me in the task, while I interrupt your dissension in the character of a minister of peace. And with reason: for if I might expect, with the help of a higher Power, to be able without difficulty, by a judicious appeal to the pious feelings of those who heard me, to recall them to a better spirit, even though the occasion of the disagreement were a greater one, how can I refrain from promising myself a far easier and more speedy adjustment of this difference, when the cause which hinders general harmony of sentiment is intrinsically trifling and of little moment?

(69) I understand, then, that the origin of the present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, or rather, what each thought about an unprofitable question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on what ought never to have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, and the holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved the unity of the one body. Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree of forbearance, and receive the advice which your

Page 174

fellow-servant righteously gives. What then is this advice? It was wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, or to reply to them when propounded. For those points of discussion which are enjoined by the authority of no law, but rather suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused leisure, even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly entrusted to the general ear. For how very few are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one were thought fully competent for this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again, in dealing with questions of such subtle nicety as these, can secure himself against such a dangerous declension from the truth? It is incumbent therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest, in case we ourselves are unable, through the feebleness of our natural faculties, to give a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness of our hearers' understandings disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people may be reduced to the alternative either of blasphemy or schism.

(70) Let therefore both the unguarded question and the inconsiderate answer receive your mutual forgiveness. For the cause of your difference has not been any of the leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has any new heresy respecting the worship of God arisen among you. You are in truth of one and the same judgment: you may therefore well join in communion and fellowship.

(71) For as long as you continue to contend about these small and very insignificant questions, it is not fitting that so large a portion of God's people should be under the direction of your judgment, since you are thus divided between yourselves. I believe it indeed to be not merely unbecoming, but positively

Page 175

evil, that such should be the case. But I will refresh your minds by a little illustration, as follows. You know that philosophers, though they all adhere to one system, are yet frequently at issue on certain points, and differ, perhaps, in their degree of knowledge: yet they are recalled to harmony of sentiment by the uniting power of their common doctrines. If this be true, is it not far more reasonable that you, who are the ministers of the Supreme God, should be of one mind respecting the profession of the same religion? But let us still more thoughtfully and with closer attention examine what I have said, and see whether it be right that, on the ground of some trifling and foolish verbal difference between ourselves, brethren should assume towards each other the attitude of enemies, and the august meeting of the Synod be rent by profane disunion, because of you who wrangle together on points so trivial and altogether unessential? This is vulgar, and rather characteristic of childish ignorance, than consistent with the wisdom of priests and men of sense. Let us withdraw ourselves with a good will from these temptations of the devil. Our great God and common Savior of all has granted the same light to us all. Permit me, who am his servant, to bring my task to a successful issue, under the direction of his Providence, that I may be enabled, through my exhortations, and diligence, and earnest admonition, to recall his people to communion and fellowship. For since you have, as I said, but one faith, and one sentiment respecting our religion, and since the Divine commandment in all its parts enjoins on us all the duty of maintaining a spirit of concord, let not the circumstance which has led to a slight difference between you, since it does not affect the validity of the whole, cause any division or schism among you. And this I say without in any way desiring to force you to entire unity of judgment in regard to this truly idle question, whatever its real nature may be. For the dignity of your synod may be preserved, and the communion of your whole body maintained unbroken, however wide a difference may exist among you as to unimportant matters. For we are not all of us like-minded on every subject, nor is there such a thing as one disposition and judgment common to all alike. As far, then, as

Page 176

regards the Divine Providence, let there be one faith, and one understanding among you, one united judgment in reference to God. But as to your subtle disputations on questions of little or no significance, though you may be unable to harmonize in sentiment, such differences should be consigned to the secret custody of your own minds and thoughts. And now, let the preciousness of common affection, let faith in the truth, let the honor due to God and to the observance of his law continue immovably among you. Resume, then, your mutual feelings of friendship, love, and regard: restore to the people their wonted embracings; and do ye yourselves, having purified your souls, as it were, once more acknowledge one another. For it often happens that when a reconciliation is effected by the removal of the causes of enmity, friendship becomes even sweeter than it was before.

(72) Restore me then my quiet days, und untroubled nights, that the joy of undimmed light, the delight of a tranquil life, may henceforth be my portion. Else must I needs mourn, with constant tears, nor shall I be able to pass the residue of my days in peace. For while the people of God, whose fellow-servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquility of mind? And I will give you a proof how great my sorrow has been on this behalf. Not long since I had visited Nicomedia, and intended forthwith to proceed from that city to the East. It was while I was hastening towards you, and had already accomplished the greater part of the distance, that the news of this matter reversed my plan, that I might not be compelled to see with my own eyes that which I felt myself scarcely able even to hear. Open then for me henceforward by your unity of judgment that road to the regions of the East which your dissensions have closed against me, and permit me speedily to see yourselves and all other peoples rejoicing together, and render due acknowledgment to God in the language of praise and thanksgiving for the restoration of general concord and liberty to all.

Page 177

There is general agreement that Constantine's insistence in the letter that the dispute was over a matter of no great importance is completely unrealistic.18 However, he might well have wished to minimize the parties' differences, 19 and there is a long scholarly tradition of supposing that he had little interest in theology. Nevertheless, the letter has presented serious problems for those who think that it expresses Constantine's views. Tillemont was troubled by the claim that Constantine was ignorant of the controversy until just before the time when the letter was written, 20 and other scholars have felt the same way. 21 Batiffol went further and concluded that the letter was not authentic. 22His five reasons for this were 1) that Constantine, having accorded toleration to the Donatists, had no wish in 324 to reopen that question; 2) that Constantine's account of the origins of the dispute is a caricature; 3) that the importance of the questions raised is played down to an absurd degree; 4) that the recommendation that the two parties imitate philosophers in disagreeing agreeably is absurd in the Church context, since it implicitly allows any heresy; 23 5) that the conclusion about all the tears that the dispute has caused the emperor is childish. In Batiffol's time it was fashionable to regard many Constantinian documents as forgeries. It seems that, when that was no longer the case, most people stopped noticing that Batiffol's points are indications either of forgery or of insincerity on the part of the writer, and that the second possibility needed thorough consideration. So far as I know, only Lietzmann regarded the letter as a careful deception. He argued that Constantine's letter of 325 to the Christians of Nicomedia showed that

18 In CE 378 (note 32 to p. 213) Barnes objects to the view of A. H. M. Jones, in C&C 144, that Constantine could not understand the metaphysical subtleties involved. Cf. C. N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (Oxford, 1944), 210.

19 Barnes, CE, 213.

20 L. S. Lenain de Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir l'histoire ecclésiastique des vi premiers siècles, tom. vi (second edition, Paris, 1704), the note at pp. 737-740, esp. 738.

21 W. Telfer, "When Did the Arian Controversy Begin?" in JTS 47 (1946), 129.

22 P. Batiffol, La paix constantinienne et le catholicisme (second edition, Paris, 1914), 314-317.

23 I would add that it is also very unlike what Constantine says about the disputes of philosophers in his Speech to the assembly of the saints, chapter 9 init.

Page 178

when Constantine wrote this letter to Alexander and Arius he had already decided to "abandon" Arius. 24 The logic of Lietzmann's argument is correct, and, as we have seen, the Alexandrian heretics to whom Constantine referred in that letter were Arians.

I take it that they were (some of) those mentioned in Alexander's letter to the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis announcing his deposition of Arius and others. 25 Of these, Secundus and Theonas declared themselves completely intransigent at the Council of Nicaea. 26 As bishops they were required to subscribe the formula or be exiled. The other clerics were not in that situation. They had been deposed and excommunicated by their own bishop, whose action had been affirmed by the Council. They presumably had not declared an intent to go back to Alexandria and make trouble for Alexander, for they now lacked the essential episcopal support. It was neither necessary nor desirable to exile them, along with every other Arian priest or deacon. 27 It was to be hoped that they would bow to authority and recant. 28

24 H. Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, translated by B. Woolf (London, 1961, repr. 1967) vol. 3, 115. The word "abandon" might be taken to imply that Constantine had had some association with Arius. None is known.

25 Above, p. 149, discussing Opitz, Urkunden 4a and 4b.6. Euzoius was certainly in exile with Arius (Opitz, Urkunde 30).

26 Cf. Philostorgius, HE 1.9-10 and H. Chadwick, "Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea" in HTR 53 (1960), 171-195.

27 In 1.9 Philostorgius is reported to have said that the rest of the Arians defected to the Council's view, leaving only Secundus and Theonas as holdouts. I take it, therefore, that his statement as reported by Nicetas that all the clerics were exiled together was mistaken, or that something has happened in the transmission of it. He had no motive for a falsehood, because he expressed his disapproval of the Arians who deserted. One explanation of the possible discrepancy between Philostorgius and Constantine on this point is that Philostorgius (or Nicetas) used the word hama in a restricted sense such as "along with," in order to convey the idea that all these Arians wound up in exile after Nicaea, rather than that he meant that they were exiled "along with and at the very same time as" Secundus and Theonas. Another explanation is that Philostorgius simply got this wrong.

28 Confusion soon arose concerning the two councils at Nicaea in 325 and 327. In his Dialogus contra Luciferianos 19-20 (PL xxiii. 182-183) Jerome mentions the return from exile at the Council of Nicaea (he knew of only one) of"eight Arian bishops".

Page 179

Since it must have taken Constantine some time to find out that Eusebius and Theognis were consorting with the Alexandrians, and he banished them within two or three months of the end of the Council of Nicaea, there was far too little time for the Alexandrian Arians to have been brought to Nicomedia during or after the Council. They were presumably sent by Ossius, on Constantine's instructions, to the Council. Therefore, Lietzmann's view that the letter to Alexander and Arius was quite insincere and that its purpose was to portray the emperor as an ignorant and neutral peacemaker remains tenable. 29 Other indications that the letter was insincere may be added here.

Constantine's statement that he has only recently learned of the controversy must be false, as Tillemont supposed. Ossius and Constantine probably had received Alexander's letter to all the bishops (if not directly from Alexander, then certainly through the bishop of Rome) more than three years before they reached Nicomedia. 30 What could have been

He names Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, a Libyan priest Saras, Arius, Achillas, and Euzoius. Arius and Achillas had been priests, Euzoius a deacon. Eusebius of Caesarea had been taken back by the first council. In view of the difficulties which Jerome had with the subject of the Arians in 325-327 I do not think that Philostorgius (if he has been correctly represented) should be believed against Constantine without supporting evidence. On the council of 327 see C. Luibhéid, "The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea" in JEH 34.2 (1983), 165-174.

29 H. Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, translated by B. Woolf (London, 1961, repr. 1967) vol. 3, 115. Lietzmann did not develop these views.

30 Opitz, Urkunde 4b. On Alexander's correspondence, J. R. Palanque et al, The Church in the Christian Roman Empire (translated from the French by E. Messenger, New York, 1953), vol. 1, 81-82. Opitz argued for 318 as the date for the beginning of the dispute in "Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfngen bis zum Jahre 328" in ZNTW 33 (1934), 142-146. Cf. E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2, 165-166. W. Telfer tried to date all of the documents to the period after July of 323, but was not successful. If the pace had been as fast as Telfer thought, then the controversy was so furious that Constantine would have learned of it well before he wrote the letter. Cf. W. Telfer, "When Did the Arian Controversy Begin?" in JTS 47 (1946), 129-142; N. H. Baynes, "Sozomen Ecclesiastica Historia I. 15" in JTS 49 (1948), 165-168; W. Telfer, "Sozomen I. 15, A Reply" in JTS 50 (1949), 187-191. More recently the chronology has been discussed by Rowan Williams, Arius (London,

Page 180

learned in Antioch was that the dispute had become too widespread to be dealt with locally.

Constantine blames both Alexander and Arius for the spread of the controversy. Such treatment of the bishop should have been the result of a decision in favor of the priest, and that certainly had not been made. 31

Constantine protests too much that the ground of the dispute was not important. The claim, made twelve times, that the disagreement was about an unimportant matter is, of course, completely at odds with his claim that it should never have been made public, and also with the knowledge he had acquired of the troubles at Antioch. 32 Some tentative protest would certainly pass as an effort to get the disputants to put the matter into perspective. 33 Constantine's many repetitions, however, which obviously would have led Alexander and Arius to regard him as a thoroughly incompetent judge, must have had some other purpose. Moreover, Ossius knew the contents of the letter. Unless Constantine used an advisor whom he never consulted we are dealing with the incompetence of Ossius as much as with that of Constantine. Any notion of the incompetence of Ossius in the matter is wrecked upon his management of the council at Antioch early in 325.

The severe law against other heretics, which dates to the period before

1987), 48-61 and R. P. C. Hanson, Search, 129-151. I follow Hanson's chronology, which depends on that of Opitz, although I recognize that Hanson was unable to take Williams' arguments into account. On the theology of Arius see also Colm Luibhéid, "Finding Arius" in the Irish Theological Quarterly 45 (1978), 81-101.

31 For early discussion of this point, which had troubled Baronius, see L. S. Lenain de Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir l'histoire ecclésiastique des vi premiers siècles, tom. vi (second edition, Paris, 1704), 227-229. (Tillemont thought that the content of the letter was due to the wiles of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the publication of it to the malice of Eusebius of Caesarea.) It is worth noting that Alexander's letter (Opitz, Urkunde 4b) had dealt with the spread of the dispute. He said that he had been trying to confine the dispute to Alexandria, but had failed because of the efforts of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Constantine would not have refused to believe Alexander in order to exonerate the associate of Licinius, and he was enough of a Roman emperor to take Alexander's point straight to heart. Constantine did not need to worry about offending Alexander if Ossius were there to explain to Alexander why the letter said what it did.

32 To say nothing of his own very prompt trip toward Alexandria.

33 Barnes, CE, 213.

Page 181

the Council of Nicaea, indicates that the emperor was no latitudinarian on doctrinal matters.34

Constantine's own Speech to the assembly of the saints shows that he did not lack interest in theology, and that he was by no means as incompetent at it as his letter to Alexander and Arius, if sincere, would require us to believe. 35

The foregoing arguments have long been known or are simply matters of common sense. The circumstances in which Constantine says he wrote the letter are the basis for other important arguments regarding his purpose. At the end of the letter he wrote:

Not long since I had visited Nicomedia, and intended forthwith to proceed from that city to the East. It was while I was hastening towards you, and had already accomplished the greater part of the distance, that the news of this matter reversed my plan, that I might not be compelled to see with my own eyes that which I felt myself scarcely able even to hear ... 36

Constantine had reached Nicomedia in late September of 324, 37 and the letter was written before Ossius went to Alexandria and Antioch and then to the Council of Nicaea, which began about the beginning of June, 325. Antioch is more than half-way from Nicomedia to Alexandria, and would qualify as the place from which the letter was written.

34 Eusebius, VC 3.64-65.

35 The Speech is almost neutral, I think, with regard to the matter in dispute. This can be explained as due to a lack of interest in the matter. However, on the present argument Constantine would not have wanted to publish his own views before the Council, especially if the Speech were delivered on Good Friday of 325.

36 Richardson's translation. Translations which represent Constantine as implying that he was going to the east only in his mind must assume that Constantine regarded himself as a very slow thinker, who could only get halfway to Alexandria in his imagination (even though he was hurrying his thoughts) before he was interrupted by news of the controversy.

37 That the year was 324 was established by H. G. Opitz, "Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfngen bis zum Jahre 328" in ZNTW 33 (1934), 131-142. Late September is provided by Chronica minora 1.232. Cf. T. D. Barnes, "Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-342: Some Problems" in AJAH 3 (1978), 55.

Page 182

Barnes argued that two adventus-coins from Antioch 38''which must be dated to 324/5 on numismatic grounds" and a statement by Malalas 39that Constantine visited Antioch, 40 "apparently implying a date not long after September 324" confirm the evidence of two Egyptian papyri 41"that preparations were being made for an impending imperial visit to Egypt in January and May 325." 42 Barnes thought it most improbable that Constantine's journey from Nicomedia eastward had begun before November 8, when he founded Constantinople. He recognized that Constantine was back in Nicomedia on February 25, and conjectured that the death of the bishop Philogonius of Antioch on December 20 resulted in disorders which brought the Arian dispute to the attention of Constantine, then in Antioch. 44 He accordingly proposed the following chronology.

324

late Sept.

Nov. 8

Nov.

Dec.

Dec. 20

late Dec.

Constantine enters Nicomedia

Constantine founds Constantinople

Constantine travels across Asia Minor

Constantine in Antioch

Death of Philogonius

Constantine leaves Antioch for Bithynia

325

Jan.

Feb. 25

Feb. or March

March or April

c. June 1

Ossius sent to Alexandria

Constantine in Nicomedia

Ossius presides over a council at Alexandria

Ossius in Antioch

Council of Nicaea begins

38 RIC 7.685, Antioch 48.

39 A sixth-century Byzantine chronicler, born at Antioch.

40 Malalas, pp. 318-319 in the edition of L. Dindorf in CSHB vol. 28 (Bonn, 1831). Malalas is now available in a translation (The Chronicle of John Malalas) by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys, Roger Scott, and others (Melbourne, 1986), 172-173. It should be admitted that this statement does not prove very much, but very little is needed for the purposes of Barnes' argument.

41 P. Oxy. 1261; 1626.

42 Barnes, "Emperor and Bishops" 54-56. This chronology is assumed in Barnes' CE, 212-214.

43 CTh 1.15.1.

44 The disorders must have followed the death of Philogonius' successor Paulinus.

Page 183

Much of this chronology can be accepted with confidence. 45 The modern idea that the letter could have been written in Nicomedia in October 46 has nothing whatever to recommend it, for the letter says plainly that it was written after Constantine had gotten most of the way from Nicomedia to Alexandria. Those who think that Constantine was referring to a mental journey surely bear a very heavy burden of proof, 47 especially when several pieces of evidence indicate that he was physically present or expected in the east at that time. The natural explanation of all the material is that Constantine did in fact travel most of the way from Nicomedia to Alexandria before writing the letter. It follows that the journey was begun after November 8, for there is not enough time between late September and November 8 for the settling of affairs after the defeat of Licinius and a journey first to Antioch and then back to Constantinople. After November 8 Barnes' chronology is dictated by the known movements of Ossius, and must be approximately correct. However, since Constantine sent Ossius to Alexandria before his own return to Nicomedia, both of those events should be dated to December.

The acceptance of this chronology has important consequences which have not been discussed. I accept Eusebius' clear implication in VC 2.63 that Ossius was with Constantine on the journey to Antioch or thereabouts, and I draw the conclusion that the journey to Alexandria had been undertaken because of the Arian controversy. If Ossius started from Antioch (after summoning the neighboring bishops to a council which would take place there later) in December or early January he might have

45 I do not, of course, accept Barnes' view that it was in Antioch that Constantine learned of the controversy, and I note that Constantine was at Nicaea on May 23 (CTh 1.2.5). Moreover, in 324 Paulinus of Tyre was translated to Antioch to replace Philogonius, who had died on Dec. 20 of 323. For this see R. W. Burgess' forthcoming Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii. A Mid-Fourth-Century Antiochene Continuation of Eusebius' Chronici canones.

46 In "Emperor and Bishops," note 17 Barnes refers to O. Seeck, ZKG 17 (1896), 328ff.; Regesten (1919), 152; 174 (late September or early October); H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 3.1 (1934), 32; 76 (October); ZNTW 33 (1934) 151 (last quarter of 324). See also Barnes' discussion on p. 55 of the translation of the letter by A. H. M. Jones in C&C (1949), 145f.

47 Note 36 above.

Page 184

finished in Alexandria as early as late February, and gotten a report to Constantine by mid-March. At that point it would have been possible for Constantine to invite the western bishops to a council now transferred by him on his own initiative to Nicaea, and to send word to the returning Ossius at Antioch of the new arrangements. But Constantine did not get a message back to Ossius, for the synodal letter of the Council of Antioch assumed that the great council would be at Ancyra. 48 Moreover, mid- March was too late a date to be sending invitations to western bishops if the Council of Nicaea was to begin about the first of June. Therefore the council to be held at Ancyra was called by Ossius, either without Constantine's knowledge or with his knowledge, as of December 324. 49

I take it that Ossius would not have called the council to be held at Ancyra without Constantine's agreement, and that their agreement had been made before Ossius left Constantine in December of 324. The letter to Alexander and Arius has no mention whatever of this plan. Neither does it say that Ossius was going to hold a council in Alexandria, and one in Antioch, apparently at Constantine's request. Eusebius says that Constantine sent his messenger to negotiate peace, 50 but so far as the letter is concerned, Ossius might have been a mailman. Thus the chronology argued by Barnes leads to yet another argument that the letter is not frank. The weight of the evidence for that view is now so great that the letter can no longer be considered a reliable expression of the emperor's views on the Arian controversy. He was not a neutral.

On the view adopted here, the presentation of this whole matter by

48 Opitz, Urkunde 18.15. The invitations, preserved only in Syriac documents, are translated by Coleman-Norton in Roman State and Christian Church, 122-126.

49 On the question of the timetable for the sending of, and response to, invitations sent during the winter suspension of navigation cf. A. H. M. Jones, LRE 402-3 and notes 75 and 76 thereto, on 1161-3 and M. P. Charlesworth, Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire (second edition, revised, New York, 1970), 22-24, 43-44, 86-87. Although Charlesworth thought that the post was much faster than Jones did, I doubt that the point requires discussion. I think that the very few western bishops who were at Nicaea were either invited by Constantine when he made his decision in Antioch in December of 324 or had followed his attack on Licinius. Ossius, Caecilian, and Protogenes had had dealings with him earlier.

50 VC 2, 63.

Page 185

Eusebius of Caesarea was very clever. He had a letter by Constantine which he knew to be fraudulent, and he realized that circumstances had changed somewhat in the last twelve years of Constantine's life. He turned Ossius into a blessed peacemaker and quoted the letter as if it expressed the emperor's views, thereby giving a completely misleading impression of Constantine's policy and activity. 51

Constantine's transfer of the "great council" from Ancyra to Nicaea 52 made it easier for him to increase his personal support of Ossius, whose presidency of the Council was Constantine's doing. This point neutralizes the argument that between Constantine and Ossius there was a disagreement, of which the transfer of the council from Ancyra to Nicaea was a symptom. 53 That hypothesis must be based on an assumption that the hard line taken by Ossius was opposed to the relaxed attitude urged by a supposedly sincere Constantine writing the letter to Alexander and Arius. 54 On the present argument the behavior of the two at Nicaea was consistent with their behavior before the Council.

The argument that the neutrality of the letter to Alexander and Arius was a pretense involves the question of the political nature of Constantine's religion. At the beginning of the letter he makes it clear that he wanted all men to be Christians, he wanted them to be united in the faith, and he thought that such unity would be good for the empire. Such views may demonstrate some political consciousness, but all of them have surely been

51 Eusebius also suppressed all of the anti-Arian Constantinian documents.

52 B. H. Cowper, Analecta Nicaena (1857) (English translation in Syriac Miscellanies, 1861). The text with a translation into Greek by E. Schwartz may be found in Opitz, Urkunde 20, and an English translation in J. Stevenson/W. H. C. Frend, A New Eusebius (London, SPCK, 1987), 338.

53 Regarding this argument see H. Chadwick, "Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch" in JThS n.s. 9 (1958), 301-304. The Council's ignorance of the change to Nicaea is against Lane Fox' view (in Pagans and Christians, 635-657) that the Speech to the assembly of the saints was delivered in Antioch.

54 At Antioch in 325 Ossius made the excommunications of the three bishops provisional, and at Nicaea Ossius presided. I think it possible that Constantine was more averse to the hard line of Marcellus of Ancyra and Eustathius than Ossius was, but that would not have prevented him and Ossius from approving and working together for the solution which the majority at Nicaea adopted.

Page 186

held by a great many Christians who have not been emperors and who have had little or no interest in politics. Constantine's statements about unity need not be seen as reflecting his only real concern. There is no evidence that unity was more important to him than the doctrinal content of the catholic faith, which explicitly assumes the unity desired by Christ.

I think that Constantine's preparations for the council had begun before the last campaign against Licinius. He must have been closely followed, on his march eastward, by a few western bishops, with whom he had had dealings, and soon after the victory he set out for Alexandria with Ossius. At Antioch the troubles after the death of the bishop Paulinus (214 below) made it clear to them that the heresy could not be dealt with locally. Ossius summoned the nearby bishops to a council to be held at Antioch, and he and Constantine planned a great council which was to be held at Ancyra. Constantine, mindful of Donatist complaints that he had been prejudiced against them by Ossius, wrote a letter to Alexander and Arius in which he posed as an ignorant neutral. He sent Ossius with it to Alexandria, and told him to bring the Arian ringleaders back to the council to be held at Ancyra. Ossius did as he was told, but at some time after the release of the synodal letter of his council at Antioch he learned that Constantine had transferred the next council from Ancyra to Nicaea. He went there to preside at it, shepherding the Arians before him.

The existence of the council at Antioch early in 325 was discovered only by E. Schwartz in 1905. 55 The second council of Nicaea in 327 has similarly become agreed on in the twentieth century. Both of these councils were very important to an understanding of events at the Council of Nicaea in 325, and both disappeared from the orthodox Church historians' ken during the fourth century. The council of 327 was deliberately suppressed by Athanasius, whom the later orthodox blindly followed in preference to any other source. 56 The council at Antioch in 325 would have been cast into the shade by Nicaea, but it may be worth noting that Athanasius would have told us about it, had it not been evidence against his repeated complaint about the Arianism of the eastern episcopate.

On some Good Friday between 314 and 337 Constantine delivered his

55 R. P. C. Hanson, Search, 146-151 gives a good account of the facts.

56 See, e.g., Socrates, HE 2.1.

Page 187

Speech to the assembly of the saints, to a Christian audience. 57The controversy over the authenticity of the speech appears to have subsided, and I can accept it as genuine without argument. The question of date is another matter, and is still being argued. 58 The latest event mentioned in chapters 22-26, which have been thought to provide clues to the date, is the destruction of Maximinus in 313. I would date the speech to 325, as do Mazzarino 59 and Lane Fox, 60 but not for their reasons, for the most part. I cannot see Constantine using such a triumphal tone unless he had the final victory over Licinius to justify it, so that I would rule out a date earlier than 325. A date later than 325 seems to me to be precluded by Constantine's neutrality on the Arian question. On Good Friday of this year he was still posing as a neutral. It is surely for that very reason that Eusebius appended this particular speech to the VC, just as he quoted Constantine's insincere letter of 324 to Alexander and Arius, and his law of 324 against the heretics, which included the Novatians, but not (because pre-Nicene) the Arians. 61 I repeat my view that Eusebius had nothing to learn from his successors about quotation out of context. The speech was probably delivered at Nicomedia.

The Speech is too long for quotation, or even summary, but an idea of the gist of it may be obtained from the ancient chapter headings as they appear in Richardson's translation.

Preliminary remarks on the Feast of Easter: and how the Word of God, having conferred manifold benefits on mankind, was betrayed by his beneficiaries (1). An appeal to the Church and to his hearers to pardon and

57 A recent bibliography is available in U. Pizzani, "Costantino e 1' Oratio ad Sanctorum Coetum" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 2, 791-822.

58 For recent discussions see H. A. Drake, "Suggestions of Date in Constantine's Oration to the Saints" in AJP 106 (1985), 335-349, and "Policy and Belief in Constantine's 'Oration to the Saints"' in Studia Patristica 19 (1989), 43-51.

59 S. Mazzarino, "La data dell' Oratio ad sanctorum coetum . . ." in Antico, tardantico ed èra costantiniana I (Rome, 1974) ch. 5, 99-150.

60 R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 627-635.

61 See the end of ch. 7 above, and Elliott, "Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini" in Phoenix 45.2 (1991), 167-169.

Page 188

correct the errors of his speech (2). That God is the Father of the Word, and the creator of all things; and that material objects could not continue to exist, were their causes various (3). On the error of idolatrous worship (4). That Christ, the Son of God, created all things, and has appointed to every thing the term of its existence (5). The falsity of the general opinion respecting fate is proved by the consideration of human laws, and by the works of creation, the course of which is not fortuitous, but according to an orderly arrangement which evinces the design of the creator (6). In regard to things above our comprehension, we should glorify the creator's wisdom, and attribute their causes to him alone, and not to chance (7). That God bestows an abundant supply of whatever is suited to the wants of man, and ministers but sparingly to his pleasures; in both cases with a view to his advantage (8). Of the philosophers, who fell into mistaken notions, and some of them into danger, by their desire of universal knowledge.-Also of the doctrines of Plato (9). Of those who reject the doctrines of philosophers, as well as those of Scripture: and that we ought to believe the poets in all things, or disbelieve them in all (10). On the coming of our Lord in the flesh; its nature and cause (11). Of those who are ignorant of this mystery; and that their ignorance is voluntary. The blessings which await those who know it, especially such as die in the confession of the faith (12). That there is a necessary difference between created things. That the propensity to good and evil depends on the will of man; and that, consequently, judgment is a necessary and reasonable thing (13). That created nature differs infinitely from uncreated being: to which man makes the nearest approach by a life of virtue (14). Of the Savior's doctrines and miracles; and the benefits he confers on those who own subjection to him (15). The coming of Christ was predicted by the prophets; and was ordained to be the overthrow of idols and idolatrous cities (16). Of the wisdom of Moses, which was an object of imitation to the wise among heathen nations. Also concerning Daniel, and the three children (17). Of the Erythraean Sibyl, who pointed in a prophetic acrostic at our Lord and his passion. The acrostic is Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, Cross (18). That this prophecy respecting our Savior was not the fiction of any member of the Christian Church, but the testimony of the Erythraean Sibyl, whose books were translated into Latin by Cicero before the coming of Christ. Also, that Vergil makes mention of the same, and of the birth of the Virgin's child: though he spoke obscurely of this mystery

Page 189

through fear of the ruling powers (19). A further quotation from Vergilius Maro respecting Christ, with its interpretation, showing that the mystery was indicated therein darkly, as might be expected from a poet (20). That these things cannot have been spoken of a mere man: and that unbelievers, owing to their ignorance of religion, know not even the origin of their own existence (21). The emperor thankfully ascribes his victories 62 and all other blessings to Christ; and condemns the conduct of the tyrant Maximin, the violence of whose persecution had enhanced the glories of religion (22). Of Christian conduct. That God is pleased with those who lead a life of virtue: and that we must expect a judgment and future retribution (23). Of Decius, Valerian, and Aurelian, who experienced a miserable end in consequence of their persecution of the Church (24). Of Diocletian, 63 who ignobly abdicated the imperial throne, and was terrified by the dread of lightning for his persecution of the Church (25). The emperor ascribes his personal piety to God; and shows that we are bound to seek success from God, and attribute it to him; but to consider mistakes as the result of our own negligence (26).

Drake's brief characterization of the speech is repeated here. "In twenty-six chapters of what is best described as a fourth-century version of "pop philosophy," Constantine offers a defense of Christianity and an exhortation to the pious life, implicitly and sometimes explicitly celebrating as well his own pious career." 64 I think that Constantine does better with the "pop philosophy" at the beginning and end of the speech, especially when the difficulties occasioned by the pretense of neutrality on the Arian

62 Constantine begins this chapter with Maxentius ("the great city" must be Rome), goes on to the alliance of the "tyrants" Maxentius and Maximin Daia described by Lactantius in DMP 43-44, and then gets to his diatribe against Maximin.

63 Constantine's statement in this chapter that the whole army of Diocletian came into the possession of Maxentius has caused considerable perplexity. See R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, 627-635 and H. A. Drake, "Suggestions of Date in Constantine's Oration to the Saints" in AJP 106 (1985), 335-349 for recent views not adopted here. I think that note 4 to p. 580 of vol. 1 (Eusebius) of LNPF². has the correct explanation, namely that Constantine refers to losses to Maxentius by Severus and Galerius.

64 H. A. Drake, "Suggestions of Date in Constantine's Oration to the Saints" in AJP 106 (1985), 335.

Page 190

question are remembered. Some readers of chapter 9 may think that Constantine here wanders into Arianism, or something close to it, 65 and others may doubt that he is sufficiently explicit to warrant that conclusion.66 Recently P. S. Davies has argued 67 that in chapter 9 Constantine approves of Plato's distinction of the ousiai of the two gods, 68 and that in chapter 11 he says that the Father is the cause (implying in the context that he is the pre-existent cause) of the Son's existence. 69Davies takes the view that Constantine would not have held these Arian views either before 70 they were condemned by Alexander of Alexandria in 318/19 or after that date, and concludes that the phrases in question are Eusebian interpolations into the text." 71 Some scholars will think that this is rather hard on Eusebius, but it seems no worse than other things which he did in his systematic effort to present Constantine as a neutral on the issue of Arianism. However, at this point Constantine was in fact pretending to be neutral on the Arian question, and might have expressed something very like the views mentioned, without being explicit.

Chapters 18-21, on the Erythraean Sibyl and Vergil's prophesying the birth of Christ, are quite extraordinary, and probably the least reassuring part of the speech to most of his modern readers. The way was prepared

65 Lane Fox, 780, note 34, cites John M. Rist, "Basil's Neoplatonism" in Basil of Caesarea: Christian Humanist and Ascetic Part One, ed. P. J. Fedwick (PIMS, 1981), 154-159. Rist thought (157) that Constantine's language about the first and second gods could be "squeezed into a Christian theology of Father and Son."

66 A. H. B. Logan has suggested that the reference to two gods might be "a wellmeaning, if clumsy, attempt to reconcile the protagonists by reference to a common apologetic motif." See his article "Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of 325: Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea" in JThS 43.2 (1992), 440.

67 P. S. Davies, "Constantine's Editor" in JThS 42.2 (1991), 610-618.

68 It seems to me that what Constantine approves (men) is Plato's claim that God is above ousia. The other doctrines mentioned (de) should, in the context in which Constantine is speaking, be those of which he disapproved, as in his treatments of Socrates and Pythagoras above. But confusion follows.

69 I think that this chapter is too vague to support Davies' argument.

70 When he was still under the influence of Lactantius, who approved of Plato's two gods without distinguishing between their ousiai.

71 This suggestion was acceptedby Alastair H. B. Logan in "Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of 325: Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea" in JThS 43.2 (1992), 439-440.

Page 191

for them by Jewish and Christian forgers of the Sibylline oracles, and Lactantius must have either led Constantine into this sort of thing or encouraged him in it. 72 However, the invention of the "Messianic Eclogue" 73 must be Constantine's own, and, like everything else in these four chapters, is no great credit to him as a philologist. 74 Although Constantine was not a fanatic, he could get carried away in his sermons. There is one point in all of this which I find particularly interesting, and which may help to explain this whole adventure into the interpretation of Vergil.

At the end of chapter 19 Constantine gives Vergil's reason for speaking so darkly when prophesying the birth of Christ. "We perceive that these words are spoken plainly and at the same time darkly, by way of allegory. Those who search deeply for the import of the words are able to discern the Divinity of Christ. But lest any of the powerful in the imperial city might be able to accuse the poet of writing anything contrary to the laws of the country, and subverting the religious sentiments which had prevailed from ancient times, he intentionally obscures the truth. For he was acquainted, as I believe, with that blessed mystery which gave to our Lord the name of Savior: but, that he might avoid the severity of cruel men, he drew the thoughts of his hearers to objects with which they were familiar, saying that altars must be erected, temples raised, and sacrifices offered to the new-born child." Both at the beginning of chapter 20 and toward the end of it he returns to this thought. "I suppose also he was restrained by a sense of the danger which threatened one who should assail the credit of ancient religious practice. Cautiously, therefore, and securely, as far as possible, he presents the truth to those who have faculties to understand it; and while he denounces the fortifications and conflicts of war (which indeed are still to be found in the course of human life), he describes our Savior as proceeding to the war against Troy, understanding by Troy the world itself."

Of course, Vergil had nothing to fear from Antonius or Octavian or

72 Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 1.6.

73 There is a bibliography in J. Quasten, Patrology (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1966), vol. 3, 326.

74 Augustine believed him. Jerome (Epist. 53 ad Paulinum c. 7) did not.

Page 192

any other cruel man of the time when he wrote the poem. 75 When the child expected turned out to be a girl, 76 people soon began to wonder who the boy was, and various names were suggested, and forgotten. More than three centuries later Constantine arrived on the scene, with a new idea about the identity of the child. (Although his idea faded in the nineteenth century, it was finally eliminated only in 1932 with the correct identification of the child.) But his identification had immediately to face the fact that there are pagan elements involved in Vergil's description. Now, there were two ways around this. One, and the most natural, and, for the purpose of persuading posterity, the safest and most convincing way, was to argue that in the poem Vergil, inspired by the true God (like the Sibyl), had unknowingly prophesied the birth of Christ. This indeed was the line eventually taken by St. Augustine and later writers. 77 Constantine picked the other way, and argued that Vergil had done it knowingly, and put in the pagan elements in order to cover his tracks. This was to give Vergil credit for foreknowledge not only of the birth of Christ, but also of the later troubles of the Church, 78 in spite of the fact that Constantine congratulates him on not giving an oracle because he was not a prophet. Why would he have done this, instead of taking what we would regard as the easy way out?

I believe that when Constantine encountered the difficulty of the pagan elements in Vergil's description he was not at all daunted by it, because he immediately thought of his own practice during the early years of his reign, when he did not wish to make an issue of his religion. The last words of chapter 19, about Vergil's saying that temples should be raised and sacrifices offered to the new-born child in order to avoid suspicion, remind me of the words of the panegyrist of 310 regarding gifts which Constantine

75 The whole notion of Vergil's fears here is completely anachronistic, even if his prophecy had been deliberate.

76 W. W. Tarn, "Alexander Helios and the Golden Age" in JRS 22 (1932), 151-157.

77 D. Comparetti, Vergil in the Middle Ages tr. E. F. M. Benecke (London, 1895), 100-101, referring to Augustine, Epist. 137 ad Volusianum c.12; Epist. 258, c. 5; De Civ. Dei 10.28. Cf. Oracula Sibyllina ed. Rzach VIII, 217-243; Lact. Div. Inst. 7.19.9.

78It was indeed fortunate for Constantine that he was dealing only with the fourth Eclogue, and not with the whole Vergilian corpus.

Page 193

allegedly made to the temple of Apollo at Grand. There had been a time when he had not wished to be accused of "subverting the religious sentiments which had prevailed from ancient times." It was his own experience of playing a double game which made Constantine prone to believe that Vergil had done so too, and to pick that explanation of the pagan elements which to us seems by far the more difficult one.

Page 195

CHAPTER TEN

THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

The date (June 1) at which the Council met, and the number of bishops present 1 are reasonably well settled, and we have results of the Council in its creed and twenty canons. The relative strength of the parties and the course of events are considered obscure subjects, despite the considerable amount of detail provided in accounts by Eusebius of Caesarea, Eustathius of Antioch, and Athanasius of Alexandria. Eusebius and Athanasius tell us by far the most about the Council, but they dwell on different aspects of it, so that one would hardly know that they are writing about the same thing. In these circumstances scholars can pick and choose the subjects which they stress, and widely differing results are obtained. Some preliminary discussion of the primary sources will make clear to the reader the limits within which the description to follow will be confined. I begin by quoting the letter which Eusebius wrote to the people of Caesarea immediately after the Council.

You have probably had some intimation, beloved, of the transactions of the great council convened at Nicaea, in relation to the faith of the Church, inasmuch as rumor generally outruns true account of that which has really taken place. But lest from such report alone you might form an incorrect estimate of the matter, we have deemed it necessary to submit to you, in the first place, an exposition of the faith proposed by us in written form;

1 The lists (all defective) give about 220 names; Eusebius estimates c. 250; Eustathius c. 270; Constantine, who gave all of them presents, over 300; later tradition 318, (the number of the servants of Abraham). The number may well have risen during the Council.

Page 196

and then a second which has been promulgated, consisting of ours with certain additions to its expression. The declaration of faith set forth by us, which, when read in the presence of our most pious emperor, seemed to meet with universal approbation, was thus expressed:

''According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith. It is this:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:-and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of light, Life of life, the only begotten Son, born before all creation [prototokon pases ktiseos (Colossians 1.15) might also be translated 'the firstborn (or firstbegotten) of all creation'], begotten of God the Father, before all ages, by whom also all things were made; who on account of our salvation became incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe in the existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; even as our Lord also, when he sent forth his disciples to preach the Gospel, said 'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' Concerning these doctrines we steadfastly maintain their truth, and avow our full confidence in them; such also have been our sentiments hitherto, and such we shall continue to hold until death: and in an unshaken adherence to this faith, we anathematize every impious heresy. In the presence of God Almighty, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, we testify that thus we have believed and thought from our heart and soul, since

Page 197

we have possessed a right estimate of ourselves; and that we now think and speak what is perfectly in accordance with the truth. We are moreover prepared to prove to you by undeniable evidences, and to convince you that in time past we have thus believed, and so preached."

When these articles of faith were proposed, there seemed to be no ground of opposition: nay, our most pious emperor himself was the first to admit that they were perfectly correct, and that he himself entertained the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present to give them their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus agreeing in a unanimous profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word homoousios, an expression which the emperor himself explained, as not indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission: for, said he, a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be subject to any corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the [addition of the 2 ] word homoousios drew up this formula of faith.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit. But those who say 'There was a time when he

2 I have added these words to the translation because they are in the Greek.

Page 198

was not,' or 'He did not exist before He was begotten,' or 'He was made of nothing,' or assert that 'He is of other substance or essence than the Father,' or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the Catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes."

Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions "of the substance of the Father" and "consubstantial with the Father." Whereupon questions were put forth and answers, and the meaning of these terms was clearly defined; when it was generally admitted that ousias (of the essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed right to us to assent. We ourselves therefore concurred in this exposition; nor do we cavil at the word homoousios having regard to peace, and fearing to lose a right understanding of the matter. On the same grounds we admitted also the expression "begotten, not made": "for made," said they, "is a term applicable in common to all the creatures which were made by the Son, to whom the Son has no resemblance. Consequently he is no creature like those which were made by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the Divine Oracles teach us was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature." Thus also the declaration that "the Son is consubstantial with the Father" having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of substance, nor by abscission, nor by any change of the Father's substance and power, since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent with all these things. That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine,

Page 199

explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term homoousios in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son. Such is what I have to state to you in reference to the articles of faith which have been promulgated; and in which we have all concurred, not without due examination, but according to the senses assigned, which were investigated in the presence of our most highly favored emperor, and for the reasons mentioned approved. We have also considered the anathema pronounced by them after the declaration of faith inoffensive; because it prohibits the use of illegitimate terms, from which almost all the distraction and commotion of the churches have arisen. Accordingly, since no divinely inspired Scripture contains the expressions, "of things which do not exist," and "there was a time when he was not," and such other phrases as are therein subjoined, it seemed unwarrantable to utter and teach them: and moreover this decision received our sanction the rather from the consideration that we have never heretofore been accustomed to employ these terms. We deemed it incumbent on us, beloved, to acquaint you with the caution which has characterized both our examination of and concurrence in these things: and that on justifiable grounds we resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable expressions as long as these were not acceptable; and received them without dispute, when on mature deliberation as we examined the sense of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally proposed as a sound confession of faith. 3

Eusebius begins by telling his flock that he wishes to correct what they may have heard by rumor, 4and goes on to quote a creed which he tendered to the Council, and which, he clearly implies throughout, formed the basis for the creed which the Council adopted. Now, this implication has had the

3 This is the translation of Socrates, HE 1.8,34ff. by A. C. Zenos in LNPF², vol. 2, except as noted. Opitz, Urkunde 22.

4 He does not say why he thinks that the rumor is false.

Page 200

effect of reducing Eusebius' credit, for it has seemed clear to scholars that the Nicene creed was not developed from the creed which Eusebius tendered, and which was presumably the baptismal creed of Caesarea. 5 Moreover, Eusebius' introduction and conclusion of his creed reflect his actual circumstances at Nicaea, of trying to avoid conviction as an Arian heretic, rather than a situation in which he was graciously presenting a model for the creed to be adopted by the Council. Thus, it appears that throughout the letter Eusebius was trying to mislead his readers on this particular point.

At the end of the letter he represents himself as conducting a general examination of the Nicene creed with the bishops before the emperor, when his task was in fact to subscribe in order to clear himself of the provisional excommunication. It is obvious that in the context of the Arian controversy "the firstborn of all creation" of the creed of Caesarea was very much clarified, to say the least, by the homoousios, and that the "regard for peace" of which Eusebius writes, led him to acquiesce in major changes to his professed theology. We should remember that, for all his brave talk in this letter, once he had gotten away from the Council, he was stuck with his own subscription of both the creed and the anathemas, and would have a hard time teaching Arianism in other words to anyone with a modicum of intelligence .6

Important for our subject are his representations of Constantine as quite in agreement with his (Caesarean) creed, provided that Eusebius added the homoousios to it, and as agreeing to it before the Nicene creed had been formulated. Many scholars-for example, Lietzmann 7--have followed Eusebius on this point, and attributed the homoousios to Constantine. The emperor can then be represented as blithely thinking up the controversial word, explaining it in various ways to everyone's satisfaction, and imposing it on the Council.

Before we follow Eusebius on this point we should note two things.

5 See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 213-230.

6 It is usual to represent Eusebius as here watering down the meaning of homoousios.

See Barnes, CE 226; Hanson, Search 165-166. I doubt that he was able to do so.

7 E. Schwartz, Kaiser Konstantin und die christliche Kirche (Leipzig and Berlin, 1936; repr. Darmstadt 1969), 131; F. Loofs, "Das Nicaenum" in Festgabefiür K. Müller (Tübingen, 1922), 70f.; A. H. M. Jones, C&C, 161.

Page 201

The first is what is involved in his presentation. According to him, his creed was tendered to the Council, agreed to by the emperor, and then used as a model for the creed adopted. This would mean that Ossius and Constantine began the Council with the creed of a suspected heretic who had been provisionally excommunicated by Ossius himself, and proceeded to modify that into the Council's creed. If Constantine were a complete fool, he might have done that, and those who believe that he was can accept Eusebius' claim.

Since the main business of the Council was to make clear what the faith was, Eusebius' claim about the order of events cannot be accepted without corroborating evidence. The caution on the emperor's part which I have argued for earlier seems to me to preclude a very active role by the emperor during the debate on the main question. The natural way for Constantine and Ossius to proceed was first to get agreement on a creed from the bishops, and then have the Council deal with those suspected of Arianism. 8This certainly was the procedure which Ossius had just followed at Antioch. We must, for the moment, suspect that Eusebius has inverted the order of events, and that Constantine's addition of the homoousios to the creed of Caesarea came at a later stage in the proceedings and was intended as a necessary correction, which Eusebius has belittled in his letter. The fact was that the creed of Caesarea was changed, and the Christians of Caesarea were given to understand that their bishop had not quite kept up with orthodoxy. Constantine's willingness to make such a correction shows that he thought that the term excluded Arianism, and he is unlikely to have thought that unless the bishops had already made it clear. It certainly does not mean that he agreed with the theology that Eusebius brought to Nicaea. 9 It should be noted here that in the VC 3.6-16, in a more lengthy account, Eusebius gives the same impression of Constantine the peacemaker: the doctrinal controversy disappears completely, in favor of that regarding the date of Easter. What does appear plausible in Eusebius' accounts is a willingness on the

8 See below.

9 I should admit to finding Eusebius' presentation rather comical. Was Constantine supposed to have said something like "My sentiments exactly, Eusebius. All you need in there is the homoousios to make it perfect"?

Page 202

emperor's part to accommodate Eusebius once the latter had shown himself willing to subscribe the Nicene creed. On that point Eusebius' evidence is quite well supported.

The second thing to note about Eusebius' order of events is that it is flatly contradicted by the testimony of our second witness. Eustathius, 10 the vehement anti-Arian installed by Ossius as the successor of Paulinus at Antioch, briefly described the course of events at the Council, in his fragment 32, as follows:

(1) From here I shall turn now to what was done. Now, then, when on account of this a very great synod arrived at Nicaea, with perhaps two hundred and seventy all told gathered together (I cannot give an accurate count because of the enormous throng, since I did not run this down at all carefully), and while the definition of the faith was being sought, the document was brought forward as clear proof of the blasphemy of Eusebius. (2) Read out in the presence of all, it immediately caused immeasurable offence to its hearers on account of its divergence from the truth, and irremediable shame to its writer. (3) When the Eusebian gang had been clearly convicted and the wicked document had been torn up in the sight of all, certain persons, as a result of an intrigue, put forward the name of peace and silenced those who normally spoke the best. The Ariomaniacs, fearing that they might after all be ostracized, since such a great synod had been gathered in the same place, leapt forward to anathematize the forbidden doctrine, having signed documents to that effect with their own hands. (4) And having gotten possession of their sees by frantic intrigues, when they ought to have been kneeling among the penitents, they are advocating the condemned doctrines, sometimes secretly, sometimes openly, plotting against their outstanding critics. Wishing to get the tares firmly rooted, they fear men of good sense, avoid the secular rulers, and so go to war against the heralds of piety. (5) But we

10 The text of L. Parmentier [GCS 19 (1911)] was revised by F. Scheidweiler [GCS 44, (1954)].

Page 203

do not believe that men can ever thus overcome the Divinity. Even if they become strong again, they will be defeated again, as the grave prophet Isaiah says (Is. 8,9). (quoted by Theodoret in HE 1.8,1-5) 11

Because Eustathius is irritated by some sort of Arian resurgence, this fragment has been connected with the disturbances which led to his own deposition, and dated to the year 326 or later. It should be observed that Eustathius gives no hint of danger to himself. He predicts that the enemy, now escaping the consequences of their heresy by avoiding the emperor, will yet be defeated again. His words imply that the Arians are under pressure and unable to act openly, but are nevertheless staving off a second defeat. The fragment should be dated to the late summer of 325, before Constantine caught up with Eusebius of Nicomedia. 12 In his letter to the Nicomedians explaining the exile of their bishop, Constantine accused Eusebius of having deceived him in order to keep his see, and of consorting with Arians instead of maintaining the repentance which he had professed to the Council. 13 This dating of the fragment would seem to involve the view that the document read out at the Council was written by Eusebius of Nicomedia (not by Eusebius of Caesarea). The document may have been Eusebius' letter to Arius, or to Paulinus of Tyre. 14

Eustathius was dissatisfied with the lenience of the Council toward Arians. Those "certain persons" who, to quote him, "as a result of an intrigue put forward the name of peace and silenced those who normally spoke the best" were leaders of the majority who had agreed to accept the homoousios "while the definition of the faith was being sought," but who would not require resignations and penance of Arians who accepted the council's decision. Their wise move split the Arians and their sympathizers, many of whom defected and subscribed the creed, as Eustathius says and as Philostorgius acknowledges. 15 Eusebius of

11 The translation draws on those of Barnes, in "Emperor and Bishops" and R. P. C. Hanson, in "The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch" in ZKG 95 (1984), 171.

12 This is the reason for Eustathius' use of the word ekklinousi ("they avoid").

13 Opitz, Urkunde 27.15, discussed above.

14 Opitz, Urkunde 2, and Urkunde 8.

15 Philostorgius, HE 1.8-9; 2.15.

Page 204

Nicomedia subscribed and was left in his see, when he "ought to have been kneeling among the penitents." It seems necessary to believe that Constantine supported this dual proposal of the word homoousios and no penance. Since Eustathius represents the dual proposal as the result of an intrigue, and since Ossius' excommunication of the three bishops at Antioch was provisional, some sort of dual proposal may have been another of Constantine's (and Ossius') preparations for the Council.

Eustathius passes over the production of the creed very quickly, in order to get on with his complaints about Eusebius of Nicomedia, but he does make it clear that the production of the creed was the first important business of the Council. After "the Eusebian gang" was convicted the Council proceeded to the creed and thence to the cases of suspected Arians, but in a peaceable manner. This was very effective, and resulted in the prompt anathematizing of the heresy by many persons suspected of Arianism. This must refer to the signing of the creed. His account of these proposals is consistent with Eusebius' description of a peacemaking Constantine, at least after the credal question had been settled. It is noteworthy, however, that he does not have Constantine taking the initiative in the peacemaking: that seems to come from the bishops.

This last point is of some importance, and raises the question whether we should believe Eustathius against Eusebius of Caesarea. I see no reason to suppose that Eustathius is deliberately misrepresenting the situation. He leaves out entirely any mention of the adoption of the word homoousios, which would have pleased him, presumably because of his interest in the personality of Eusebius of Nicomedia.16On the main question he was on the winning side, and his prediction of a second defeat for Eusebius of Nicomedia was correct. He was annoyed that the Council chose not to annihilate the Arians, and we may safely believe what he says about proposals for peace. Eusebius, on the other hand, was obviously in an extremely embarrassing situation, and his evidence has serious faults. I take it that those who believe that Constantine had a lot to do with the formulation of Nicene theology are relying on very flimsy evidence which

16 As argued by Hanson, Search, 161; G. C. Stead, "'Eusebius" and the Council of Nicaea' in JTS ns, 24 (1973), 92-100; M. Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IVsecolo (Rome, 1975), 81.

Page 205

is contradicted by a witness who seems reliable.

The third of our primary sources for the council is Athanasius, especially in his De decretis 3; 19-20 and Epistula ad Afros 5-6. Both of these works were written long after the Council, in the 350s and 360s,17 and it is vain to think that the intervening years had had no effect on what Athanasius wrote about 325. 18 We should begin, however, by noticing what he leaves out. Athanasius does not mention any peacemaking proposal at Nicaea. He carries on about his wonderful ecumenical council and its homoousios, but has never a word about the deal made with the Arians present, namely, that if they subscribed to the creed they could remain in their sees, without penance. From the beginning of his episcopate Athanasius rejected this arrangement of the Council of Nicaea, and he should not be represented as a great defender of it.

With regard to the course of events at the Council, however, he provides evidence in the two works cited which supports Eustathius' account. He represents Eusebius of Nicomedia as the leader of the "Arians." He says that the Arians were willing to accept various phrases put forward at the Council in an attempt to exclude the Arian notion of the creatureliness of the Son, winking and nodding to each other (he says) as they thought of Scriptural texts which could be reconciled with those phrases. He admits that it was the failure of efforts to exclude Arianism by Scriptural language which led to the adoption of the unscriptural word homoousios.

I think that it is the Eustathius fragment which allows us to see how the accounts of Eusebius and Athanasius must be used. Eusebius wished to represent himself as having had a theology which could be reconciled with that of the Council, or, at any rate, with that of the emperor. He minimized the extent of his theological defeat by simply omitting the part of the Council at which it took place, and he exaggerated the extent to which Constantine agreed with him by attributing to Constantine before the creed was made the statements of Constantine afterwards, when

17 According to C. Kannengiesser, "(Ps.) Athanasius, Ad Afros Examined" in Logos: Festschrift L. Abramowski, ed. H. C. Brennecke (Berlin, 1993): Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentlichen Wissenschaften und die Kunde der lteren Kirche, this work is not by Athanasius.

18 But see also Opitz, Urkunde 23.4-5-the letter from the council to Alexandria.

Page 206

peacemaking was in order, just as he had done with the law on heretics discussed earlier. Athanasius completely suppressed the peacemaking work of the Council, but provided details on the adoption of the homoousios. Eustathius deals with both the defeat of the Arians and the peacemaking.

Having considered our main sources for the Council, we may proceed to a narrative of events.

On the opening day of the Council 19 the bishops assembled in the central room of the palace and were seated according to rank. Three members of the emperor's family entered, and then other Christians of the court. The whole assembly stood as the emperor entered, wearing his imperial robes. When he reached the upper end of the seats, he paused. When the bishops beckoned him to sit down, he took his seat on a low chair of gold, and the bishops sat down after him. 20 The ranking bishop ''in the right division of the assembly" 21 then gave thanks to God on the emperor's behalf. 22

Constantine replied at length in a speech of which Gelasius of Cyzicus provides the fullest version. 23 He began by telling them of his own early religious development (in 1-9, quoted above at 31-33), and went on to a discourse on the merciful, mighty, and just providence of God. At 35-38 he returned to his own Christianizing mission, and went on to a plea in 39-41 to the bishops to welcome him to their company as the bringer of peace to the world, and a party interested in the peace which they could bring to the church. He concluded by observing that it was not fitting for churchmen, in a period of universal peace, to be smiting each other and creating a laughing stock, when they had the Bible as a guide to

19Eusebius prefaces his description of what seems to be the opening with "when the day came for the final solution," as though there had been much preliminary discussion already, and Sozomen, writing in the fifth century, seems to have understood him this way in HE 1.17-19. Nevertheless, Eusebius must have understood himself as describing the opening. There may have been much less debate about the faith at Nicaea than Sozomen thought there was.

20 Eusebius, VC 3.10.

21 The ch. 11 heading says that this bishop was Eusebius, presumably meaning him of Nicomedia. I see no reason to doubt this.

22 VC3.11.

23 in HE 2.7.1-41.

Page 207

good conduct.

The bishops then began to make accusations against each other, and a number of petitions eventually filled the emperor's lap. Constantine informed the bishops that the decision on these points would be made on Judgment Day, and had the petitions burnt unread. He urged the bishops to get on with the business for which they had been assembled.

Someone then introduced a document written by Eusebius of Nicomedia. The Council took a dim view of it, and it was openly torn up, to the embarrassment of Eusebius, who evidently was trying to avoid Sabellianism. 24By this time it was apparent that Arianism was going to be condemned: the question was, in what terms? Various suggestions were put forward, in biblical terms.

These attempts were natural enough, since not all of the bishops present would have had experience of controversy with Arians. It was found that all of the biblical terms were acceptable to the Arians, because the latter could cite verses of the Bible reconciling the terms with their notion of the precedence of the Father. The bishops then were faced with a suggestion that they use the word homoousios 25to express the relation of the Father to the Son. This word had been the subject of controversy in the third century, and had been declared heretical by a council in 268, but that was before anyone had faced Arius' propositions. In the present circumstances the bishops saw that the word was unacceptable to the Arians. 26 They used it, and also condemned explicitly various Arian theses. The Council's intent was incorporated into a creed which was written up, according to Basil of Caesarea, by a Cappadocian priest named Hermogenes. 2 7 Ossius signed as chairman, and the creed was taken around to the other bishops for their signatures.

The fourth of the anathemas, which condemns those saying that the Son is "of another hypostasis or ousia," may seem to have committed the

24This was Opitz, Urkunde 21--"If we describe Him as true Son of God and increate, we are beginning to say He is homoousios with the Father."

25 I accept A. H. B. Logan's argument in "Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of AD 325: Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea" in JThS 43.2 (1992), 442-446, that Marcellus of Ancyra was behind the suggestion of homoousios.

26 This is explicitly stated by Ambrose in De Fide 3.15.

27 Basil, Letter 81 (Loeb ed. of Roy J. Deferrari).

Page 208

bishops to a one-hypostasis theology, and goes some way to justify the claim of A. M. Ritter that N, the creed of Constantine and Ossius, was deliberately Sabellian. 28 So far as I can see, however, Constantine was not Sabellian. His law against the heretics in 324 had included the Paulians. He accepted the deposition of Eustathius of Antioch by a council there in 328, 29 and he did not use the word homoousios in his outburst against Arius in 333. He accepted the deposition of Marcellus of Ancyra in 336. His career in general shows so much care to consult the bishops that I would be most surprised to find that he had foisted his own creed, whether Sabellian or any other, on the Council of Nicaea. That the Council was not itself Sabellian is demonstrated by Canon 19 against the Paulianists. I take it that in 325 there was simply considerable difficulty over the terms homoousios and hypostasis, and that we should read the creed and canon together in order to discover what the bishops meant: the essential task, the bishops would have thought, was to condemn Arius so as not to condemn, or appear to condemn, Alexander. If their meaning is still not quite clear to us, we will have an honorable explanation 30 for the difficulties of the eastern bishops with these terms after Nicaea, especially after the death of Constantine, when the anti-Arian circumstances of 325 were no longer part of the immediate past. Such a view also avoids the erroneous conclusion that Constantine was seeking or requiring an interpretation of the homoousios which would satisfy all parties. 31 Any such notion must be

28 See A. M. Ritter, Arianismus, in TRE III (1977), 692-719; the discussion by R. P. C. Hanson, Search, 235; the review of Hanson by C. Stead in JThS 41 (1990), 668-673, esp. 672.

29 See below, pp. 247-256

30 Not necessarily the correct explanation, but a possibility worth remembering. The Church historian Sabinus, whose work A collection of synodical canons was lost because he did not agree with the Athanasians, ridiculed the Nicene bishops as ignoramuses and simpletons. See Socrates, HE 1.8.25.

31 I am aware of the view of Eduard Schwartz in "Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts" in Zeitschriftfir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 34 (1935), 152; Kaiser Konstantin und die Christliche Kirche (Leipzig and Berlin, 1936), 128-131 that Constantine wanted an inclusive reading of homoousios, whose interpretation he could keep in his own hands. I regard this view as incorrect. Under any emperor anyone could interpret the homoousios as he pleased: during Constantine's reign he could not publish an Arian interpretation of it and remain a bishop. I take it that Constantine

Page 209

wrecked on the anathemas of the Nicene Creed, and it would be well to admit this fact at the outset. The evidence shows rather that N was accidentally Sabellian, due to the fact that the most effective opposition to Arianism at the time came from quasi-Sabellians like Eustathius and Marcellus.

At this point there were, according to Gelasius of Cyzicus, 32seventeen bishops who refused to sign the creed. Eustathius and like-minded bishops now tried to get the Arians and fellow travelers expelled from the Church, only to find that the bishops had accepted their term, but not their policy. Constantine and Ossius had long foreseen the day when Arianism would cease to be a series of more or less controversial propositions, and become a heresy proscribed throughout the empire. They had known that many people would be caught by their very rapid campaign, and had planned accordingly. The Arians were now told that they could avoid deposition and penance simply by subscribing to the creed. According to Eustathius, they jumped at the chance. There is no need to doubt that many of them were sincerely convinced. Ossius signed as president, and was followed by the rest.

Furthermore, it was at this point that Constantine went to work. He had earlier turned the Council over to the bishops, and the time had now come for him to take it back. Although his treatment of the case of Eusebius is not necessarily true in detail, we can accept, in the context of the period after the Creed was produced, Eusebius' presentation of him as the great reconciler, getting the various parties to agree on explanations and interpretations. It is quite unnecessary to think that in doing so he compromised the faith. With whatever misgivings, those who had agreed with Arius to whatever extent began to sign, until only two bishops, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarice, refused. Their returns to their cities after their deposition would have invited trouble. Constantine sent these two into exile in Illyricum. 33

The Arianism that was condemned at Nicaea was the Arianism of the Thalia, long abandoned by Arius himself. This was quite easy to

was able to understand the dispute.

32 Any others?

33 Philostorgius, HE 1.9-10.

Page 210

anathematize because in the summer of 325 it had only two defenders of whom we know. Included in that Arianism was the answer of Arius and some eastern bishops to the problem of the priority of the Father which Arius had addressed. Since no satisfactory solution to that problem had been found, the best that the Council could do was to follow Alexander in pretending that Arius was still teaching the whole package, and condemn it in its entirety. This was simply a way of postponing trouble. In these circumstances Constantine might have considered doing nothing, but we have to respect his view of the needs of the Church at the time, while recognizing that that view was influenced by his feelings about the needs of the empire. If the Council had discarded the Thalia and addressed itself to the problem of the priority of the Father, it would have appeared to condemn Alexander rather than Arius, and the bishops were probably determined that Arius should suffer for his resistance to his bishop.

The synodal letter of the Council to the Church at Alexandria, as preserved by Socrates, Theodoret, and Gelasius, 34 is a somewhat peculiar document, which spends far more time on the subject of the Melitians than it does on Arianism. The letter reports the condemnation of Arius' views and the news of the downfall of Secundus and Theonas, but says that the Alexandrians have heard or will hear the details of Arius' own case, "lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin." Why such delicacy? They had made their views of Arius' doctrine quite clear. The bishops, if it is really they, go on to deal with "the insolence of Melitius and those who have been ordained by him" by saying that "the synod was disposed to deal leniently with him (for in strict justice he deserved no lenience)" by leaving him the bare title of his rank, without the administration of his see, or the power to ordain or appoint. [It is apparent at this point that the letter was written by a critic of the Council's arrangements regarding the Melitians (perhaps Alexander himself; perhaps Athanasius).] Those ordained in the past by Melitius may be admitted to communion after a "more sacred" laying on of hands, and may enjoy their rank and right to officiate, but shall be inferior to persons ordained by Alexander. They may not make appointments without the consent of bishops serving under Alexander. Melitian clergy may replace

34 Socrates, HE 1.6; Theodoret, HE 1.9; Gelasius, HE 2.33.

Page 211

Catholic clergy who die, if they appear worthy and the people elect them and the bishop of Alexandria concurs. But Melitius himself is to enjoy no such privileges because of his demonstrated bad character.

It is not easy to see how any bishop present would have thought that these arrangements would be acceptable to the Melitians, who certainly got nothing by them. The letter seems to have been dictated by Alexander. The question of how the Melitians were to get themselves reordained by the reluctant Alexander was apparently not spelled out, and would obviously cause trouble later.

The next subject to be dealt with must have been the date of Easter, because Constantine had some interest in this too, and would have stayed to have the bishops settle it before leaving them to compose the Canons. Constantine particularly wished, as did all churchmen, that all Christians should celebrate Easter on the same day, but he also wanted them freed from the Jewish lunisolar calendar, which might produce two Easters in the same solar year, or no Easter at all. He wished this because he was annoyed with the Jews over their ancestral guilt (as he saw it), as kurioktonoi kai patroktonoi. 35Constantine regarded the Jews, like the pagans, as doomed to unrighteous conduct because of their refusal to see the truth. The Council obliged him in principle, by confirming the practice of Rome, Alexandria, and others, and ordering certain other churches to conform to these-probably those of Syria, Palestine, and the Illyrian provinces. Since Alexandria and Rome had different dates for the equinox and different cycles for calculating the date of Easter, 36this left some problems, which were dealt with (however inadequately) by the Council of Serdica in 342, but the question of principle had been decided.

On one point regarding heretics the Council corrected an action by Constantine. Before the Council 37 he had issued a law against various

35 [A. H. M. Jones, in C&C 140 describes his attitude as "anti-Semitic."] I have wondered why this phrase is not cited as evidence of Constantine's Sabellianism.

36 Very fully treated by E. Schwartz, "Christliche und Jüdische Ostertafeln" in Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philol.hist. Klasse, vol. 8 (Berlin, 1905) No. 6. See also M. Richard, "Le comput pascal par octaétéris" in Le Muséon 87 (1974), 307-339.

37 The law does not mention Arians, and its inclusion of the Novatians also shows that it was made before the Council.

Page 212

hereticsNovatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, Cataphrygians, etc. The Novatians were rigorists, named after a Roman cleric Novatian, who had become an anti-pope at the time of the Decian persecution. Constantine probably disliked their rigorist views, 38 and included them in his list of heretics. The Council found no doctrinal error in the Novatians, whose disagreement was over the treatment of those who had lapsed during persecution. It accommodated them under roughly the same terms as were applied to the Melitians. Constantine's law became a dead letter, as far as the Novatians were concerned, 39 and discussion of the point has survived in modern times only because Eusebius of Caesarea deliberately quoted the law as if it represented Constantine's final word on the subject of heretics, and did not include Arians. 40 Canon 19 is important as an indicator that the Council did not feel obliged to agree with Constantine on all matters, and those who think that it felt obliged to agree with him on any must prove their case.

It is time now to face a question posed by Ullmann, and discussed above in connection with the Edict of Milan. 41 "By what authority did Constantine intervene in the affairs of the Christian Church, since for the greater part of his life and reign he was not formally a Christian, however much he favored Christianity and advocated its tenets, maxims, and substance? By what right did he intervene in disputes and controversies which primafacie seemed to concern the Christian Church alone? By what title-deed did he as emperor convene synods?" Ullmann quoted Eduard Schwartz: "It was altogether unheard of that a universal valid creed should be fixed merely by the authority of an emperor who was not even permitted to take part in the celebration of the Eucharist. Against this monstrous interference not a single bishop had dared to utter a word of disapproval or

38 See the story in Socrates HE 1.10 about his grilling Acesius at Nicaea.

39 They were specifically exempted by CTh 16.5.2 of 326, Sept. 25, a whole year later.

40 T. G. Elliott, "Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini" in Phoenix 45.2 (1991), 167-168.

41 W. Ullmann, "The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement" in JEH 27.1 (1976), 1-16.

Page 213

contradiction." 42Ullmann reminded his reader that "surely one can hardly assume that all these bishops assembled at Nicaea were knaves so soon after the Diocletian persecutions which many of them must have experienced themselves" and went on to answer that Constantine did it all in his capacity as legislator responsible for the public law of the empire. I wish to suggest other considerations which will make the acquiescence of the bishops in his activity more understandable.

First of all, I believe that Schwartz has greatly overrated Constantine's influence on the Nicene creed, which I think was produced by the bishops themselves. 43 The compromise at Nicaea referred to by Eustathius was not on doctrine, but on the question of what was going to happen to Arians who had been caught by Constantine's fast action.

Second, we know that Constantine worked very closely with Ossius, and I have suggested that the few western bishops at the Council had followed Constantine on his expedition against Licinius. Ossius presided over the councils at Alexandria and Antioch, and Nicaea. The convoking of the Council of Nicaea would have had his full support, and that of the other western bishops, and that of the eastern ones too. 44 Constantine need not have been seen as acting on his own. Furthermore, all Christians would have agreed with him in wanting unity in the Church, so that the whole scheme of a council was unobjectionable, whatever individuals might think of the result. We know that Eustathius was somewhat unhappy, and we cannot suppose that the two exiled bishops were content, 45 but that was not cause for great distress on the part of the bishops in general. Who would have assumed that it was the duty of a Christian emperor to bring peace to the Church so that it could become as fragmented as various sects produced

42 E. Schwartz, Kaiser Konstantin und die christliche Kirche (Leipzig/Berlin, 1913), 141; 1936 ed., 139-140.

43 In his letter to Alexander of Alexandria early in 328 (Opitz, Urkunde 32, line 6) he refers to the faith of Nicaea as having been defined "by you," meaning the bishops, with Constantine himself present and taking part in the work.

44 The varying number of bishops present might be explained by the arrival, after the creed had been agreed on, of western bishops in agreement with it.

45 In "Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea: A Note on the background of the Sixth Canon" in HTR 53 (1960), 171-195, H. Chadwick argued that their exile was due to their efforts to assert the independence of the Pentapolis from Alexandria.

Page 214

by the Persecution could want? It was not Constantine who invented the idea of a Catholic Church. In short, the reason for the lack of questioning of Constantine's actions was that there seemed to be no need to question them. Nothing but good was expected to result from them. There never was, as far as we know, any question of "rights" or of "title deeds." Constantine's speech to the bishops at Nicaea as quoted by Gelasius 46 contains an earnest plea to be allowed to be one of the council, and it is hard to see how it could have been refused. It was the business of bishops to welcome Christians into the Church, and an emperor willing to "render to God etc." was obviously a special case.

There remains the fact, mentioned by Schwartz, that Constantine could not even take part in the Eucharist, because he was not baptized. Every discussion of this point has been written on the assumption that he could have been baptized long before 337, if he had so wished. On the view adopted here, he was a Christian during the Persecution, and both then and thereafter had had more to do with pagan ritual and institutions than was good for the reputation of a catechumen. At Nicaea the bishops had not found the rigorist Novatians heretical, and had effected a compromise with them. Years of penance were still the order of the day for Christians who had sacrificed, and Constantine may have thought that the fact that he had not been baptized at the time made no great difference. I am not surprised that he did not choose to humiliate himself in public over actions which he would have regarded as justified in his own peculiar circumstances, or that he had reasons for continuing to be pontifex maximus. Under the canons of the Church he could, without penance, be baptized when on the point of death, as indeed he was. He was a conscientious Christian who was not part of the Christian community. The bishops recognized him as such.

46HE 2.7.39-40.

Page 215

CHAPTER ELEVEN

EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA

We have now become involved with an important character, acknowledged by both friends and foes as an able leaderEusebius of Nicomedia. Athanasius paints him in the darkest colors, as the engineer of an Arian reaction after Nicaea, under whose leadership the Arians had many orthodox bishops deposed and exiled, who gained great influence over Constantine, and who made Athanasius his special target as he sought to establish the heresy. The Eunomian 1 ecclesiastical historian Philostorgius regarded him as their great champion, craftily disseminating Arian doctrine in place of the Nicene creed. To Philostorgius we might add the Arian historian of Bidez' Appendix VII of his edition of Philostorgius, and the Arians of Sozomen 3.19. Modern secular historians of the period are agreed in regarding him as the genius, more or less evil (depending on the historian), who led Constantine away from the doctrine of Nicaea and into a different position. Barnes had many predecessors (and followers) in thinking that Eusebius replaced Ossius as the emperor's ecclesiastical advisor, and that the results for "ecclesiastical politics" were drastic. 2 Church historians for centuries have written with some energy about the malice and machinations of Eusebius. All of this is based on the apparent unanimity of our anti-Arian and pro-Arian sources. It is the primary object of this chapter to show that that unanimity is worth no more than the

1This was the name given to the extreme Arians later in the century.

2 T. D. Barnes, CE, 225 and note 9 thereto. William G. Rusch, "A la recherche de l'Athanase historique" in pp. 161-177 of Politique et Théologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie: Actes du colloque de Chantilly 23-25 Septembre 1973 edited by Charles Kannengiesser (Paris, 1974), takes the view that Philostorgius preserves some nonorthodox material not flattering to Athanasius.

Page 216

polemical assertions of Athanasius.

The description of Eusebius in the fragments of Philostorgius' account of events after the Council of Nicaea has been taken as support for Athanasius' claims that there was an Arian reaction after Nicaea. The scepticism of Eduard Schwartz about those claimsand, more recently, the radical views of Richard Klein 3 on the value of Athanasius' evidencehave not dealt with the fact that Philostorgius' account confirms, from the opposing camp, that of Athanasius. Nevertheless, an examination of Philostorgius' account of Eusebius of Nicomedia will show that more than one opinion is possible regarding this support by Philostorgius. The view taken affects not only our estimate of Philostorgius, but also the way we look at the later struggle between Athanasius and Constantius II.

In 1.9-10 Philostorgius says that at Nicaea all the bishops agreed on the creed except Secundus and Theonas, but that the rest of the Arian bishops such as Eusebius, Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon accepted it with a fraudulent intent ''concealing the homoiousios under the term homoousios." Nevertheless, they subscribed the creed in spite of the fact that Constantina (sic), the emperor's sister, suggested to them that they should refuse. As Secundus was going into exile he said to Eusebius: "You subscribed in order to avoid banishment, but I trust in God that you will be grieved on my account as you are sent into exile." 4

The important points here are the fraudulent subscription at Nicaea, the suggestion of Constantia and the later return to Arianism. It is worth noting that, for one to whom Philostorgius refers as "the great, 5 " Eusebius does not play a very heroic role at this time. Nobody has explained how

3 R. Klein, Constantius II und die christliche Kirche (Darmstadt, 1977). Klein has been followed by H. C. Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bishofsopposition gegen Konstantius II in vol. 26 of Patristische Texte und Studien (Berlin, 1984) and W. A. Lohr, Die Entstehung der homöischen und homöusianischen Kirchenparteien: Studien zur Synodalgeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts (Witterschlick/Bonn, 1986). See also Klein's "Zur Glaubwürdigkeit historischer Aussagen des Bischofs Athanasius von Alexandria über die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Constantius II" in Studia Patristica 17.3 (1982), 996-1017.

4 I translate the text of J. Bidez and F. Winkelmann in GCS (Berlin, 1981). The text of the present passage is doubtful.

5 1.9.

Page 217

he could have concealed homoiousios under homoousios; after the difficulty over the unscriptural word at Nicaea it clearly would have been impossible. Philostorgius' statement must simply be rejected. However, it is fact that Eusebius was banished soon after the Council, and that a return to Arianism was the reason given to the Nicomedians by Constantine for the banishment. 6 Whether Constantine was right about this is another matter. The mention of Constantia 7introduces a complex question. It seems that Philostorgius, in representing her as advising Eusebius at the Council of Nicaea, presented her as far more aggressively Arian than did Gelasius of Cyzicus, in his HE 3.12. 8 Gelasius says that an Arian priest named Eustokios got to be a regular guest of Constantina (sic), and gradually persuaded her that Arius really thought and taught the same as Alexander of Alexandria and the other bishops, and that Alexander was vainly opposing him. On her deathbed she introduced Eustokios to her devoted brother, who kept his promise to Constantina to do something about the matter. Eustokios became a frequent visitor at court. When Eusebius and Theognis heard this they wrote to the bishops and got what they requested. So Gelasius.

I take these stories about the emperor's sister to be fictions, because it is clear from his anti-Arian laws of 326 9 and 333 , and his letter to Arius in 333 11 that Constantine remained anti-Arian after Nicaea. I have argued elsewhere that his efforts to have Arius readmitted to communion, which were contemporaneous with the law of 326, should be viewed as part of an attempt to bury the heresy, not to revive it.12 The original purpose of the tale about Constantia was to explain why Constantine, who had been so resolute against Arianism at Nicaea, had allowed Arius and Eusebius back

6 Opitz, Urkunde 27.

7 This was her name.

8 G. Loeschke's text is in GCS 28 (Leipzig, 1918). Sozomen refers to this story in HE 3.19.

9CTh 16.5.1 of Sept. 1, when Constantine was in Italy, addressed to Dracilianus, the vicarius Orientis.

10 Opitz, Urkunde 33.

11 Opitz, Urkunde 34.

12 T. G. Elliott, "Constantine and the 'Arian Reaction after Nicaea'" in JEH 43.2 (1992), 169-194.

Page 218

into the Church, even though they were not orthodox. 13 Such a story must have been invented by an Athanasian writer, trapped between his alleged heresy of Eusebius and the known orthodoxy of Constantine. The story could have been invented any time after the late 350s, when Athanasius had begun to blame Arianism of Constantius II for all of his troubles. Gelasius presents an orthodox version, with Constantia as the dupe of Eustokios and Constantine as simply loyal to his sister after her death. Philostorgius foolishly thought that he was improving on the story by making Constantia into a much more aggressive Arian, whereas he was in fact making her quite unrealisticas an open opponent of her brother at Nicaea.

In 2.1 Philostorgius says that after "the Eusebians" had recanted at Nicaea Constantine punished them because after subscribing the homoousios they retained opposing views, but that he recalled Secundus and his associates from exile and sent letters everywhere "ridiculing the term homoousios and confirming (the doctrine of) another substance." When Alexander of Alexandria subscribed these letters Arius communicated with him. However, when fear of the emperor abated Alexander went back to his original views, and Arius and Company seceded from communion with him.

Of course, there were no such letters of Constantine. This account makes complete nonsense of his actions after Nicaea, by describing him as following the two opposed beliefs at the same time. Alexander never communicated with Arius, who was in exile until the end of 327. 14 Philostorgius' use of the term "the Eusebians" is, I think, significant. It is Athanasius' term for his opponents: the eastern bishops who agreed with Eusebius did not refer to themselves as "Eusebians." Philostorgius' use of the Athanasian term raises the possibility that his view of Eusebius as an Arian was not independent of the Athanasian tradition.

In 2.7 Philostorgius says that after three years in exile Eusebius,

13 In fact both Arius and Eusebius satisfied the eastern bishops of their orthodoxy. See Opitz, Urkunden 29, 30, 32, and 31.

14 It was because of Alexander's refusal to communicate with Arius that Constantine summoned the council at the end of 327. See Opitz, Urkunde 32. Since Alexander died on April 17, 328, there seems to be too little time for the alleged double reversal of policy, which is also against the evidence of Epiphanius, Panarion 68.7.2 ed. K. Holl in GCS 31, 37 (Leipzig, 1922-1933).

Page 219

Maris, and Theognis were recalled by Constantine, and immediately issued an heretical creed in order to counteract the Nicene one. They deposed and excommunicated Alexander upon his return to the homoousian faith, and deposed Eustathius of Antioch on a charge of having seduced a married woman. Constantine banished him to the west. There were no fewer than two hundred and fifty bishops at this council, which was held in Nicomedia.

It is generally agreed that Eusebius was readmitted to communion by a council which met at the end of 327, either at Nicomedia or Nicaea. The deposition of Alexander is fictitious. Eustathius was deposed, for Sabellianism, by a council which met at Antioch in 328. 15 The alleged Arian creed is a complete invention, since Athanasius knows nothing of it. The size of the council at Nicomedia has probably been much exaggerated. 16

It is interesting that Philostorgius explains the deposition of Eustathius as due to the seduction charge. One would think that an Arian would have preferred to say that he had been deposed for Sabellianism, if that had been the case. The seduction explanation would have suited the orthodox or the Athanasians much better, since it would have concealed the fact that there were real difficulties with the majority position at Nicaea. Philostorgius' use of this explanation is another indication that he is not so much an independent witness to the facts before his own time as he is a writer who uncritically accepts a tradition, and invents additions to it to suit his own views.

In 2.15 Philostorgius says, regarding Eusebius as a disciple of Lucian of Antioch, that he was led astray by the Council of Nicaea, but afterwards returned to his original Arian views.

In 2.16 he says that as Constantine began the thirty-second year of his reign he was poisoned by his brothers in Nicomedia (in atonement for the violent death of Crispus 2.4). When near death he discovered the plot and made a will ordering the first of his sons to arrive to punish his brothers.

15 R. P. C. Hanson, "The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch" in ZKG 95 (1984), 178-179. For the date of Eustathius' deposition see ch. 13 below.

16 C. Luibhéid, "The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea" in JEH 34.2 (1983), 165-174.

Page 220

He gave the will to Eusebius, who, for fear lest the emperor's brothers find it, placed it in the hands of the dead emperor, and hid it beneath his clothes. When the brothers sought the will he told them that he had received it, but had returned it to the hands of the emperor. Later he got it and gave it to Constantius II, who accordingly punished the brothers.

This is obviously a fiction. There is no reason why Constantine's brothers should have poisoned him over the execution of Crispus, and no reason why they should have waited eleven years to do it. The effect of the story is to exonerate Constantius II of the murders of the imperial family after Constantine's death. Photius says in 3.2 that Constantius was loudly praised by Philostorgius. Philostorgius obviously accepted the claim that Constantius was an Arian. He did not find that in a Homoean or Arian source. It was the contention of the Athanasians.

Now, there are two facts which support Philostorgius' general line on Eusebius. Constantine did give a reversion to Arianism by Eusebius as his reason for exiling him after Nicaea, and Eusebius was readmitted by a council at the end of 327. However, it is not necessary to accept fictions, whether orthodox or Arian, to account for those facts.

The discussion of Eusebius' theology in chapter 8 above, and Colm Luibhéid's demonstration that Eusebius had never agreed with Arius that the Son was made out of nothing 17 must make us pause before accepting Constantine's view that Eusebius had once been an Arian, or that he had reverted to that position. Constantine does not exactly say that he has found out anything about Eusebius' theology: he says that he not only gave shelter to Arians, but also shared the badness of their character. 18 Is it not possible that Constantine did less than justice to Eusebius' theology in 325, and that the readmission of Eusebius to communion in 327 was due to a recognition of that fact? It must be remembered that Eusebius had subscribed the Nicene creed in 325, and probably in 327 as well, and that the Council of Nicaea did not deal with the point that most troubled him, namely, the question of the priority of the Father.

I prefer to account for events on these assumptions. There is a definite

17 C. Luibhéid, "The Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia" in the Irish Theological Quarterly 43 (1976), 3-23, discussed below.

18 Opitz, Urkunde 27.16.

Page 221

advantage in doing so which is not well publicized in the scholarly literature. Constantine's laws of 326 and 333, and his letter to Arius in 333 show that he remained firmly anti-Arian after Nicaea. There is no use in refusing to acknowledge this. We are dealing with an anti-Arian emperor who at least tolerated Eusebius of Nicomedia, and who may have had much to do with him. The natural explanation of this is that Constantine had changed his mind about Eusebius, and decided that he was not an Arian. I believe that Constantine's opinion on this point deserves more respect than it has received.

All of the fictions in Philostorgius' account of Eusebius depend on his assumption that Eusebius was an Arian, and a very redoubtable one at that. He must have gotten that assumption from the Athanasian tradition, but why would he have believed Athanasius, unless he had been telling the truth?

The answer is that Philostorgius was looking for early Arian predecessors of his own Eunomian sect, and was eager to believe the sort of presentation of Eusebius made by Athanasius, who used the term "Arian" extremely loosely, and who abandoned his mind, or at least his writing, to his "once an Arian always an Arian" doctrine. This is why Philostorgius calls Eusebius "the great" in spite of his knowledge that Eusebius was no martyr. The effect on Philostorgius of the acceptance of the assumption of Eusebius' Arianism must be carefully observed. In 2.1 he invents letters by Constantine, in 2.7 he invents a creed by Eusebius, and in 2.16 he invents the story of Eusebius and Constantine's will. Only with these inventions can he manufacture a Eusebius who will meet the description given by Athanasius. In fact Eusebius had subscribed the homoousios in 325 and probably in 327, and was readmitted to communion because he met the standard of orthodoxy imposed by the eastern bishops.

The view of Eusebius presented by Philostorgius seems to be reflected also in Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History. In 3.19, while describing events leading to the Council of Ariminum in 359, Sozomen tells of some Arians who claimed all of the following: that after the Council of Nicaea in 325 many priests, including (the bishops) Eusebius and Theognis, retracted the homoousios, and were banished by Constantine for that reason; that they were eventually recalled by Constantine, when his sister changed his mind about the banishments, and were asked why they, who had subscribed the homoousios in 325, had since disavowed it; that they replied to him that in

Page 222

325 they had subscribed, not because of conviction, but through fear lest the emperor, who was then only beginning to embrace Christianity, might become annoyed by ecclesiastical disputes, revert to paganism, and resume persecution of the Church; that Constantine was pleased with this reply, and decided to convene another council, but was prevented by death; and that Constantius convened the Council of Ariminum at the instigation of his father.

Sozomen refuted this fabrication by pointing out that the Council of Ariminum was convened twenty-two years after the death of Constantine. The Arians in question were probably engaged in a defensive controversy during the reign of Theodosius.

These later Arians did not have to be concerned about the fact that Eusebius, Theognis, and some Arians affirmed the homoousios in 327, because by their time there was current the story about Constantia, which ascribed a change of heart to Constantine, and made an arianizing Constantine possible: they could discard evidence of the orthodoxy of Eusebius. There was also an ingredient in their story which did not come from the Athanasian tradition, and which fell in very nicely with their attempt to produce an honorable motive for the subscription by Eusebius of the Nicene creed in 325, namely, the conversion of Constantine. This they had to get from Eusebius of Caesarea's Life of Constantine, 19because there was no other source for it. That work was important to the Arians' case for another reason. It presents Constantine as agreeing with the theological views of Eusebius of Caesarea 20

So far as I can see, there were only two sources for Philostorgius' account of Eusebius of Nicomediathe Athanasian tradition and Eusebius of Caesarea's Life of Constantine. Athanasius himself knew that Constantine had been quite orthodox. However, after he had so thoroughly vilified Constantius II as an Arian heretic, some Athanasian writer

19On this story see ch. 4 above. The Arians, followed by Philostorgius 1.6, thought that the conversion occurred at the time of the war with Maxentius, so that they must have gotten the story from Eusebius of Caesarea, rather than from the conjectures of Libanius or Julian the Apostate, who provide dates after Nicaea for their conversions of Constantine.

20 T. G. Elliott, "Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini" in Phoenix 45.2 (1991), 162-172.

Page 223

proceeded to make Constantine into an Arian sympathizer, attracted toward the heresy by his sister and the priest Eustokios. 21 The Arians of Sozomen did what Philostorgius was to do much later. They accepted the Athanasian tradition, with which they were quite comfortable because its picture of the Arian villain Eusebius of Nicomedia dovetailed with what they found in the Life of Constantine of Eusebius of Caesarea about a Constantine who was not much concerned about the heresy. When Philostorgius came along, he took Eusebius of Nicomedia for the hero and forerunner of his own Eunomian sect, as Athanasius had presented him, but when he researched the Arianism of Eusebius and Constantine, he did not find it. And so, he invented it. These inventions designed to produce an Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia show that the Athanasian account of him was not satisfactory to someone who very much wanted to believe it.

I think, therefore, that our view of the independence of Philostorgius must be qualified. For the early period he writes from an Arian viewpoint, but he does not seem to have any Arian material. He simply accepts what he finds in the Athanasian tradition, and makes his own additions to that. The result is that for the early period he is a positive mischief, leading us to think more of Athanasian polemic against Eusebius than it is worth.

In earlier chapters we have encountered Eusebius as an early supporter of some of Arius' ideas, who was certainly on speaking terms with orthodox bishops in the east and who signed the Nicene creed, but not the anathemas. Unfavorable interpretation of his behavior explains this as an effort to retain his see while adhering to heretical theology. Such an explanation, however, is difficult to reconcile with his refusal to sign the anathemas, and with his continuing relationship with Arius after the council, a relationship for which he was soon exiled by the emperor. His behavior at the Council does not seem to provide evidence of dishonesty on his part.

Examination of Eusebius from a more theological point of view than that presented above does not yield a simple picture of Arianism either. Colm Luibhéid pointed out that Eusebius, Arius, and Alexander all worked in a tradition "where the Father was thought of as ho theos, the God, and

21 In Historia Arianorum 5 Athanasius says that Basilina was active in proceedings against Eutropius of Hadrianople, a bishop who was very energetic against Eusebius.

Page 224

the Son as theos. The burden of Alexander's enterprise was to show that the Son as theos was totally like the Father who is ho theos. Yet only the slightest shift of emphasis, where the weight would be more on the Father as the God, would suffice to sharpen for others the sense of the necessary difference between Father and Son. Pushed too far it could even lead to the idea of the actual inferiority of the Son in relation to the Father. But it need not be pushed that far." Luibhéid has declined to accept the common assumption that Eusebius' opposition to Alexander is proof of his "essentially heretical bias." 22 More recently, Hanson has said that some form of subordinationism might be described as orthodoxy until well after 355. 23

On the basis of Eusebius' letter to Paulinus of Tyre, and his letter to Arius, both quoted above in chapter 8, Luibhéid takes it that the bishop of Nicomedia would have thought that "if, as scripture proclaimed, God created, established and begot the Son, if too the Father is the God and the Son God, then however tentatively or unhappily one may phrase the fact it would seem that one has to think of some kind of 'interval,' a sort of pretemporal time-lag between the unbegotten Father and that act, summed up by the terms created, established and begot, and having as result the being of the begotten God. Origen, with his notion of the eternal begetting of the Son had in some way avoided the problem, if only at the level of the use of words. But for others the term 'begotten' carried within it an unmistakable hint of a once-for-all pre-temporal 'before' and 'after'." Eusebius and Arius agreed that "the Son was not constituted out of the being and substance of the Father." Luibhéid distinguishes very sharply between Arius' willingness to assert that the Son came to be from what is not, and Eusebius' insistence that the Son's beginning was inexpressible, and incomprehensible to man. 24 We have already seen that Alexander agreed with him on this point.

With regard to the later treatment of Eusebius by the Church historians, Luibhéid takes Theodoret as an example. "Theodoret is judging

22 C. Luibhéid, "The Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia" in the Irish Theologica Quarterly 43. 1 (1976), 3-23. at 8-9.

23 Hanson, Search, xix.

24 "Who shall declare his generation?" Is. 53:8.

Page 225

a past situation by the criteria of his own time. In the eyes of a theology which says that ho theos is Father-Son-Spirit the denial of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is tantamount to subverting the true divinity of the Son. But in a theology which, as was regularly the case in the fourth century and earlier, starts from the premise that ho theos is the Father, the assertion that Father and Son are 'consubstantial' has deeply disquieting implications, and if a Eusebius of Nicomedia remained opposed to it the reason did not have to lie in the promptings of evil so clearly implied by Theodoret." 25

This brings us to the Council of Nicaea and related developments. Eustathius (frg. 32, quoted above 26) lets us see that from the point of view of some vehement anti-Arians something went very wrong at Nicaea, namely, that the Council did not require penance of ex-Arians. These were allowed simply to sign the creed and retain their sees. Now Eusebius signed the creed, but not the anathemas, as we know from the letter which he and Theognis wrote to the council of Nicaea in 327.

We having been sometime since condemned by your piety, without a formal trial, ought to bear in silence the decisions of your sacred adjudication. But since it is unreasonable that we by silence should countenance calumniators against ourselves, we on this account declare that we entirely concur with you in the faith; and also that, after having closely considered the import of the term consubstantial, we have been wholly studious of peace, having never followed the heresy. After suggesting whatever entered our thought for the security of the churches, and fully assuring those under our influence, we subscribed the declaration of faith; we did not subscribe the anathematizing; not as objecting to the creed, but as disbelieving the party accused to be such as was represented, having been satisfied on this point, both from his own letters to us, and from personal conversations. (Zenos' translation). 27

25 See also ch. 8, note 61 above.

26 P. 204-205

27 Opitz, Urkunde 31.

Page 226

In this letter Eusebius must have been telling the truth, for it was addressed to bishops who had been present at the Council. His statement that he did not subscribe the anathematizing is quite interesting, because his failure to do so did not get him exiled. Moreover, his reason for not subscribing, namely, that he did not believe that Arius ''was such as was represented," does not make very good sense, but other examples can be given of this sort of behavior by persons in similar situations. Eusebius refers to letters of Arius and conversations with him. As I read the Nicene creed, that was no reason for not subscribing the anathemas, because Arius is not named in them, and need not have been meant by them. The anathemas are all worded "Those who say" (present tense), followed by the view which the Church anathematizes, so that if Arius had changed his mind, he should not have been in trouble. It is hard to believe that Eusebius failed to understand this. Perhaps at the council the bishops made it clear that they thought that Arius was in fact saying those things in 325, and that they would therefore not revoke his excommunication by Alexander of Alexandria, and Eusebius was claiming that he was not saying those things. In that situation he may have felt that there was some point in refusing to sign the anathemas, and the bishops may simply have humored him.

I see no reason to doubt that in 325 Eusebius had a clearer idea of Arius' current views (whatever those were) than most members of the Council had. His subscription of the creed and his later statement that he had never followed the heresy (by which I take him to mean the Arianism of the Thalia) do not seem to me inconsistent with the letter to Paulinus, and his description of himself as "studious of peace," suggests that he was putting more stock in the decisions of the Council than he did in his own private opinions. I therefore would agree with Luibhéid's view that the letter to Paulinus was a "contribution to a living debate" rather than "automatic and unambiguous proof of the essentially heretical bias of the bishop of Nicomedia." Of course, his opponents would never admit this. Athanasius persisted in representing Arius as having remained committed to every word of the Thalia until his dying day, despite the verdicts of two councils to the contrary, and there is no reason to believe that he treated Eusebius any better. As far as I can see Eusebius tried to get the bishops at Nicaea to pay some attention to the problem addressed by Arius of the priority of the Father, but without success. The bishops were more

Page 227

interested in blasting Arius than in paying attention to the problem which he had raised and which Eusebius of Nicomedia wished to discuss.

My reading of Philostorgius inclines me to think that the tradition on Eusebius is not a two-sided one: it comes to us from Athanasiusa bitter and vehement adversary who was not scrupulous. This would not be so important if we had anything else to go on, but views of Eusebius by other contemporaries have not survivedexcept for the obvious facts. Eusebius was an important leader of the eastern bishops until his death in 341 or early 342. During this period the eastern bishops were not Arians. How should these facts affect our view of Eusebius? It is the practice of most Church historians to simply believe the assertions of Athanasius, and to seek confirmation of his claims in any behavior of the eastern episcopate which he said was suspicioussuch as any failure to insist on the word homoousios. Now, I cannot say that I am overwhelmed by the eastern bishops, but it seems to me that their struggle for a Christian doctrine of God during the fourth century was a serious one, and I am loath to think of them as pusillanimous idiots on the say-so of Athanasius.

The second point of this introduction to Eusebius is that he was never anything like a perfect Arian, and there seems to me to be no good reason against accepting his subscription of the Nicene creed in 325 as sincere. If he had been trying to deceive anyone, he would havesigned the anathemas as well, rather than leave himself open to suspicion.

Page 229

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE AFTERMATH OF THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

Although Constantine was interested in the Council from a political point of view, and although he evidently got what he wanted from it, he did not simply walk away from Nicaea with the creed and consider the matter at an end. His letters written after the Council are important evidence for his attitude during it.

The letter to the Alexandrians shows that he knew that acceptance of the Nicene formula would not come easily in some quarters, and that he was particularly concerned to recommend the Council's decisions to the Alexandrians. 1 One of his arguments in favor of the formula is especially interesting, and has not, I think, received enough attention. Constantine makes it clear throughout the letter that he wants unity, and regards the decision of the three hundred bishops as a sound basis for it. However, he does not simply put this as a matter of obeying authority. He says (sec. 4) that the fault of the Arians was blasphemy against the Savior and the hope of (eternal) life, in a manner opposed to Holy Writ and the Christian faith. In view of Constantine's earlier references to the Savior, in documents relating to the Donatists, there is nothing surprising about his argument here. However, it is important to keep it in mind, because it must affect our interpretation of his later actions. Constantine took the position that Arianism amounted to a denial of the faith, by removing the possibility that Christ could be a Redeemer. 2 It seems to me very unlikely that someone

1Opitz, Urkunde 25.

2 Cf. Opitz, Urkunden 25,4 and 27,1-6, and Constantine's Speech to the Assembly of the Saints 11-12.

Page 230

who did that, to start with, would come to disagree with Athanasius on the doctrinal question, or that he would readily countenance Arian interpretations of the Nicene formula. 3 It also seems to me that this statement of Constantine's must be taken very seriously by those interested in Arian soteriology. At Nicaea Constantine seemed to think that Arianism was grossly defective on this point, and I think that he knew enough to form a reasonable judgment on it.

He soon came to the conclusion that some of the Arians and suspected Arians had not simply dropped their doctrine after the Council. In September or October of 325 4 Constantine banished Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea for consorting with Arians from Alexandria. He then wrote a letter "to the Catholic Church of the Nicomedians." 5 After explaining and justifying the doctrine of Nicaea he turned to the divisions which were allegedly being perpetuated by Eusebius. Eusebius is a bandit (he says), denying the faith and depriving his flock of it. He was the tool and confederate of Licinius, and is responsible for the murders of real bishops. He has spied against Constantine and has helped Licinius against him. His doctrine is perverted, and he has schemed and plotted against the good order of the Church. When he was decisively refuted at Nicaea he tried secretly, and with temporary success, to deceive the emperor and get his help, so that he might weasel out of the Council's doctrine and still keep his see. He and Theognis gave aid and comfort to some Alexandrian heretics whom Constantine had had brought to Nicaea. He is a fool and a malicious ingrate, and now that he has been banished the Nicomedians can get themselves a holy bishop. If some of them want to follow Eusebius, Constantine will deal with them too.

This is hardly an expression of mild disapproval. The only reason for reading it as such is that that seems to make it easier to explain some of Constantine's later relations with Eusebius. It is better to draw the obvious conclusion that in the autumn of 325 Constantine regarded Eusebius as a scoundrel, and to leave the later problems until later. Constantine's words here are not those of a man who has listened with mild interest to a

3 See ch. 11, note 31 above.

4 Philostorgius, HE 1.10.

5 Opitz, Urkunde 27.

Page 231

theological debate, and has then set out in an easy-going way to make peace between the winners and the losers. He speaks as one who had been determined all along to extinguish the heresy, and has been upset by the behavior of Eusebius after Nicaea. The reason for Eusebius' banishment is made clear.

I had some Alexandrian heretics sent here because the flames of discord had been stirred up by their efforts. But these fine bishops, whom once the truth of the synod had preserved for repentance, not only received them and kept them safe in their houses, but also shared in their wickedness. For this reason I decided thus concerning these ingrates: I ordered them taken off to exile as far away as possible (my translation).

The identity of these Arians has been discussed above. 6 They were those mentioned in Alexander's letter to the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis announcing his deposition of Arius, 7 including Euzoius, who was certainly in exile with Arius.8 8 The bishops Secundus and Theonas, who apparently had declared themselves completely intransigent at the Council, 9 were required to subscribe the formula or be exiled. The other clerics were not in that situation. It was neither necessary nor desirable to exile them, along with every other Arian priest or deacon. It was to be hoped that they would bow to authority and recant. Arius and the others under pressure to repudiate their doctrine, instead of being left out in the cold, had been taken in by Eusebius and Theognis. 10 Constantine would not tolerate that. Eusebius and Theognis were exiled for what Constantine regarded as a dishonestly concealed intent to persist in the heresy. Arius' involvement with them worsened his own position, for he was now a conspirator. He

6 Pp. 149; 180. See also pp. 239 and 243 below.

7 Opitz, Urkunden 4a and 4b.6.

8 Opitz, Urkunde 30.

9 Cf. Philostorgius, HE 1.9-10 and H. Chadwick, "Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea" in HTR 53 (1960) 171-195.

10On the theological views of Eusebius and Arius see Colm Luibhéid, "The Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia" in the Irish Theological Quarterly 43 (1976), 3-23 and "Finding Arius" in ITQ 45 (1978), 81-101.

Page 232

too was now exiled, along with other Alexandrians who had not recanted at Nicaea and tried to go home. None of this would have been required by the Council, but it would have been understood that the Council approved such peacekeeping measures as Constantine might think necessary if he were to find in fact that the Arians were not accepting the verdict of the Council. 11 Constantine's indignant statements to the Nicomedians regarding the intrigues of their bishop follow on the situation described by Eustathius of Antioch, in his frg. 32 which has already been quoted. 12 Since we can scarcely imagine that Constantine was prowling about to see whom Eusebius was entertaining, it seems reasonable to conclude that he was listening to enemies of Arius and Eusebiusto people like Eustathius of Antioch. His complaints about Eusebius and Licinius were of matters known to him before the Council and presumably excused then, but resurrected for the purpose of exiling Eusebius.

The third of these letters after the Council is the very chilly one to Theodotus, who was the bishop of Laodicea in Syria and an Arian sympathizer at the Council. 13 Constantine advised him to reflect on what had been done to Eusebius and Theognis, and to behave like a Christian. This letter makes it quite easy to understand why no Arian writing is securely attested for the period 325-337.

In the spring of 326 Constantine journeyed to Rome for the celebration of his vicennalia, and on his way thither he turned aside from Aquileia to Pola in Istria, where he had his son Crispus executed. 14 Soon afterwards his wife Fausta was also executed, apparently a compulsory suicide. We do not know the reason for either of these two executions, but something drastic had clearly occurred, and it is not surprising that historians, ancient and modern, have looked very hard for an explanation. 15 For the ancient pagan apologists the two deaths were a godsend: they represented the

11 It is possible that Constantine made a mistake here by putting the worst possible construction on Eusebius' actions, and that he later decided that he had been mistaken.

12 Above, pp. 202-203.

13 Opitz, Urkunde 28, quoted above at pp. 170-171.

14 Ammianus Marcellinus, Res gestae 14.11.20 for the place; Epitome de Caesaribus 41.11; Zosimus 2.29.2 for the date.

15 See P. Guthrie, "The Execution of Crispus" in Phoenix 20 (1966), 325-331.

Page 233

emperor as conscience-stricken, and as finding that the only way to wash away this sin, as they portrayed it, was to become a Christian and be baptized. Fausta was said to have seduced Crispus, and then, having had him despatched by a false accusation, to have fallen victim herself to the grief of Helen, the young man's grandmother, who reproached Constantine for his death. Alternatively, Fausta was said to have had an affair with one of the palace cursores. The theories which represent Crispus as the victim of a false accusation must meet two very serious objections-namely, that Crispus resided in the west, far from Fausta, and that Constantine, having made the alleged mistake, never rehabilitated the memory of Crispus, whose name remained erased from inscriptions.

Other explanations relate the deaths to laws which Constantine made regarding sexual morals in 326. 16 The laws have been discussed recently by J. Evans-Grubbs, who has argued that the harshness of the punishments prescribed was not dictated by Christian ideals. Constantine appears to have been trying to discourage abduction marriage. That he should have made this severe law on April 1 and executed his son under it in April-June is quite puzzling. Crispus was married and had a child.

P. Guthrie has sought to explain the execution of Crispus by dynastic considerations, but his argument has been somewhat upset by his contention that Crispus was illegitimate, since Constantine was not married to Minervina. I have accepted the claim that he was married to her. 17 Nevertheless, the suggestion that dynastic considerations were critical at this moment is attractive. Crispus was substantially older than his halfbrothers, and after three consulships he had the recent success against Licinius to his credit. On the other hand, the three sons of Fausta must have seemed to Constantine a better guarantee of a stable succession. It was a delicate situation, presenting many opportunities for mischief. 18

Recently G. Marasco has argued that Constantine discovered an affair

16 On the dates of these laws see ch. 6 above. I do not accept the 326 date for CTh 9.24.1.

17 See ch. 2, init.

18 n. J. E. Austin has pursued a conjecture of Barnes even further by guessing that Crispus had been dabbling in magic, and that Fausta accused him of plotting. See "Constantine and Crispus, A.D. 326" in Acta Classica 23 (1980), 131-188.

Page 234

between Crispus and Fausta, which he punished very severely as incest. 19 This argument is based on a thorough discussion of the development of the tradition in the sources; it commands some respect, and could be right.

I do not know why Constantine executed his son and his wife. What must be noted here is the effect which the two executions have had on his reputation. It is not altogether easy for many people to feel comfortable with Constantine after that, in spite of the possibility, which must be acknowledged, that he had good reasons. It is not as if we knew enough about Crispus to be certain that he was above serious wrongdoing, and the same goes for Fausta.

At some time after the Council of Nicaea in 325 and before Constantine could have learned of the death of bishop Alexander of Alexandria, which occurred on April 17 of 328, three related documents were produced whose dates are very important to the understanding of Constantine's policy. These were Constantine's letter to Arius of November 27 (no year given), a reply of Arius and Euzoius to Constantine, and a letter from Constantine to Alexander. They are Opitz, Urkunden 29, 30, and 32. 20 I would translate them as follows.

Victor Constantine, the Greatest, Augustus, to Arius.

It was revealed some time ago to your firmness that you might come to our court, so that you might have the pleasure of seeing us. We are very much surprised that you have not done so immediately. Accordingly avail yourself now of a public conveyance and hasten to our court, in order that, having obtained our favor and our fellowship, you may be able to return to your own country. God will guard you, dear brother. Given November 27.

Arius and Euzoius to our most pious and God-loving Lord, the Emperor Constantine.

19 G. Marasco, "Costantino e le uccisioni di Crispo e Fausta (326 D. C.)" in Rivista difilologia e di istruzione classica 121.3 (1993), 297-317, esp. 315-317.

20Urkunde 31 is the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea to the second council of Nicaea. It does not provide evidence for the chronology.

Page 235

As your devout Piety has commanded, Sovereign Lord, we are setting forth our faith and do confess in writing that we and all those with us do believe as to God as is here set down. We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, God the Word, through whom all things in heaven and on earth were made, who came down and took on flesh and suffered and rose again and ascended into heaven and is coming again to judge the living and the dead, and in the Holy Spirit, and the resurrection of the body, and the life of the world to come, and in the kingdom of heaven, and in the one catholic Church of God throughout all the world. This faith we have received from the holy Gospels, as our Lord said to his disciples: "Go and teach all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But if we do not so believe these things and truly receive the Father and Son and Holy Spirit as the whole catholic Church and the Scriptures teach, God is our judge both now and in the day to come. Therefore we ask Your Piety, most God-beloved Emperor, to unite us, churchmen as we are and having the faith and mind of the Church and the Holy Scriptures, to our mother the Church, through your pacific and reverent piety, the investigations with all their wordiness having been removed, in order that we and the Church, reconciled with each other, together may offer the accustomed prayers for your peaceful and pious Majesty and for all your family.

Victor Constantine, the Greatest, Augustus to Father Alexander, bishop.

And now, I suppose, abominable envy will bark at us with its unholy tricks of postponement; what then of the present case? Do we teach other things contrary to what was decided by you through the operation of the Holy Spirit, most honored brother? I tell you that Arius, the Arius, has come to me, the Augustus, professing, as a result of exhortation by a great many people, that he believed those things concerning our catholic faith which were

Page 236

defined and established by you at the council at Nicaea, when I myself was present and took part in the discussion as your fellow servant. Forthwith then Arius and Euzoius, recognizing, it is clear, the intent of their ruler's command, came to us. I discoursed with them in the presence of many concerning the word of life. I am that man who has dedicated his mind with a pure faith to God; I am your fellow servant, whose whole heart is set on our peaceful agreement. [and after other matters] I have despatched this therefore, not only reminding, but also asking you to receive the suppliants. If, then, you find them upholding the true and saving apostolic faith set forth at Nicaea for this in our presence they affirmed they believe 21take care of all of them, I ask you. For if you look after them you will overcome the hatreds by your agreement. And so, I ask you, promote such agreement, bestow the blessings of friendship on those who do not differ as regards the faith, make me hear those things which I so much desire, that you are living in peace and agreement. God will guard you, most honored father.

It is agreed that the beginning of this last letter has been lost and that the chronological order of the documents is that in which they are set out here.

Most scholars now seem to follow Schwartz in dating Constantine's letter of November 27, and the reply of Arius and Euzoius thereto, to the year 327, 22 and Constantine's letter to Alexander to early 328. It has seemed to scholars that Constantine's efforts in this connection indicate that he was backing away from the decision at Nicaea in 325. On the assumption that he was unhappy with the decision of 325 it seems necessary to have a longer period than three months intervene between his anti-Arian law of September 1, 326 and his efforts on behalf of Arius, especially since it is clear from the letter of November 27 that that letter was not Constantine's first invitation to Arius.

21 This is worth noting. It should neutralize objections that Arius had carefully avoided the use of the word homoousios in his creed at this time.

22 Seeck in Regesten 177 had dated the letter to 326, as Jones did later in C&C 172-176.

Page 237

Now, there is no internal evidence whatever for the accepted dating, and two elementary considerations are against it. First, there was obviously too little time between November 27 of 327 and December of 327, when the council which readmitted Arius to communion met, for an exchange of letters between Constantine and Arius and for further negotiations (and travel) prior to the bringing of Arius' case before the council. Second, Constantine's letter to Alexander urging him to take Arius back, if he found his belief orthodox, does not mention the decision of the council of 327 at all. Constantine had to make the most of his own personal qualifications for recommending Arius. He stresses his own presence at the Council of Nicaea in 325. 23 The obvious explanation is that the council of 327 was still in the future. These objections are of sufficient weight to rule out the accepted dates, unless no other dates are possible.

Therefore, in spite of the wrench involved in discarding the old chronology and in putting at risk the current reconstruction of events, it is necessary to consider the possibility that Constantine's letter to Arius was written on November 27 of 326, less than three months later than the anti- Arian law of September 1, and long before Eusebius of Nicomedia was out of exile. On November 27 of 326 Constantine was on the way from Aquileia to Sirmium, 24 and Arius was probably not far from there 25 There was plenty of time between that date and December of 327 for negotiations between Constantine and Arius (and Euzoius), for Constantine's attempt to persuade Alexander to readmit Arius to communion, and for preparations for the council of 327 after Alexander's refusal had been received. The internal evidence of the documents is in far better accord with the earlier dates, which result in the following reconstruction of events.

23 Those who think that the council of 327 was at Nicaea and that the letter was written later must be troubled by Constantine's failure in the letter to distinguish between the two councils at Nicaea.

24 On Oct. 23 of 326 (CTh 4.22.1) Constantine was at Milan, and on Dec. 31 (CJ 10.1.7) he was at Sirmium. He had been in Rome between July 18 and August 3. See Barnes, NE 77.

25 Philostorgius (HE 1.9a) gave Illyricum as the place of exile.

Page 238

In 326 26 Constantine, perhaps in response to a plea, somehow made it known that he wanted Arius to come to court. Apparently this had no known result. He then wrote a letter to Arius at the end of November inviting him to court. 27 Arius and his friend Euzoius replied that they wanted to rejoin the Church, and that they accepted Catholic doctrine 28 Constantine summoned them to court, 29 demanded a written statement of their belief, and questioned them publicly about it. Having heard their answers he wrote on their behalf to Alexander, asking him, if he should find that they professed the faith of Nicaea, to readmit the suppliants to Alexandria. Alexander refused. Constantine referred the case to a council which met at Nicaea or Nicomedia late in 327. 30 That council readmitted Arius and Euzoius, perhaps over the strenuous objections of Alexander.31 Thereupon Eusebius and Theognis, who had signed the Nicene formula at the Council in 325, quite understandably asked that they too be reinstated. 32 They were returned to the sees of Nicomedia and Nicaea.

26 I think it unlikely that Constantine had begun these efforts as early as 325. 0. Seeck, in Regesten, 176-178 had dated Urkunde 29 to 326. Cf. A. H. M. Jones, C&C, 172-176; R. Lorenz, "Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nica (327)" in ZKG 90 (1979), 30-32.

27 Opitz, Urkunde 29.

28 Opitz, Urkunde 30.

29 Perhaps at Sirmium, where his presence is attested by CJ 10.1.7, of December 31, 326.

30 Cf. E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1959), vol. 3, 205-208 (originally published in Göttingen Nachrichten of 1911); H. G. Opitz, "Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfngen bis zum Jahre 328" in Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 33 (1934), 156-159; Barnes, "E&B," 60-61 and CE 229. Barnes' view that the council met at Nicomedia rests on the evidence of Philostorgius, which is not good enough for this purpose. Similarly, the view that there were 250 bishops at this council is doubtful. Cf. C. Luibhéid, "The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea" in JEH 34 (1983), 165-174.

31 I take it that opposition by Alexander is the basis for the wild claim of Philostorgius (in HE 2.7a) that the council excommunicated Alexander and all the homoousians.

32 Opitz, Urkunde 31. They asked this of the council. Presumably they knew that Arius' case was coming before the council, and wrote the letter in case he should be readmitted. Perhaps, however, an exchange of letters was necessary during the council.

Page 239

On the present argument, the council of 327 acted in accord with that of 325. Up to this point I have based the argument regarding 325 largely on a preference for the evidence of Eustathius over the accounts of Eusebius and Athanasius, each of which is misleading in its own way. It is convenient now to add the strong confirmation of this view of the two councils which is provided by evidence of Jerome. This needs some introduction.

When Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria in 328 he continued or resumed the refusal of Alexander to readmit Arius to communion in Alexandria. 33 The passages in which he indicates his policy with regard to the readmission of heretics are: Apologia contra Arianos 59-60 (written about 357, 34 but attesting his policy in 328); the encyclical Ad episcopos Aegypti 18ff. (between Feb. 9, 356 and Feb. 24, 357) 35; Historia Arianorum 80 (358) ; 36 Letter to the Monks (before 359/60) 37; Letter to Serapion (c. 340) 38; Tomus ad Antiochenos 3-4 (of 362) 39; Letter to Rufinianus (after 362). 40 Athanasius is most harsh in 328, when he says that those who invented or maintained the heresy are to be permanently excluded from the Church. He is most conciliatory in 362, when referring to persons who had ''become Arian" under pressure from the emperor Constantius II. However, it must be acknowledged that Athanasius uses the term "Arian" very loosely, and that these people in 362 were not really Arians. At a later date, in his Letter to Rufinianus he says that penance should be required of clerics who had arianized recently without pressure. Their case was not parallel to that of the early Arians, whom he would

33 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 59-60.

34PG xxv, 356-357. PG xxv, 247-410 = Opitz 11,1, 87-168 Apologia secunda. The dates for these texts are those given by J. Quasten in his Patrology (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1966), vol. 3, 21-79, except as otherwise indicated.

35 PG xxv, 580-581.

36PG xxv, 792. PG xxv, 691-796 = Opitz II, I, 183-230

37PG xxvi, 1188. This is Letter 53 in Robertson's LNPF translation. Robertson's note 1 on p. 564 argues for a date before 359/60.

38 PG xxv, 685-690 = Opitz II, I 178-180. In his Athanasius and Constantius, 127 and note 27 Barnes accepted this dating by Kannengiesser.

39PG xxvi, 797-800.

40PG xxvi, 1179-1182.

Page 240

presumably still have excluded. In 362 Lucifer of Cagliari, to whom our tradition is less sympathetic, parted company with Athanasius, and the sect arose whose ideas were criticized by Jerome in his Dialogus contra Luciferianos. 41

The Luciferians would not enter into communion with clerics who renounced the heresy, accepted the Nicene creed, and continued in office. The Luciferians declared that such clerics had to lay down their office and do penance before they could be readmitted to communion. However, they did not re-baptize persons who had been Arian, or who had been baptized by an Arian. Jerome argued that they were inconsistent in taking back laymen without re-baptizing them and in refusing to take back clerics. In chapters 19-20 42 Jerome has his orthodox speaker say that eight Arian bishops were taken back (susceptos) by the council of Nicaea. He mentions Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Saras (a priest of Libya), and Eusebius of Caesarea, and says that the others were too numerous to mention. He then adds to his list the three Alexandrian authors of the heresy-the priest Arius, the deacon Euzoius, and the reader Achillas. In chapter 20 43the same speaker says (presumably with Jerome's agreement) that the acts of the council of Nicaea show that Arius and the others readmitted subscribed the homoousios. 44

Jerome's ignorance of the council of 327 led him to imply that the same council which had anathematized Arianism took the deposed Arians back into communion. It is not surprising that readers decided that he was quite mistaken on the point. 45The recognition that most of the actions

41 Jerome's evidence regarding the Nicene decisions is in his Dialogus contra Luciferianos 19-20 (PL xxiii, 182-183). Lucifer's De non conveniendo cum haereticis was edited by Hartel in CSEL 14 (Vienna, 1886), 3-34.

42PL xxiii, 182-183.

43 PL xxiii, 182.

44 If both Eusebius and Arius had subscribed the Nicene creed in 325, Constantine would have had no reason to exile either for associating with the other.

45 PL xxiii, 173, note a. I have not seen P. Batiffol, "Les sources de l'Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" in Miscellanea Geronimiana (Rome, 1920). According to Y.-M. Duval, who found the article very difficult to obtain prior to 1968, Batiffol argued that Jerome got all of his material on the acta of Nicaea from Athanasius ("La manoeuvre frauduleuse de Rimini" in Hilaire etson temps, Paris, 1968, 81). I do not

Page 241

which he ascribed to the Council of 325 had in fact occurred at the council of 327 (of which he was unaware), must alter our view of his argument. On the question whether it was the practice of the Church to readmit heretics Jerome had other information, and was able to document his case. 46 I take it that he was right. Each side could claim precedents for its own practice, but the tradition of the Church was generally against what Athanasius did. Recognition of the nature of Jerome's difficulty is also strong confirmation of the present argument regarding the harmony of the councils of 325 and 327, for it appears that Arius subscribed the homoousios before being readmitted. 47 Therefore, when Constantine complained of the refusals of Alexander and Athanasius it was not a case of a bullying emperor trying to force the holy bishops to comply with his political scheme. The tradition, the councils of 325 and 327, and common sense all supported the emperor, who was, indeed, only trying to enforce the decisions of the eastern bishops.

Constantine's behavior seems both generous and shrewd. It was his business as a Christian to hear the exiles out and, if he thought that they might be found orthodox, to refer them to Alexander or the bishops. There was no reason why he should have thought Arius to be either immune to the Nicene doctrine or unable to prefer it to heresy in exile. 48 Since a very effective way to combat the heresy was to get its inventor to move away from it, Constantine might well have referred Arius to the bishops even if he were not completely satisfied with his answers. The main reason why scholars have lost sight of the fact that Constantine's efforts on behalf of Arius were intended to bury the heresy, not to revive it or compromise with it, is that the polemics of Athanasius against "the Arians" have had the effect of making them think that Constantine was duped by Eusebius of

know where in Athanasius Jerome could have found this material.

46 Jerome, Dialogus contra Luciferianos 21-28 (PL xxiii, 184-192).

47 In his HE 1.38 Socrates says that he had learned by an examination of the emperor's own letters that Arius had declared on oath that he accepted the homoousios. Socrates thought that Constantine's statement referred to events of 336, but see Constantine's letter to Alexander above.

48 Arius was not an Arian counterpart of Athanasius.

Page 242

Nicomedia into acting against Athanasius. 49However, Athanasius' inability to mention the council of 327 shows that he really had no argument against Constantine's claim that he should readmit the (allegedly ex-)Arians to communion.

It is interesting to recall that Duchesne, who was not one to advocate the coddling of heretics, did not approve of Athanasius' attitude, even though he did not believe in the existence of the council of 327 or in Arius' subscription of the homoousios. He thought that, given the difficulties at that time with the use of the homoousios, 50some accommodation was in order, and that Athanasius could have readmitted Arius to communion at Alexandria without sacrificing any essential principle. 51 Not everyone would accept this view.

However, since Arius was no longer saying the things which had caused the trouble, he no longer fell under anathemas worded in the present tense. There was no use in trying to police his thoughts, and no great advantage to be gained by continuing to punish him for his past mistakes, unless the Alexandrians needed fear of similar punishment as a deterrent to Arian thinking. If readmitted persons resumed Arian arguments they could be excommunicated again, and there would be little pressure thereafter to listen to their requests for another readmission. In short, if they were secretly Arian they could be left to God, as Constantine is reported to have said; 52 if they really had recanted it was wrong not to take them back. It is true that Julius of Rome later agreed with the Luciferian views of Athanasius, 53 but it is clear that Julius had been fed a completely misleading

49 This was extremely unlikely. It was only a year since he had accused Eusebius of having deceived him. Opitz, Urkunde 27.14. H. Kraft has correctly observed, in Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung, (Tübingen, 1955) 50, 136 and 143-144, that Eusebius' presence near the court does not prove that he had influence over Constantine.

50 On the incompleteness of the Nicene formula, L. Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church (London, 1912, reprinted 1957), vol. 2, 177.

51 ibid., 145.

52 Athanasius (Ad episcopos Aegypti 18) quotes the emperor's remark to Arius. It takes up the suggestion of the letter of Arius and Euzoius to Constantine.

53 His letter to the eastern bishops before the synod at Antioch in 341 is quoted by Athanasius in Apologia contra Arianos 20-35. See especially 23 and 25.

Page 243

account of events of 325-327, 54and he did not have to deal with the problem faced by the eastern bishops. 55 The present account of Constantine's view is confirmed by Socrates' citation of writers who said that Constantine's reason for exiling Athanasius after the Council of Tyre was that he was unbending in his refusal to readmit Arius and his adherents. 56

In the meantime all was not quiet in the east, and some of the disruption there may well have stimulated the efforts of Constantine to secure the peaceful readmission of Arius to communion. In 326 the bishop Asclepas of Gaza was deposed by a council which met in Antioch, and after Eustathius had been bishop of Antioch for four years, presumably in 328, he was deposed for Sabellianism by another council which met in Antioch, and was exiled by the emperor. Uncertainty about the dates of these events has been a serious obstacle to studies of the later years of Constantine's reign, and some remarks on the chronology adopted here are in order.

In 1974 Marcel Richard argued very effectively that the Council of Serdica took place late in 342. 57 The letter of the eastern bishops at that

54 His letter shows that he knew nothing whatever of the council at Nicaea in 327. I take it that his confidence in his position, and his ignorance of the important facts, wereboth the work of Athanasius.

55 It is not impossible that Julius suspected that he could increase the prestige of his own see by supporting Athanasius against the eastern bishops.

56 Socrates, HE 1.35; cf. Sozomen, HE 2.28,14. I think that if the writers cited by Socrates had been Arians Socrates would have said so. I think that the explanation offered by those writers was the original orthodox account of the matter.

57 M. Richard, "Le comput pascal par octaétéris" in Le Muséon 87 (1974), 307-339. R. P. C. Hanson, "The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch" in ZKG 95 (1984), 171-179 rejected all of the arguments of H. Chadwick, "The Fall of Eustathius of Antioch" in JThS 49 (1948), 27-35, and appears to have had the rights of the matter. Efforts to argue for the 343 date for Serdica by restating arguments which had already been refuted either by Edward Schwartz or by Richard have not persuaded me. Cf. Barnes, "Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-344: Some Problems" in AJAH 3 (1978), 67-69, and L. W. Barnard, "The Council of Serdica-Two Questions Reconsidered" in A.G. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria [Nottingham: Dept. of Classical and Archaeological Studies (Archaeology Section) monograph series, 1983], 220-231. I have discussed these later arguments in "The Date of the Council of Serdica" in The Ancient History Bulletin 2.3 (1988), 65-72. My argument there would have been improved if I had

Page 244

council says that Asclepas of Gaza (accused of smashing an altar and causing riots later on) had been deposed seventeen years earlier 58that is, reckoning inclusively, in 326. For 328 as the date of the deposition of Eustathius I rely partly on the arguments of R. P. C. Hanson to that effect 59 and partly on a recently reconstructed source for the history of the years 326-350-the Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii. A Mid-Fourth Century Antiochene Continuation of Eusebius' Chronici canones. 60

Because of the mixture of accusations said to have been made against Eustathius, including one of having insulted the emperor's mother, it would not be easy, if one thought that he was attacked by resurgent Arians, to isolate their effect in producing the verdict against him. However, his successors were less anti-Arian than Eustathius. The first was Eulalius, who soon died. He banished Aetius, who later became an Anomoean. 61 Some at least of the Antiochenes wanted Eusebius of Caesarea to succeed Eulalius as their bishop, perhaps in 328. Eusebius was not asserting any proposition which might have been attacked as Arian while Constantine was alive, 62 and passed for orthodox at this point. 63 Constantine did not want the translation, which Eusebius himself had opposed, and in his letter to the bishops at a council at Antioch said: "I have been told that the priest

noted that the victory announced by Constantius to the bishops at Serdica (Athanasius, Historia ArianoruM 16.2) might well have preceded by some time the triumph which Theophanes dates to 343 (which he seems to make the year after the Dedication Council of Antioch, of 341). In Athanasius and Constantius (1993), 78 and note 53, Barnes cited Schwartz p. 122/3, and ignored 124, to which I had already drawn attention.

58 CSEL 65 (1916, reprinted 1966), 55-56.

59 R. P. C. Hanson, "The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch" in ZKG 95 (1984), 171-179.

60 This source has been reconstructed by R. W. Burgess, who has very kindly informed me of his results, which he will be publishing soon. The source gave four years as the duration of the episcopate of Eustathius, and I do not know of anything that would contradict that assertion.

61 Philostorgius, HE, 3.15.

62 Cf. C. Stead, "' Eusebius' and the Council of Nicaea" in JTS n.s. 24 (1973), 89-92; Barnes, CE 99-100.

63 That he was at one time bishop of Antioch is asserted by the Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii. A Mid-Fourth Century Antiochene Continuation of Eusebius' Chronici canones.

Page 245

Euphronius who is a citizen of Caesarea in Cappadocia and George of Arethusa, also a priest, whom Alexander of Alexandria ordained to his office, are well known for their faith. I saw fit, then, to advise your Prudences, that in putting forward these men, or others whom you think worthy of the episcopal office, you decide these matters in conformity with the tradition of the Apostles." 64 Antioch had many Arians. Nevertheless it appears that open Arianism disqualified candidates there, and that Constantine saw no need to interfere (beyond avoiding the translation of Eusebius, or, perhaps, Eusebius himself 65) in the selection. It is therefore not necessary to believe that Arianism was the main force which got Eustathius deposed. After all, if this council had conducted an open purge in the Arian interest, why did it stop with the exile of so few bishops? 66 Why did the resurgent Arians fail to follow up this success? If we suppose alternatively that the Arians sheltered themselves behind some pretext, we

64 VC 3.62. In considering Constantine's recommendations we should keep in mind that he could not have known much about Euphronius and George in 326. Athanasius says later in De Synodis 17 that Alexander deposed George "for certain reasons, and among them for manifest irreligion" (Newman's translation), and in his Letter 47, to the Church of Alexandria from Serdica (i.e., late in 342) he describes George as the worst of the Arians. More important, he says in Historia Arianorum 4 that George was one of the priests whom Eustathius would not admit to the clergy of Antioch. Perhaps George went to Antioch after being expelled by Alexander after the Council of Nicaea. Constantine's letter suggests that his information about George was out-ofdate. Cf. Hanson, Search, 136; 208-211 on George. Theodoret (HE, 1.22,1-2) says that Euphronius [like Eulalius, Eusebius of Caesarea and Flacitus (i.e., Flacillus)] was a secret Arian. The secrecy is significant.

65 Cf. H. A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine (Berkeley, 1976), 7-8. That Constantine had a high opinion of Eusebius is implied by Eusebius and is the accepted view of the matter. See W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (London, 1984), 495-498 and 522-523. Barnes was surely right to caution against too ready an acceptance of what Eusebius implies about his relationship with Constantine (CE, 265-267 and note 66 thereto). Eusebius' high praise of Constantine at the end of his HE, written in late 324 or soon thereafter, may have been an effort to dispel effects of his own Arian reputation.

66 Of the fifty-six bishops at the council at Antioch early in 325 only Eustathius, Euphrantion, and Asclepas were deposed by Eusebius' councils. The safety of the rest is surely worth noting.

Page 246

are obliged to demonstrate the falsity of the pretext.

Although the situation in 328 is not adequately explained by a theory of Arian resurgence, this council was not an inspiring subject for the orthodox later on, who had so little to say about it that its canons became attributed to the Dedication Council of Antioch in 341. 67 The ecclesiastical historian Socrates was not satisfied that he knew why Eustathius was deposed, in spite of special efforts to find a convincing reason. 68 In what follows I will suggest that contemporaries did not agree on the matter.

At Nicaea the bishops had been told over and over again that they needed to make peace. 69 Eustathius was not in the mood for that. He thought that at Nicaea the Arians, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, had behaved dishonestly in signing the creed. When he returned to Antioch, he and like-minded bishops refused to admit persons whom they suspected of Arianism, but who claimed that they accepted Nicene doctrine. 70 This was not necessarily a deliberate rejection of the decision of the Council, for it could have been maintained that the persons seeking readmission were lying. We do not know that he went as far as Athanasius, who contended, at least as regards Arius and probably more generally than that, that the invention or maintenance of the heresy in the past was a permanent disqualification. 71

In his VC 3.59 Eusebius describes troubles in the Church at Antioch which led to riots, and which were calmed by the efforts of Constantine, who wrote several letters to the Christians of Antioch and sent a count there

67 Barnes, "E&B," 60, and notes 46 and 47. This is not the only council which the later orthodox forgot or misrepresented.

68 HE 1.24. Socrates' account of how the bishops attacked each other has been taken as evidence of an Arian reaction after Nicaea. However, we do not know the dates of the polemics which he was reading, and we do not know whether the "Arian" side of the debate was by professing Arians or by persons defending themselves against charges of Arianism.

69 Cf. Constantine's speeches at Nicaea, conveniently collected by P. R. Coleman- Norton in Roman State and Christian Church (London, 1966), vol. 1, 127-133], and Eusebius' account of his efforts in VC 3.5-23.

70 Athanasius, Historia Arianorum 5.1.

71 In Apologia contra Arianos 59-60 Athanasius describes his exchange with Constantine on the subject of readmission of heretics. This must have occurred soon after Athanasius became bishop.

Page 247

to deal with the troubles, and of Eusebius himself. He says that he does not wish to mention the names of those responsible for the trouble. (The chapter heading names Eustathius.) Eusebius refers to the riots as if they had preceded by some considerable time the request of some of the Antiochenes that Eusebius himself be made the bishop of Antioch, so that the riots must have been closely connected with the deposition of Eustathius. Furthermore, it seems that they must have preceded it, because Eusebius says that he himself had helped to restore peace, and he must be referring to the council which deposed Eustathius. This view is consistent with his statement that Constantine, in his peacemaking letters to the Antiochenes, said that he himself had heard the case from the person who, Eusebius says, was responsible. Since Constantine had written several letters before the one objecting to the request for the translation of Eusebius to Antioch, it seems that his series of letters started by 327, and that by then he had already seen Eustathius. The whole affair seems to have become a police matter by 327. Eustathius was probably not using a peacemaking policy, which would have required that persons who said that they accepted Nicene doctrine be given the benefit of the doubt for some time, and there was no long time lapse before the trouble started.

There are, however, facts about this episode which are not explained by the hypothesis of a policy of unreasonable refusals of admission of (ex-)Arians. If there had been no more to it than that Eustathius might simply have been told by his brethren to change his policy. The orthodox would have been willing to explain the event, which would have been a more a matter of order than one of faith. Because some of the other deposed bishops mentioned by Athanasius seem to have a connection with Eustathius it may be best to proceed now to his lists of them.

Apologia defuga 3

Eustathius of Antioch

Euphrantion of Balaneae

Cymatius of Paltus

Carterius of Antaradus

Eutropius of Hadrianople

Lucius of Hadrianople

Marcellus of Ancyra

Cyrus of Beroea (in Syria)

Historia Arianorum 5

Eustathius of Antioch

Eutropius of Hadrianople

Euphrantion of Balaneae

Cymatius of Paltus

Carterius of Antaradus

Asclepas of Gaza

Cyrus of Beroea (in Syria)

Diodorus of Asia

Page 248

Apologia defuga 3 (Cont.)

Asclepas of Gaza

Paul of Constantinople

Theodulus of Aenus

Olympius of Aenus

Historia Arianorum 5 (Cont.)

Domnio of Sirmium

Hellanicus of Tripolis

Marcellus of Ancyra

Paul of Constantinople

Before the work of Richard it appeared that the resurgent Arians were continually getting rid of their enemies, who had lost imperial favor. However, Asclepas and Eustathius have now been accounted for, in 326 and 328. Marcellus was deposed in 336, ostensibly for Sabellianism. 72 Eutropius (=Euprepius) was not exiled until 336, and what little is known of his deposition suggests that there was more to him than peaceful orthodoxy. 73 Lucius, Paul, Theodulus, Olympius, Diodorus, Domnio and Hellanicus were all deposed after Constantine's death. That leaves Euphration, the two Cymatii, Carterius, and Cyrus. That is a suspiciously small number of victims of the Arians in a ten- year period, and the order in which Athanasius names them suggests a connection with Eustathius.

Cyrus became bishop of Beroea after Eustathius had been translated thence to Antioch in 325. One Cymatius 74 assisted Lucifer of Cagliari in his sudden consecration, in 362, of Paulinus, presbyter of Antioch, chief of the Eustathian party. 75 Another Cymatius was supposed to have been

72 For the date (originally given by Baronius), Barnes, "E&B," 64-65, and for the reason, Barnes, CE, 240-242.

73 He was deposed by the Council of Constantinople in 336, according to the Libellus Synodicus of the council [J. D. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, (Florence, 1759), vol. 2, 1170]. Athanasius says in Historia Arianorum 5 that "since he often rebuked (or refuted) Eusebius, and advised those passing through his city not to believe his impious words, he suffered as did Eustathius, and was cast out of his city and the Church; it was Basilina who was most active against him." Basilina, who died soon after Julian's birth (Julian, Misopogon 352B) presumably was not alive after 333.

74 either of Paltus or of Gabala. Cf. E. Honigmann, Patristic Studies [Studi e Testi 173 (Vatican, 1953)], 36-38.

75 ibid. We would never have heard the last of such a consecration by a crank on the Arian side. Lucifer's folly was to have very damaging consequences.

Page 249

accused of immorality. 76 Euphration received a letter from Eusebius of Caesarea arguing for Arianism. 77 He was one of the fifty-six bishops who provisionally excommunicated Eusebius at Antioch early in 325. 78 It seems that this council in 328 is the one most likely to have deposed these bishops. 79

It is possible that these bishops shared an aggressive attitude toward Arianism because they shared the theology (and Christology) of Eustathius. According to Sellers, Eustathius maintained the uni-personality of the divinity, and did not posit the hypostasis of the Son. Sellers described Eustathius as moving away from the position of Paul of Samosata and toward a Trinitarian theology. 80 In these circumstances it was arguable that he was Sabellian. 81 This theology may have been useful to the majority when Eustathius, installed in Antioch by Ossius, went to Nicaea to fight the Arians. It was not helpful when he returned alone to Antioch and took a hard line with those who showed (or had shown) much interest in the distinct personality of the Son. After the riots and the arrival of the count and the other bishops it was a serious liability, because his opponents could argue that the riots were not an accident, but were bound to continue so long as the bishop of Antioch was a tyrannical heretic. In these circumstances his deposition does not demonstrate that most of the eastern bishops were Arian at heart. Nevertheless, those of the orthodox who were bitterly anti-Arian, such as Athanasius, would have thought that Eustathius

76 It is claimed in the letter of the eastern bishops from Serdica in CSEL 65, 66. The Cymatius mentioned there is coupled with Eustathius. Honigmann, in the article just cited (p. 38) says that neither Cymatius can have been referred to in that passage. I cannot follow Honigmann's reasoning on the point. I take it that the mention of an accusation of immorality is not necessarily significant. A Cimates and a Euphrates of Antaradus were mentioned as deposed in 336 by the Council of Constantinople in the Libellus Synodicus of the council (Mansi, vol. 2, 1170).

77 The fragments of this are Opitz, Urkunde 3, which Opitz dated to about 318. It seems that Eusebius knew that he and Euphrantion did not agree on the subject.

78 Opitz, Urkunde 18.1.

79 Cf. Barnes, CE, 228.

80 R. V. Sellers, Eustathius of Antioch and his Place in the Early History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1928), 82-120. Cf. Hanson, "Fall of Eustathius" 178-179.

81Canon 19 of Nicaea shows that the bishops had not lost their dislike of Paul's doctrine.

Page 250

did not mean to advocate a heresy, but rather was a sturdy character (if a little out-of-date) who had rendered great service to the Church against the Arians. For them it was the Arians who had created the unfortunate circumstances in which the minor faults of Eustathius became such a serious liability.

On this view Eustathius was not deposed for a single reason, and contemporaries would not have agreed as to the true cause. The same would have been true of the other depositions, because although the other bishops had not caused riots, 82 they had the same theology and policy. 83 Their opponents could argue that that was bound to lead to trouble, and would not have been approved by the Council of Nicaea. Their supporters would tend to exaggerate the effect of Arianism.

The establishment of the dates of the depositions of Asclepas (326), Eustathius (328), and Marcellus (336) must have a drastic effect on our views of the passages in Athanasius and of ''the Arian reaction" after Nicaea. If the other six bishops were deposed by either of the councils at Antioch, there are no more "victims" until Marcellus, and thus no proven "reaction" of any effect. Even if the other bishops were deposed at another time, or other times, their number is far too small to sustain any theory of a powerful Arian reaction which must have involved the emperor as a sympathizer. 84

This does not mean that the emperor had nothing to do with the council at Antioch in 328. Although there is no evidence on the point, I think that Eusebius of Caesarea would not have become involved in that council unless he had had Constantine's encouragement. 85 If the Eustathians had

82 In view of his later alleged activities Asclepas might be suspected of lacking a passion for peace.

83 They were all close enough to Antioch to have been under the influence of Eustathius.

84 I think it unlikely that large numbers of secretly Arian bishops watched for opportunities to travel about to councils in order to pick off this or that "orthodox" bishop who had gotten into trouble.

85 Eusebius' presidency of this council is usually taken as an indication that he was a trusted advisor of Constantine. However, we do not know that Constantine chose him. Eusebius was representing himself as quite orthodox, and there were other reasons for his prestige.

Page 251

used the doctrinal decision at Nicaea as a basis for a disruptive purge Constantine might well have wished to demonstrate that he regarded the decisions of Nicaea as a basis for peaceful burial of the heresy, not for a war on those who had once entertained (or even espoused) it.

Of course, this council does not demonstrate that all the Arians had meekly accepted their defeat at Nicaea. The present argument is simply that the evidence can be explained on a hypothesis of behavior by a few bishops on the homoousian side which the majority of eastern bishops thought unreasonable and disruptive, and that it is not necessary to suppose that in 328 Constantine had begun to vacillate on the theological question. This hypothesis also explains Constantine's impatient language in his letter to Alexander asking that he readmit Arius. 86 The impatience is due to the fact that there had already been plenty of trouble over refusals to admit suspects. I conclude that the council in 328 did not simply conduct a purge in the Arian interest, and that after Constantine's death further Arian efforts or Athanasius' propaganda encouraged some of the orthodox to view the results of that council (the circumstances having been forgotten) as more examples of Arian misdeeds.

The trouble in Antioch seems to have had no effect on Constantine's view of the doctrinal question. By CTh 16.5,1 of September 1, 326 (when Constantine was in Italy), addressed to Dracilianus, the vicarius Orientis, he subjected heretics and schismatics to the compulsory public services from which Catholic clerics were exempt. This attitude seems to reappear in the later outburst against Arius and the Arians, which was provoked by Arius' request that Constantine either require his readmission to communion in Alexandria or allow him to found a separate church. 87 Constantine then threatened crushing tax penalties against any who should leave the Church with Arius. The law of 326 was clearly directed against Arian (among other) clerics, who were now deprived of an exemption which they had enjoyed since September of 324. Constantine's idea was not new, for the Donatists did not have this exemption either. 88 Since Constantine disapproved of the Donatists, this law indicates that the Arians

86 Opitz, Urkunde 32. The text will be translated below.

87Opitz, Urkunde 34.5; 8-11; 39-1.

88Cf. CTh 16.2.2 and 16.2.1.

Page 252

had not risen in his esteem.

Page 253

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

GOTHIC WARS; BUILDING; ADMINISTRATION

I have mentioned above that after the Council of Nicaea the pagan sources parted company with Constantine, and fell into a near-silence on the subject. There was, however, one aspect of the later part of his reign which they did not overlook-namely, his Gothic wars. I take it that these were too splendid a success to be ignored.1 The pagans were impressed by the magnitude of the victory and the durability of the peace, which were exactly what they looked to the emperor for. As a result they did not represent Constantine as having declined into a crazed and superstitious dotage, despite the executions of Crispus, Fausta, and Sopater. Constantine seems to have included religious provisions in the terms of peace with the Goths, if the letter to the bishops at Tyre produced by Athanasius is a good guide on this point.2

For indeed through my devotion to God, peace is preserved everywhere, and the Name of God is truly worshiped even by the barbarians, who have hitherto been ignorant of the truth. And it is manifest, that he who is ignorant of the truth, does not know God either. Nevertheless, as I said before, even the barbarians have now come to the knowledge of God, by means of me, His true servant, and have learned to fear Him Whom they perceive

1 Libanius treated them as Constantine's major military works. See H.-U. Wiemer, "Libanius on Constantine" in CQ 44.2 (1994), 514.

2 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 86, Robertson's translation. According to P. J. Heather, Goths and Romans 332-489 (Oxford 1991), 104ff., the conversion of the Goths was slow work.

Page 254

from actual facts to be my shield and protector everywhere. And from this chiefly have they come to know God, Whom they fear from the dread which they have of me.

Eusebius of Caesarea, who had at the outset renounced the subject of Constantine's wars, made an exception in this case. 3

Our sources provide details of several campaigns, most of which are dated by Byzantine chronicles. In 323 Constantine took the title Sarmaticus maximus after a campaign during which, according to the pagan poet Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius, 4 Campona, Margus, and Bononia saw various actions. 5 This was the campaign to which Licinius took strenuous objection as a trespass on his territory. 6 In 328 Constantine was in Trier, where his son Constantine, under his direction, won a victory over the Alamanni. 7 He then responded to an appeal by the Sarmatians against the Goths, with the result that almost 100,000 of the Goths perished of hunger and cold under pressure from Constantine II. The emperor received the Gothic king's son among other hostages, in 332. 8 Shortly afterwards the Sarmatian Limigantes, who having been armed by their masters against the Goths had revolted and chased their erstwhile masters out of their lands, provoked an appeal by the free Sarmatians to the emperor. He settled about 300,000 of them on devastated but cultivable land in Italy and the Balkans, in 334. 9 He was now Sarmaticus maximus II and Gothicus maximus II. In 336 he took the title Dacicus maximus after a campaign

3 VC 4.5-6.

4 Carmen VI, 17-27, edited by G. Polara (Turin, 1973). Cf. Zosimus 2.21; RIC7.115; 135; 201/2; 262; 475; Petrus Patricius, Excerpta Vaticana 187. For the date of the campaign see H. G. Opitz, ZNTW 33 (1934), 139; T. D. Barnes, ZPE 20 (1976), 152.

5 Cf. Zosimus 2.21; RIC 7.115; 135; 201/2; 262; 475; Petrus Patricius, Excerpta Varicana 187. For the Date of the Campaign see H.g. Opitz, ZNTW 33 (1934), 139; T.D. Barnes, ZPE 20 (1976), 152.

6 Origo 21.

7 To the year 328 the Chronicon Paschale dates several crossings of the Danube by Constantine and the construction of a stone bridge over it.

8 Cf. Origo 6.31; Eutropius, Brev. 10.7; Eusebius, VC 4.5; Consularia Constantinopolitana for a. 332.

9 Origo 6.32; Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 17.12.18f.; 17.13.2; Eusebius, VC 4.6; Consularia Constantinopolitana for a. 334.

Page 255

north of the Danube, in which he recovered part of Dacia.10 Constantine's dealings with the Danubian barbarians secured the peace of the Balkans for over thirty years. 11 His treatment of the Goths as if they were human beings may have contributed to this success.

Constantine's final victory over Licinius at Chrysopolis occurred on September 18 of 324. 12 On November 8 he founded, on the site of Byzantium, the city which soon came to bear his own name. 13It was dedicated on May 11 of 330. The success of this new foundation was so rapid and spectacular that the facts of Nov. 8 have been largely obscured by later writers, who attribute to the foundation the qualities both of eastern capital and of Christianity which it was later to have. Although all scholars would agree that anachronism is plentiful in the ancient writing about Constantinople, there is still controversy on the details of the foundation, especially on those that might be thought to reflect on the emperor's religion. It is mainly on these points that I wish to add a few remarks in this chapter.

Byzantium had advantages other than its incomparable site, from the point of view of the Constantine presented in this book. Its pagan population did not happen to be devoted to cults of ancestral deities in the way that most city populations in the east were. Upon Septimius Severus' refounding of the city after his destruction of it at the end of the second century there had been a drastic romanizing of the city's cults, which had resulted in a rather peculiar religious situation. Byzantium was left with

10 Festus, Brev. 26; Julian, Caesares 329b-d; RIC 7.221, Trier 578 (VICTOR OMNIUM GENTIUM).

11 L. Schmidt, Die Ostgermanen (1934, repr. 1941*), 228f. For the results of Constantine's campaign of 332 see A. Lippold, "Konstantin und die Barbaren (Konfrontation? Integration? Koexistenz?)" in Studi Italiani di filologica classica 10.1-2 (1992), 371-391; P. J. Heather, Goths and Romans, 107-121.

12 Barnes, NE 75 gives CIL 12 p. 272; Origo 27; Chron. Minora 1.232; Socrates, HE 1.4.2; Zosimus 2.26.3.

13 N. H. Baynes in CAH 12, 697, note 1 says: "Whether Constantine gave the name of 'New Rome' to his city is disputed. Cf. F. Dolger in ZKG56.3 Folge 6 (1937), lff. That it was conceived by him as a second Rome there is no doubt."

Page 256

cults that were more decorative than deeply rooted ,14 and Constantine may have seen opportunities there as well as in the site.

The new foundation was intended from the first to celebrate Constantine's victory over Licinius, which was at the same time the victory of Rome, and the personal connection with the emperor was all-important. Everything in Constantinople was to come from the emperorthe geographical layout of the city, which was almost four times the size of the Severan city, the grain supply for the growing population, the religious arrangements in a town where there does not appear to have been a large Christian population, the prefect of the city, the senate. All of this must have been intended by Constantine, who may have seen a long way down the road. The size was determined on November 8, and the decision to import statuary to adorn the city must have followed soon after, as the new buildings went up. No expense was spared. He must have intended from the beginning a major residence which would become a capital for the Constantinian dynasty through his own presence in it.

The money lavished on the project, the ransacking of the empire for antique treasures to adorn the new capital, the heavy charge on Egypt for the provision of grain for the new populace 15 have all been blamed by pagan critics for the wrecking of the Roman empire. Constantine's reputation as a prodigal 16 arose from what he lavished on the Church and on the new capital. However, given the distance by which the success of the new foundation exceeded everyone's expectations, it is hard to see how Constantine could ever have spent too much on it.

I take it that it is a mistake to look for an accurate reflection of Constantine's religious views in the ceremony with which the city was founded. There was at this time no recognized Christian way to found an important city, and there was the pagan population of Byzantium to be accommodated. If Constantine were to impress on them the fact that he had important plans for their city, he would have to do it in terms that they could understand. That is certainly enough to explain the accommodation

14 G. Dagron, Naissance d'une Capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 451 (Paris, 1974), 367-374.

15 See A. J. B. Sirks, "The Size of the Grain Distributions in Imperial Rome and Constantinople" in Athenaeum 79 (1991), 215-237.

16Epitome de Caesaribus 41.16.

Page 257

of the old Byzantine cults of Rhea and Helios in a portico near the Basilica. G. Dagron argued that it was the religious genius of Constantine to restore prominent old deities of Byzantium in a way that would not interfere with the Christianizing of the city. 17 In some cases a more drastic treatment was employed: the temples of Artemis-Selene, of Aphrodite and of Apollo-Helios were all deprived of their treasures and revenues, and left with a neutralized cult. In half a century paganism in Constantinople had no popular roots. 18 It is generally agreed that Constantine never allowed any pagan sacrifice in his new capital. 19

Church-building in Constantinople did not, apparently, start immediately. It was only in 333 that Eusebius of Caesarea received his famous letter 20 from the emperor asking for fifty copies of the Bible for churches in the new capital. 21 These were probably largely martyria of St. Mocius (perhaps), St. Menas (perhaps), St. Acacius (perhaps), St. Michael of Anaplous or Sosthenion (perhaps), the cathedral Church of the Holy Peace, and the Church of the Holy Apostles. Only the last two are accepted by Dagron as Constantinian foundations, 22 but there should have been more to require the fifty copies of the Scriptures for which Eusebius was asked. I think that Dagron has been too skeptical about the number of

17 Dagron, Naissance, 367-374.

18 Zosimus describes some of Constantine's actions in 2.31. See Dagron, p. 380.

19 In VC 3.48 Eusebius insists that there was a complete ban on sacrifice in Constantinople. Baynes saw no reason to doubt this in CAH 12, 697, nor did Jones in C&C235 or in LRE 83. See ch. 7 above, note 90. I suspect that Eusebius' claim that sacrifice was banned throughout the empire was a gross exaggeration from the ban in Constantinople.

20 VC4.36.

21 Dagron concludes (p. 389) from the fact that Christianity was not much of a presence in Constantinople at the founding in 324 that Constantine had no intention to make it a Christian capital, which was, rather, Jerusalem. I would prefer to argue that the lack of a Christian presence simply indicates the magnitude of the emperor's problem.

22 Dagron, pp. 392-404. His view was endorsed by Cyril Mango in his review in JRS 66 (1976), 255. See also C. Barsanti, "Costatinopoli: Testimonianze Archeologiche di Et Costantiniana" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 1, 115-150 at 145-150.

Page 258

the churches in Constantinople founded by Constantine. 23

The burial of Constantine in the Church of the Holy Apostles, with six of their cenotaphs on either side of his own coffin, 24 has long raised questions about the emperor's intent in wishing to be buried in this way. Was he simply trying to benefit from the worship that would be offered in the Church of the Apostles, or was he trying to suggest that he, rather than as a thirteenth Apostle, was there in place of Christ Himself? 25 Again, I think, we must beware of anachronism. In the 330s when the church was being built, the main attraction in it for most of the population of Constantinople was going to be the coffin of Constantine, not cenotaphs of the Apostles. Anyone visiting the church to see the emperor's tomb would find himself surrounded by the "tombs" of the Apostles, and Constantine must have intended such a result. When, with the passage of time and the further Christianizing of the city, including the installation of "relics" of the Apostles, the emperor's tomb there became an embarrassment, Constantius II built the imperial mausoleum adjacent to the Church and had his father's coffin moved into it.

Constantine also set up a statue of himself on his porphyry column, vested as Apollo or Sol, and wearing the rayed crown of the sun-god. Scholars have been much exercised to explain this statue in terms which take into account the emperor's supposed conversion in 312. An answer to this problem has been provided recently by Rudolph Leeb, who pointed out that for years before 324 Constantine had been diminishing the importance of Sol Invictus on his coins: Leeb asked what it was about Sol that Constantine was trying to get across to the people. His answer, which I accept, is that it was Sol's connection with victory that appealed to the emperor. 26 The new foundation would celebrate his victory over Licinius,

23 See R. Krautheimer's defence of his view that Constantine founded S. Sophia in "The Ecclesiastical Building Policy of Constantine" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande vol. 2, 509-552, at 548, n. 88.

24 In VC 4.58-60.

25 This is the view recently taken by R. Leeb. I regard this idea as quite out of the question.

26 R. Leeb, Konstantin und Christus: Die Verchristlichung der imperialen Reprasentation unter Konstantin deni Grossen als Spiegel seiner Kirchenpolitik und seines Selbstverstandnisses als christlicher Kaiser (Berlin, 1992) Arbeiten zur

Page 259

and the statue of himself as Helios or the thoroughly romanized Sol would gradually make the point that paganism was decorative only. The same point was made repeatedly by the statuary which the emperor imported from all over the empire to grace his new city. 27 Here again, as in the case of the emperor's coffin, the very success of his maneuver was later to cause some embarrassment to the later Christians of the city, but they learned to live with it.

The new capital did not, of course, occupy Constantine's building exclusively: he was famous for his churches which, much more than his legislation, furthered his Christianizing mission. Since their architecture does not concern us here, 28 a list of them will suffice. In Rome there was first of all St. John Lateran with its baptistery, inside the walls by the imperial Lateran palace which had been given'to the bishop Miltiades as a residence. This church was very richly endowed. Santa Croce in Gierusalemme was built in the Sessorian palace, perhaps by Helena. 29 The preparation of the site for the Church of St. Peter on the Vatican was an enormous job, carried out in order to incorporate an old monument of the martyr into the basilica. 30 There were several other churches built at Rome

Kirchengeschichte 58, 9-28. This follows the line suggested by Dagron.

27 And incidentally, to deprive many pagan cults of one of their attractions.

28In addition to the book of R. Leeb, readers may consult R. Klein, "Das Kirchenbauverstandnis Constantins d. Gr. in Rom und in den ostlichen Provinzen" in Das antike Rom und der Osten ed. C. Birker und M. Donderer as festschr. Klaus Parlasca (Erlangen, 1990), 77-101; W. Sanderson, Early Christian Buildings (Champlain, N.Y., 1993); Richard Krautheimer, "The Ecclesiastical Building Policy of Constantine" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costatino il Grande, vol. 2, 509-552 at 538-541.

29 The endowment of these churches consisted almost entirely of estates in territories which Constantine ruled during the years 312-316. The endowment of the Lateran basilica yielded annual revenues of c. 14,000 solidi. See the Liber Pontificalis, pp. 172-175 and 179-181. Nevertheless, the Lateran basilica inside the walls was not begun until after 317, according to P. Bruun, "The Church triumphant intra muros" in Numismatica e Antichita Classiche 10 (1981), 353-374

30 The cash revenues alone from the endowments of St. Peter's were 3,448 solidi. The endowment of St. Peter's included estates in Syria Euphratensis and Egypt, which Constantine acquired in 324. See the Liber Pontificalis 176-178 and Ch. Pietri, "Evergetisme et richesses ecclesiastiques en Italie" in Ktema 3 (1978), 317-337. P.

Page 260

by ConstantineSS. Marcellino e Pietro, S. Agnese, S. Sebastiano, S. Lorenzoas well as elsewhere in Italy-in Naples, Ostia, Capua, Albanum. 31

The third of Constantine's great church-building projects was in the Holy Land, which he and his mother may be said to have invented. In Bethlehem the Church of the Nativity, at Mamre a church by the sacred oak tree where God was believed to have spoken to Abraham and where Jesus taught the disciples, at Jerusalem the Church of the Holy Sepulcher with its rotunda of the Anastasis, and the Eleona on the Mount of Olives, the site of the Ascension. Antioch in Syria had the Golden Octagon dedicated to Harmony. In 326, while he was in the early stages of building Constantinople, he gave his mother carte blanche during her tour of Palestine, and she poured the money into most of these churches, and many other projects. 32

All of this, and many other churches, together with his secular buildings, made Constantine the greatest builder of all the Roman emperors, and incurred the vast expenditures for which pagan writers were to condemn him. It did, however, achieve its purpose, which, I take it, was to help put the Church beyond the reach of persecution in Constantine's lifetime, and to begin the building of the Christian empire.

The details of his secular administration suffered even more than the Gothic wars from the silence which the pagans were obliged to observe. They could not criticize his religious policy during his life, or that of his son Constantius II. His nephew, Julian the Apostate, during his brief reign from 361 to 363, reversed the Christianizing policy and tried to re-paganize

328 concludes Constantine's benefactions and a discussion of their effect.

31 See Richard Krautheimer, "The Ecclesiastical Building Policy of Constantine" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costatino il Grande, vol. 2, 509-552 at 521. This article contains very useful material on the financing of the churches. I accept Krautheimer's demonstration that before 324 the churches were financed by the res privata, and after 324 by thefiscus.

32 See Edward J. Yarnold, "Who planned the churches in Christian holy places in the Holy Land?" in Studia Patristica 18, 1 (1990), 105-109; R. Klein, "Das Kirchenbauverstandnis Constantins d. Gr. in Rom und in den 6stlichen Provinzen" 77-101.

Page 261

the empire, without success. He attacked Constantine as a depraved character who turned to Christianity to get forgiveness for his many sins. Under Julian it was, of course, possible to attack Constantine's religious policy, and even later, as the fragments of Eunapius show, to attack previous Christian emperors on moral grounds with a bitterness, made much greater than was warranted by the facts, by the inaccessibility of their religious policy to criticism. Ammianus Marcellinus is the best-known example of this phenomenon, using Eunapius, and Zosimus follows Eunapius at a distance, in the fifth century. 33 Ammianus' account of the period 325-337 is lost, and Zosimus was so mired in his apologetic purposes that he has hardly anything useful to tell us about these years.

Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth book of the VC gives some account of Constantine's administration. He had concluded the third book with his misleading account of Constantine's law against heretics in 324, after having gotten through the Council of Nicaea and the deposition of Eustathius of Antioch. He had now reached the point where his Constantinian documents became openly anti-Arian, and therefore had to be suppressed. To fill in the years from 326 to 333, when he received Constantine's request for fifty copies of the Bible, he produced a selection of Constantine's actions, and then resumed a more chronological account with the more congenial subject of the Council of Tyre. In this section Eusebius was much more concerned with his own ideal of the Christian ruler than he was with the historical Constantine, and we can note several examples of distortions in chapters 1-33.

At the outset he describes the emperor's generosity, which resulted in every sort of boon for his subjectspresents in money or land, praetorian prefectures, senatorial or consular rank, governorships and the posts of count. Here we note the distribution of praetorian prefectures, of which there were four, all told; Constantine in fact had a hard time getting men who could fill them. This is an immediate example of Eusebius' carelessness while in full flight. He goes on to say that Constantine remitted a fourth of the land tax, and equalized the rest of it, 34without

33 I discussed the relationship between Ammianus, Eunapius, and Zosimus in Ammianus Marcellinus and Fourth-Century History (Toronto, 1983).

34 VC 4.2-3.

Page 262

mentioning the taxes in gold and silver which Constantine levied in order to make up for the loss of the land tax. In lawsuits he gave the losers presents of land or money, apparently equal in value to the sum at issue. Here Eusebius must be generalizing wildly from his knowledge of suits brought by Christians for property confiscated during the Persecution. 35

Eusebius then breaks his own rule of not telling of Constantine's wars in order to describe his triumphs over the Goths and Sarmatians, and the ambassadors who came to visit the emperor, and goes on to quote Constantine's long letter to Sapor, whom he represents as seeking peace with the Romans. 36The theme of peace is continued in an account of Constantine's prayers and representations of himself on coins in an attitude of prayer. Constantine forbade the placing of statues of himself in pagan temples. His observance of Sunday is described, his instruction in prayer of even his pagan soldiers, the placing of the sign of the cross on the soldiers' shields, and the emperor's Easter observances.37

According to Eusebius Constantine forbade every kind of pagan sacrifice and ordered his governors to observe Sunday and the Christian festivals. He described himself as the ''bishop of those outside the Church; 38 prohibited sacrifice, the consultation of diviners, and gladiatorial combat, and ordered the extermination of an Egyptian priesthood of "effeminate men" who prayed for the Nile floods. 39 Constantine certainly allowed the public consultation of diviners. 40 Eusebius' description of how Constantine prohibited sacrifice has been discussed above. 41 He seems to generalize from a ban on sacrifice in Constantinople. 42 It is an example of a successful distortion by Eusebius, for Constantius II, the intended audience of the work, did actually forbid

35 VC 4.4. See pp. 119; 124-125 above.

36VC 4.8.

37 VC 4.18-22. On this point see B. H. Warmington, "Eusebius of Caesarea's Versions of Constantine's Laws in the Codes" in Studia Patristica 24 (1993), 201-202.

38 ibid., 202.

39VC 4.23-25.

40Ch. 6 above.

41 Ch. 7, note 90.

42 See note 19 above, on VC 3.48.

Page 263

it. 43Constantine repealed the old Augustan penalties for childlessness, and made it easier for the dying to make a valid will. As noted above, what was at issue here were the Augustan penalties for celibacy, not simply childlessness. He prescribed that no Christian should be a slave to a Jew. 44 This is a gross exaggeration of Constantine's law that any non-Jewish slave circumcised by his owner should be freed. He also forbade provincial governors to contravene the decisions of bishops in councils. He preached many sermons to the palace staff and the general public, and exhorted the palace staff to less greedy behavior, but since everyone knew that he was too soft-hearted to kill anyone, the administration of justice suffered. 45 Eusebius then quotes a letter of the emperor praising his own discourse on the subject of Easter, and another letter in which the emperor, after describing how the number of Christians in Constantinople had increased, asked Eusebius to supply him with fifty copies of the Bible for the churches there. 46

He gave the rank of city to Gaza in Palestine and named it after his sister Constantia when he heard that the inhabitants had embraced Christianity. He did the same for a town in Phoenicia whose inhabitants burned their idols. 47 At this point Eusebius arrives at the Council of Tyre, and resumes a more chronological account.

Some of Constantine's Christianizing legislation does not appear at all. The exemptions of the clergy from the munera, the laws against concubinage, divorce, and abduction marriage are absent from this account, as is the law establishing the bishops' courts, a law which would have concerned Eusebius himself directly, as would the law allowing the Church to inherit. The absence of these laws may be explained by the unfinished state of the work, but, so far as it goes, it presents a much more anti-pagan and anti-Jewish Constantine than the historical emperor. The compleat Constantine presented contrasts very vividly with the cautious emperor who built his Roman churches out of the res privata. 48

43 CTh 16.10.2 of 341.

44 VC 4.26-27.

45 VC 4.31.

46VC 4.36.

47VC 4.38-39.

48 See note 31 above.

Page 264

Zosimus' reproduction of Eunapius' account of Constantine's administration may be summarized as follows. 49

After his final defeat of Licinius Constantine had no more wars to fight and devoted himself to luxurious living. He spent heavily on useless buildings, some of which were unsafe, because of the haste in which they were constructed, and had to be torn down. He also changed the praetorian prefecture from the old situation in which two men held the office jointly to one in which there were four regional prefectures. Instead of having the soldiers on the frontier commanded by duces he set up magistri, of infantry and cavalry, over them, which greatly diminished the prefects' authority, since they were no longer in charge of the troops' discipline. Then he transferred most of the army from the frontier, where they could repel barbarian invasions, to cities in the interior of the empire which became deserted and accustomed the soldiers to luxuries. He enlarged Constantinople to an excessive size, and his successors continued to do so. He persisted in making gifts to useless men, and so, having spent the tribute money he imposed an excise tax of gold and silver, which had to be paid by businesses of every sort every four years. He would make well-to-do men praetors in order to make them hand over large amounts of silver. He had the most illustrious men charged a tax which he called thefollis. With these measures he drained off the wealth of the cities and ruined them.

There is very little here in the way of common ground between Eusebius and Zosimus = Eunapius. They share only their enthusiasm for a highly selective approach to the subject. A good example of the two providing useful complementary information is Eusebius' claim that Constantine reduced the land tax, and Zosimus' claim that he taxed the wealthy and people in the cities. 50 It can be seen from the two accounts that Constantine went considerably further than Diocletian in trying to make

49 It is in Book 2, chs. 32-35 and 38. Chs. 36 and 37 are about an oracle which Zosimus was at considerable pains to find, and which he should have forgotten.

50 See H. U. Wiemer, "Libanius on Constantine" in CQ 44.2 (1994), 518-520.

Page 265

taxation more equitable.

Eunapius does preserve one interesting story, in his Lives of the Philosophers, 51regarding the reign of Constantine. The eloquent and great-souled philosopher Sopater, who was quite ambitious, set out for Constantinople to convert the emperor away from his course of action; he got himself made a dignitary by Constantine and thereby aroused the jealousy of the courtiers. The praetorian prefect Ablabius 52 waited until a food shortage caused by contrary winds which delayed the arrival of the grain fleet, and accused Sopater of "fettering the winds." Constantine had Sopater beheaded. It is hard, as always with Eunapius, to know what lay behind the story. See his description of how Aristophanes got Socrates executed, which he uses to illustrate the role of Ablabius. I suspect that Sopater was made a confidant of the emperor before his purpose of converting him away from his Christianizing mission was made apparent, and that when it became apparent, the emperor was in the embarrassing position of having in his own city a man whom he himself had raised to prominence, who was working at cross purposes with him. Ablabius solved the problem of public opinion, and Sopater learned how flexible the emperor was.

Although we can describe the operation of the Roman government as Constantine left it and as Diocletian found it, 53 we cannot, usually, distinguish the work of Diocletian from that of Constantine. 54 I have indicated above that Constantine seems to have had no quarrel with Diocletian apart from the persecution, so that it is possible that the same administrative policy was carried out for fifty years. The following sketch does not attempt to break new ground.

Under Diocletian the civil service had burgeoned to about 30,000 men, 55 with the doubling of the number of provinces and the creation of

51 Pp. 462-463 (pp. 378-391 of W. C. Wright's edition).

52 He was praetorian prefect from 329 until 337.

53 Diagrams I and 2 are from T. F. Carney, Bureaucracy in a Traditional Society (Lawrence, Kansas, 1971).

54 The Codex Theodosianus does not preserve legislation of Diocletian.

55 Jones, LRE 1057, followed by J. W. H. G. Liebeschuetz, "Government and Administration in the Late Roman Empire" in The Roman World (London, 1987) ed. J. Wacher, vol. 1, 459. Governors had staffs of about 100, vicars of about 300.

Page 266

dioceses, in order to obtain stronger central control over the administration. The praetorian prefect reached the zenith of his power, controlling the infrastructure of government and having under him vicars who controlled troops. In charge of the recruiting, supply, and feeding of the army, he was, because so much of the tax revenue was collected in kind, the most powerful financial official in the empire. His exercise of an appellate jurisdiction added to his control over the vicars of dioceses and the governors of provinces, almost all of them of the equestrian order.

The court of each of the tetrarchs moved with him in his travels, and became known as his comitatus. The chiefs of the scrinia, which had existed as such since the time of Claudius, were now placed under a magister officiorum, who was the principal administrative officer, whose sphere of influence overlapped that of the praetorian prefects. As the head of all the official bodies resident in the palace he controlled audiences with the emperor. He was also responsible for the postal service and the palatine schools, including the agentes in rebus.

A tetrarchic comitatus included some troops under the emperor's direct command, whose number seems to have been fairly small. These included the imperial bodyguard. The comitatenses, however, may have been inherited from his predecessors and decreased in number by Diocletian, who seems to have transferred some of them to the frontiers, which were his main concern. The frontier garrisons and fortifications were greatly strengthened, and in Jones' opinion (LRE, 60) the army had almost doubled in size between the Severan period and the end of Diocletian's reign, with most of the increase coming under Diocletian.

This enlarged administration and army could not have been properly supervised unless Diocletian had gradually set up the tetrarchy in advance. Soon after Constantine's first civil war the number of emperors was reduced to two. After the final defeat of Licinius Constantine was sole emperor, in charge of an administration which no Roman emperor had ever attempted to manage alone, and was still busy with his religious revolution. The task which faced him was to keep this enormously increased bureaucracy under control while he carried out the revolution and fought some more wars.

Constantine separated completely the military commands from the civil careers of Rome. Diocletian had proceeded some way toward this situation, but some of his governors still commanded troops. A critical

Page 267

point was probably reached in 312, when Constantine took part of the army of Gaul south to fight Maxentius. When he got into Rome he disbanded the remains of the praetorian guard which had fought for Maxentius. The force which Constantine led into Italy may already have been the sort of field army that he was later to develop, which came under the command of a magisterpeditum and a magister equitum, who were military men without civil careers. The frontier units in the provinces still under governors were placed under duces, who were subordinate to the magistri. 57The praetorian prefect lost his command over troops, but remained in charge of feeding and supplying the army, so that he remained the principal finance officer of the empire. He continued his supervision of the governors and vicars and his exercise of appellate jurisdiction. It would be easy to see behind this reduction of the power of the prefect the emperor's fear of it, but it must have become somewhat difficult to find men who qualified for all of the prefect's duties. In 326 there were five prefects, most of whom served a decade or more, and one of whom was taken over from Licinius in 324.5

This drastic reduction of the military role of the prefect and governors made it easier for Constantine to admit senators to the urban prefectures and the more prestigious of the provincial governorships, as he began to do in 312. They were not going to be in command of troops. It was in exchange for his promise to do this that the senate in Rome had given him the title Maximus Augustus. He kept his promise.

Constantine probably followed Diocletian's lead in employing the magister officiorum, as principal administrative officer and, effectively, registrar of the court. He was the head of all the official bodies resident in the palace (the descendants of Claudius' bureaux). As such he controlled audiences with the emperor. He was also responsible for the postal service and the palatine schools, including the agentes in rebus, who were sent out to inspect the post, and investigate the officials responsible to the praetorian prefect. Under the magister there was thus opened up another avenue through which the emperor might receive information on the doings of the

56 R. S. O. Tomlin has written on the army of the later empire in ch. 7 (vol. 1) of J. Wacher (ed.), The Roman World (London, 1987), 107-120.

57 On the prefects see recently M. Sargenti, "Costantino nella Storia del Diritto" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande vol. 2, 865-881 at 869-873.

Page 268

governmental bureaucracy. The power of the magister officiorum was itself somewhat undercut by Constantine, who allowed the bureau chiefs to bypass their chief and report directly to himself. 58

Constantine created comites (counts) of the first, second, and third orders, whom he could employ in a variety of important tasks, even replacing vicars or prefects. His victories in civil wars brought to him a great deal of confiscated property, to be managed by his financial officers. In addition to that, his religious policy, which made the temple treasures available to him, brought in enormous amounts of precious metals. By 326 59 he had changed the titles and ranks of his central financial officers. The rationalis summae rei gave way to the new comes sacrarum largitionum, responsible for gold and silver mines, mints, and taxes levied in precious metals. He paid the stipendium and donatives of the troops. The rationalis rei privatae was replaced by the comes rei privatae, in charge of claiming property falling to the emperor, and collecting the rents of the imperial estates. These changes were not revolutionary, but they made more of the central officers, who thus encroached upon the financial sphere of the praetorian prefect, the official through whom the vicars of dioceses reported to the emperor. 60

Constantine's most important administrative changes were probably the increasing equitability of taxation, the complete separation of the military commands from the civil careers, and the opening up of another channel of information to the emperor through the magister officiorum. The most creditable achievement was staying so long in an office whose importance and duties had been so much increased by Diocletian's measures. Constantine is usually remembered as the man who broke up the tetrarchy, but, for both good and ill, he gave to many of Diocletian's administrative arrangements a permanence that cannot readily be imagined under a

58 T. F. Carney, Bureaucracy in Traditional Society (Lawrence, Kansas, 1971), 93 referring to A. E. R. Boak, "The Roman Magistri in the Civil and Military Service of the Empire" in HSCP 26 (1915), 102-reprinted in Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration (New York, 1924): University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series Vol. 14.

59 The date is discussed by Roland Delmaire in Largesses sacrdes et res privata in Collection de l'ecolefranfaise de Rome 121 (Rome, 1989), 26-38.

60 See also F. Millar, The Roman Near East (Cambridge, MA., 1993), ch. 5.

Page 269

continuation of the tetrarchy guided by Galerius. He probably respected Diocletian's attempt at justice in taxation. All this he did while Christianizing the empire, which involved him in extremely difficult negotiations with some difficult people. He cannot have had many idle moments.

Page 271

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

CONSTANTINE, ATHANASIUS, AND ARIUS, 328-333

This chapter will go down to Constantine's letter of 333 to Arius and the Arians with him, which is quoted by Gelasius of Cyzicus in HE 3.19. This six-page letter is a document of unusual importance, for it was obviously written by the emperor without assistance. In it Constantine discusses and ridicules the faith of Arius, and gives his reader a real opportunity to form an opinion regarding his own familiarity with theological argument.

The circumstances in which Athanasius' struggle began were unfortunate for him, but it must be acknowledged that he knew all about them before he was elected bishop. The deposition of the Eustathians by 328, the emperor's efforts regarding Arius, and the readmission of Arius by the council of 327 were not welcomed by Alexander and Athanasius, and the succession of defeats must have made their position in Alexandria more difficult. In view of the conciliar decision in 327, Alexander should eventually have tried to negotiate terms for the peaceful return of Arius. There was certainly no need to kill the fatted calf, but something should have been done. Before any negotiation could have taken place, however, Alexander died. Athanasius' succession was first opposed and then questioned by the opponents of Alexander and himself, and perhaps by others, who were dissatisfied with the fact that the council's decision had not been put into effect. Although we are unlikely to learn the whole truth about the election of Athanasius, some remarks on the matter may be helpful here.

Sozomen, in his HE 2.17.4, quotes "the Arians" as asserting that after

Page 272

Alexander's death his followers and those of Melitius held communion together, that fifty-four bishops from Thebes and other parts of Egypt assembled and agreed to choose by a common vote the best bishop for Alexandria, that seven of these, contrary to their oath, secretly ordained Athanasius. On account of this, many of the people and of the Egyptian clergy seceded from communion with Athanasius. In 2.25.6, while describing the charges made against Athanasius by the Melitians at the Council of Tyre in 335, Sozomen reports them as asserting that Athanasius had obtained his see by perjury of those who had agreed that no one should be chosen who could not clear himself of any crime with which he was charged. Philostorgius says that during prolonged discussion by the bishops Athanasius appeared at the church called after Dionysius, found two Egyptian bishops there, closed the doors, and was ordained by them against their will-a power from above so constrained their will that what Athanasius wanted was done at once. Athanasius wrote to Constantine misrepresenting what had occurred, and got himself recognized by the emperor. 1

In his Apologia contra Arianos 6.4 Athanasius quotes the encyclical letter of the Egyptian bishops (of 338) in denying claims against Athanasius and saying that the whole Alexandrian multitude was so enthusiastic for Athanasius that for many days and nights it besought the bishops in a church, shouting that Athanasius should be made bishop, and that he was elected by a majority of the bishops present, with the acclamations of all the people.

Although some scholars find the evidence of "the Arians" quite acceptable, the picture of Melitians and Catholics in communion, earnestly resolved on finding the best bishop for the Alexandrians, seems too good to be true. 2 The whole notion of Athanasius unable to clear himself of some charge in 328 is anachronistic, and looks like a hasty invention. Philostorgius' story is surely just another of his idiotic fabrications. The picture presented by the Egyptian bishops, on the other hand, has nothing objectionable in it, if we change the tints a little. An Alexandrian mob,

l HE2.11.

2 It seems to credit the peacemaking efforts of both Councils of Nicaea with too much success.

Page 273

whose appearance was probably no accident, besieged the bishops in a church and would not let them leave until they caved in and ordained Athanasius. Athanasius' opponents could claim that something was seriously wrong with the way he was ordained, and Athanasius could deny it. It should be remembered that Constantine was unlikely to accept the consecration of Athanasius if serious considerations were being urged against it. He had been having trouble with Alexander over the question of readmitting Arius to communion, and would have been reluctant to accept a flagrantly improper consecration of an intransigent successor. His acceptance argues that there was plenty of evidence that the consecration was valid, whatever was being said to the contrary. In Alexandria in 328 there was bound to be opposition to any candidate, and Constantine was well aware of that. 3

Not completely secure in Alexandria and probably fearing serious trouble upon the return of Arius, Athanasius treated the questioning of his episcopal status as an effort of schismatics and heretics against an orthodox bishop. According to him, the Melitians were now showing what their promises at the council of 327 were worth, and the discussion of the succession could not be confined to Alexandria because the lying archheretic had deceived the emperor and the council. Athanasius soon became the enemy of ''the Eusebians," whom he later accused of trying to establish the heresy. 4Perhaps because of Constantine's preoccupation with the Alamanni and Goths during the next years, Athanasius did not face continuing imperial demands for the readmission of Arius, and he had some time to get settled as bishop. His trouble was that he could not get firmly settled without the help of the Church and the emperor against the Melitians, and he could not get that help while he was defying a council over the readmission of Arius. The Melitians did not make things easy for him. They consecrated a rival bishop.5

Athanasius' behavior at this point has been explained by Frend as an attempt to secure the support of the monks against the Melitians by

3 The consecration of Athanasius is exhaustively discussed in D. W. H. Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (Notre Dame, 1991), 25-63.

4 He makes this accusation on the basis of a flimsy argument in the Apologia contra Arianos 85.

5Barnes, CE, 230.

Page 274

excluding the Arians, whose doctrine was hated by the monks. 6 "His defense of Nicaea was conducted against a background of pressures within the Church in Egypt. Though his character was hard and methods often deplorable, he brought a unity to the Nile Valley based on common Christianity at a crucial moment in its people's history. 7 Barnes thought that Athanasius started out in serious trouble because of the circumstances of his consecration, and that his response was to organize "an ecclesiastical mafia" and obtain "a power independent of the emperor which he built up and perpetuated by violence." 8

Both historians pay considerable attention to a couple of incidents which gave rise to complaints of rough behavior by supporters of Athanasius. 9 Frend may not have laid sufficient stress on the difficulties over the consecration, but I would agree with him in not pressing the point very far. Barnes has certainly failed to recognize how much Constantine and Athanasius had in common. The unity of the Church in Egypt under a firmly orthodox bishop of Alexandria was something that the emperor very much wanted, and for several years Constantine was willing to protect Athanasius from the council's decision in 327. 10 Moreover, although the difficulties over the consecration may have had an effect on Athanasius' decision in 328, he maintained his refusal through a period when it was clear that the Arians were silenced, and that he would not be ousted from Alexandria if he co-operated with Constantine in an orthodox effort which was successful elsewhere in the east against Arians. Frend's explanation

6 W. H. C. Frend, "Athanasius as an Egyptian Christian Leader in the Fourth Century" in the New College Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 1 (Edinburgh, 1974), 20-37; The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, 1984), 525; "The Church in the Reign of Constantius 11 (337-361): Mission-Monasticism-Worship" in L'église et l'empire au IVe siècle. Entretiens Fondation Hardtpour l'étude de l'antiquite classique 34 (1989), 94-99.

7 Frend, "Athanasius," 37. Cf. Rowan Williams, Arius, 67-91.

8 Barnes, CE, 230.

9P. Lond. 1914.1 ff., 41 ff. published by H. I. Bell, in Jews and Christians in Egypt (Oxford, 1924), 58; 60. The passage is quoted below, pp. 293-294. Hanson also deplores Athanasius' behavior in Search 239-273.

10 I note that Athanasius' difficulties with the Melitians could produce a very awkward situation for both Constantine and himself, because he might disregard directions of the first Council of Nicaea as well as the second.

Page 275

covers both 328 and the later period, and should, I think, be accepted. It does not, of course, oblige us to believe that Athanasius' strategy was an ideal one, or that its consequences were not worse than allowing the Melitian schism in Egypt to go its own way into oblivion, as seems to have been contemplated by the first Council of Nicaea. 11

It is impossible for us to know what Arius would have done if Athanasius had co-operated in a peaceful return to Alexandria. It seems that Secundus and Theonas were eventually returned to their sees by 335, perhaps as early as 328, and that Athanasius had to accept that situation. 12 If these two former exiles were returned before 332/333, when Arius wrote to Constantine from Libya, the arch-heretic was presumably not causing riots in the most Arian part of the empire, even when he could have called on the help of the most intransigent of the Arians who had been at Nicaea. However, as soon as Constantine was dead this same Secundus "consecrated the (ex-)Arian Pistus as bishop of Alexandria in place of Athanasius." 13 This action suggests that Secundus' fear of Constantine may have been more genuine than his abandonment of Arianism, but we do not know that Pistus' abandonment of Arianism was not genuine, and Constantine's refusal to have a successor to Athanasius could no longer stand. As for Arius, the whole question of his intent is made very difficult by the fact that both Arians and Athanasius later wished to represent him as an Arian after 327. Athanasius continued to attack what Arius had written long before Nicaea in 325 as if it were Arius' current view, and the fragments of the second book of Philostorgius' HE contain much wishful thinking based on the readmission of Arius, such as the clear implication that the Thalia were written after Arius' exile in 325. A second complication results from what is known of Arius' behavior. Whatever may be thought of his theological ideas, his behavior toward Alexander before Nicaea when he raised opposition against him, the production of his

11 The synodal letter of the Council is in Gelasius, HE 2.33; Socrates, HE 1.6; Theodoret, HE 1.9.

12 H. Chadwick, "Faith and Order," 192-193. But see Arnold, Early Career 119-121, arguing for 335.

13 Ibid., citing the letter of Julius of Rome quoted by Athanasius in Apologia contra Arianos 24. Cf. Hanson, Search, 263, note 98; Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 36-41.

Page 276

Thalia and his persistence in trying to get back to Alexandria (of all places) indicate that he had an imperfect idea of his effect on other people, and could have been a terrible nuisance. He was popular in Alexandria; he might also have been detested by many people. Eusebius of Nicomedia is attacked by Athanasius for trying to impose the heresy on Alexandria, but much of his reason for getting Arius back to Alexandria must have been to get him out of Nicomedia. He may have thought that Arius and Athanasius deserved each other.

From the time when the council readmitted Arius in 327 the eastern episcopate, as opposed to the Melitians, had a complete case against Athanasius, who was refusing to comply with the decision of this council. 14 Between the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the council at Antioch in 328 several bishops had been deposed who, like Athanasius, refused to admit suspects. Constantine himself in 328 had threatened Athanasius with deposition if he would not readmit Arius. There was nothing else to be decided. Athanasius was an orthodox, but schismatic, bishop of Alexandria, his situation complicated by the fact that he was fighting schismatics within his own diocese. His orthodoxy seems to have been the deciding point in his favor with the emperor.

When Constantine returned to his new capital in 330 the Melitians began trying to get Athanasius deposed. 15 Their accusations against him were: that he had demanded that they supply him with linen tunics, as though that was their obligation to the state; 16 that a priest named Macarius, acting as an agent of Athanasius, had broken a chalice; that, being an enemy of the emperor, Athanasius had sent a purse or chest of gold to one

14 C. Luibhéid, "The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea" in JEH 34 (1983), 165-174, discusses the question of the number of bishops present.

15 Athanasius asserts, in Apologia contra Arianos 59.4-60 (for the date of this work see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius 192-195; Hanson, Search, 417-421), that they got help in this effort from Eusebius of Nicomedia. Since there is nothing about this alliance in the Festal Letters, it may have been invented for the purposes of the polemic. Epiphanius (Panarion 68.6,1-6) said that Eusebius promised his support in return for a promise by the Melitians to receive Arius into communion. This has seemed wicked to some, but Eusebius would not have been asking for anything more than obedience to the council of 327.

16 Apologia contra Arianos 60.1-2; see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 21.

Page 277

Philumenos; 17 that he had been elected bishop while too young; that he was responsible for all the bloodshed, bonds, unjust blows, wounds, and conflagrations of churches suffered by the Melitians. 18 Constantine was in no hurry to deal with the case. He heard the accusation about the vestments, and sent for Athanasius, who arrived during 331. Athanasius did not return to Alexandria until Lent of 332 (he had become ill), after the case had ended in the failure and humiliation of the prosecution. The emperor sent a letter to the Alexandrians denouncing Athanasius' enemies there and recommending Athanasius as a man of God. 19

Nothing was done about the fact that Athansius was still defying both a council and the emperor himself in refusing to readmit Arius to communion in Alexandria. Perhaps nothing could be done: Athanasius probably argued (irrefutably) that those seeking readmission were lying about their orthodoxy. It seems necessary to conclude that Constantine had changed his mind about forcing Athanasius to take Arius back. This means that if "the Eusebians" were active against Athanasius at this point, Constantine resisted them. We have, however, no contemporary evidence that they were so active. 20 The eastern bishops did not, as far as we know, have any more reason to approve of the Melitians than they had to approve of Athanasius.

It was now five years since the readmission of Arius, who became understandably exasperated with Constantine's behavior and wrote him a letter of protest. 21 It would be easy to pay too little attention to what Constantine, in his reply, quotes Arius as saying, by underrating Constantine's knowledge of theology, and therefore to take the letter too

17 Barnes, CE, ch. 13, note 69 reads: "It can probably be deduced from Socrates HE 1.13.4, with Photius, Bibliotheca 258, that Philumenos, who is attested as magister officiorum in 325 (Philostorgius, HE 1.9a), was accused of plotting to assassinate Constantine."

18 Various charges are mentioned in the Festal Index 3; Apologia contra Arianos 60.4; Socrates, HE 1.27.9; Sozomen, HE 2.22. There may have been more.

19 Apologia contra Arianos 61-62.

20 I do not accept the later claims of Athanasius on this point, and I reject his term "the Eusebians."

21 Opitz, Urkunde 34.

Page 278

lightly. However, Arius complained of Athanasius' behavior and policy. 22 This means that he had become entangled in a debate by Athanasius, who refused to accept the Council's verdict and readmit Arius to communion. Athanasius must have asserted that Arius still espoused the heresy, whatever he had told the emperor and Council, and Arius had replied, apparently in writing, to these accusations. Athanasius seized upon something Arius had written, and excommunicated him. He apparently had forwarded to Constantine a dossier of the whole transaction. 23 The latter must have found that a setback.

Arius' letter, however, created an opportunity which Constantine seized immediately. He proscribed Arius' writings, ordered that Arius and like-minded Arians be called Porphyrians so that they should thenceforth have the name of a declared enemy of Christ, and prescribed death as the penalty for anyone failing to burn Arius' books. 24In a very long letter "to Arius and the Arians with him" he exploded against Arius' theology and attitude, declared him once more excommunicate, threatened crushing tax penalties for anyone who should leave the Church with him, and ordered him to court to be healed of his madness.

No summary could do justice to this remarkable letter. To someone reading accounts of the period which assume the success of "the Eusebians" it is a completely bizarre and inexplicable document, as if written by an emperor who had suddenly realized that the wicked Arians had stolen his wits for seven long years, and that he needed to make up for lost time.

22 Opitz, Urkunde 34, 9.

23 Opitz, Urkunde 34, 17.

24 Opitz, Urkunde 33. C. N. Cochrane thought (Christianity and Classical Culture, 234) that the epithet Porphyriani was chosen because "the intellectual affiliations of Arius were with Philo, Origen and the Neoplatonists." Another reason seems to be that a ban on the books of Porphyry was the precedent for this punishment of Arius. Cf. CTh 16.5,66. In VC 3.64-66 Eusebius concealed both the fact that Constantine regarded the Arians as heretics and the ban on Arius' books. See T. G. Elliott, "Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini" in Phoenix 45.2 (1991), 167-169. Regarding Porphyry cf. Barnes, CE, 174-182; W. H. C. Frend, Rise of Christianity, 477-479; "Prelude to the Great Persecution: The Propaganda War" in JEH 38.1 (1987), 8-17.

Page 279

Chadwick described it as fantastic. 25 Six pages of abuse, ridicule, and vituperation are concluded by the order to come to court to be healed. This letter has been accepted as authentic only because nobody can imagine anyone forging such a document.

In spite of its extreme peculiarity, however, the letter is not crazy, and it is not out of place in this period of history. Like the other documents it must be accounted for, not explained away or dismissed as something done in a fit. If the letter is taken on its own terms there are two things that stand out. The first is that in spite of the blistering attack on Arius, Constantine is not completely angry: Arius has brought other Christians into the light, but cast himself into darkness; he is to come to court to be healed, if indeed he is sick at all. The possibility that Arius is quite well is cheerfully acknowledged at the end of the letter. 26The second is the declaration which occurs about half way through the letter: "Listen, good Arius, for I'm talking to you. Do you not see that you have been excommunicated from the Church of God?" 27This is the real point of the letter, as of the law, and I think that it explains why Constantine is not more angry. Without reference to any council 28 Constantine has examined Arius' letter and declared him excommunicate. He must have simply confirmed an earlier decision in Alexandria. This decision remained in force until in 335 Arius was formally readmitted once again by the bishops who had gone to Jerusalem from the Council of Tyre. In the meantime Constantine was rid of the problem of getting Arius back to Alexandria. That improved his mood. This action by Constantine is very important to the subject of his dealings with Arianism, because it shows that there had been no backtracking from the Nicene anathemas.

It is unfortunate that Arius' letter does not survive, for it is not clear from Constantine's letter that he had reverted to Arianism. What seems to

25 Cf. H. Chadwick, "Faith and Order," 177.

26 In section 38 one of the more indignant and abusive outbursts ends on a calm note: "You brought us into the light; you cast yourself, wretched fellow, into darkness. This appears to be the end of your labors." Constantine seems to have thought that Arius' work had caused progress in theology, and that Arius had failed to take advantage of this.

27 Opitz, Urkunde 34.17.

28 But see below.

Page 280

have angered Constantine most was Arius' request that he and others either be allowed back to communion in Alexandria or be allowed to worship there in churches of their own (5-11; 39). Constantine quotes directly from Arius' letter when objecting to this request. It seems that once angered Constantine took Arius' request for a separate church as more evidence that he had gone back to the heresy, for in 12 and 40 he seems to imply that the recantation was somewhat fraudulent. Having done that, he felt entitled to blast what he took to be the theology of Arius' letter, and, perhaps in accordance with some decision in Alexandria, to declare him excommunicate by reason of his current theology. It is not necessary to conclude that either Constantine or Arius was acting in bad faith. Arius could have assumed that Constantine would be sympathetic to a request for a remedy against the schismatic behavior of the bishop of Alexandria. Constantine could have thought that someone with Arius' history had an ulterior motive.

There is, however, more to Constantine's annoyance than these considerations. A certain amount of theology mixed in with all the abuse can be discerned in the letter. In reading this we should keep in mind the possibility that Constantine had received a very full account from Athanasius of the bishop's recent dealings with Arius.

4. 29 [You, Arius, have written words] which you, who do not at all coexist with the Eternal Father of your origin, have defined by cognition about yourself.

This would seem to be the orthodox complaint that Arius was thinking too much in human terms regarding Father and Son.

13-15. Do you talk of one God? You have me of the same opinion; think so. Do you say that "the Word of his essence is the Word without beginning and without end"? I acquiesce in this; believe so. If you add anything further, this I abrogate. If you join anything to an impious separation [add any impious separation], I confess that I neither see nor perceive this. If you

29 The section numbers are those of Opitz, Urkunde 34, and the translation is that of Coleman-Norton in Roman State and Christian Church, 185-191.

Page 281

accept "the body's lodging in respect to the administration of divine operations," I do not reject it. If you say that "the spirit of eternity was born in the pre-eminent Word," I receive it. Who has known the Father unless he who comes from the Father? Whom has the Father known, unless him whom he has begotten from himself eternally and without beginning? You think that you ought to substitute a "foreign (xenen) hypostasis," believing doubtless 30 badly; I know that the plenitude of the Father's and the Son's pre-eminent and all-pervading power is one substance (ousian). If, therefore, you detract from him, from whom not yet ever anything has been able to be separated even by idle talkers' process of thinking, you pave the way for marks of addition and, in short, you determine the signs of inquiries (?) for him, to whom he has given entire eternity for himself and uncorrupted intelligence and has assigned belief in immortality through both himself and the Church. 31

Especially interesting here is Constantine's opposition of his own doctrine of one divine substance to what he claims is Arius' introduction of a "foreign hypostasis." Arius certainly cannot have used the word "foreign" with regard to this hypostasis in his letter to Constantine. Constantine thinks that Arius' hypostasis opposes his own view that God is infinite and everywhere. I take it that the emperor was influenced in all of this by a dossier forwarded by Athanasius.

15. you witty and sweet-voiced fellow, singing evil songs for the unbelief of senseless persons.

20. your letters, in which you say that all the Libyan populace is of the same opinion with you-doubtless in regard to salvation.

22. [Arius'] rotten words and metres.

Constantine is once again beating Arius with the Thalia, as Athanasius had probably done before him. I note that in 20 Constantine uses the word

30 Note this qualifier.

31 On this part of the letter, see Hanson, Search, 189-190.

Page 282

"doubtless" when he refers to the agreement of the Libyan populace with Arius, which means that he is inferring a doctrinal agreement for which the text of Arius' letter provides no warrant.

26-27. Arius now adapts for you a place (and very cleverly indeed), in which, constitutingas I thinka synod for himself, by the law of adoption he procures and preserves your Son Christ, born from you, the bringer of our aid. Hear, I entreat you, this marvelous faith. He thinks that you, Lord, the principle of motion, are demoted from your place. He dares to circumscribe you by a circle of a defined seat. For where is not your presence? Etc.

Constantine thinks that Arius' introduction (if that is what it was) of the Son as an hypostasis means that he has circumscribed the Father. Without Arius' letter we have no means of deciding whether Constantine's view on this point was justified.

29-30. He says: "Away! I do not wish God to appear to be subject to suffering of outrages, and on this account I suggest and fabricate wondrous things indeed 32 in respect to faith: that God, when he had made the newly born and the newly created essence of Christ, prepared aid for himself, as it seems indeed to me. "For whatever," he says, "you have taken away from him, by this you have made him less." [Coleman-Norton translates "For what you have taken from him, this you have made less.''] Is this, then, your faith, spoiler and destroyer? According to hypothesis do you accept as a figment him who has condemned the figments of the heathen? Do you call foreign (epeisakton) and-as it were-a servant of duties him who without reflection and reasoning, in that he coexists with the Father's eternity, perfected all things? Etc.

Here Constantine uses the word epeisakton (=adventitious) instead of "foreign" (xenen) to describe Arius' hypostasis of the Son, whom Arius

32 I think that these last three words may have been supplied by Athanasius' dossier.

Page 283

had apparently introduced in an effort to avoid making the Father subject to the outrages which Christ suffered. This repetition with a different word inclines me to think that Arius had made a statement which could be interpreted as Constantine interprets it here. Constantine, like the Nicene creed, is much stronger on what God is as one than he is on what God is as three, and may simply have been primed by Athanasius to react against any use of the word hypostasis. He does not, however, use the word homoousios, and this, I think, is significant. He had probably decided that the word was causing more trouble than it was worth.

32. He says: "Christ has suffered for us." But I already have said that he was sent in the form of a body. He says: "Truly, but it is necessary that we seem not to make him less in any respect."

Hanson took the last of these two quotations to refer to God the Father. 33

Arius evidently wrote to Constantine asking that the emperor either bring pressure to bear on Athanasius to readmit him to Alexandria, or that he allow Arius to found his own church. He included a statement of his faith. Since he had already done so in 327 when he was readmitted to communion by the second council of Nicaea, I take it that in 332 or 333 Arius had become entangled by Athanasius in a theological debate, and had produced, under pressure, a statement of faith which included a view that the Son was a second hypostasis. In 333 this was obviously a very tricky proposition, especially for Arius, and especially with such an antagonist as Athanasius. 34 Constantine has taken serious exception to his treatment of the subject.

I conclude that this letter settles not only the question of Constantine's attitude to Arianism, but also the question of his ability to understand the dispute. I have been interested mainly in his claim that Arius' second hypostasis is adventitious, from which his deductions follow, and show a

33 Hanson, Search, 9-10.

34 The dispute among Egyptian clerics described in Athanasius' Letter to Serapion discussed below in ch. 16 (note 82) assumes that Arius was excommunicate at the time of the Council of Tyre in 335.

Page 284

reasonably good understanding of the implications of the argument. The idea of linking the adventitious hypostasis with the circumscribing of the Father seems to me quite effective. Whether Arius' hypostasis was in fact adventitious, we do not know, and must note Constantine's word-"doubtless. Constantine may have been unwilling to commit himself wholly to Athanasius' view of the theological question, as is also indicated by his remark that Arius brought other Christians into the light while casting himself into darkness. 35 Athanasius' excommunication, which I am inferring, and Constantine's agreement do not settle the matter, for Arius was again declared orthodox by the Council of Tyre and Jerusalem in 335.

In spite of his attack on Arius' second hypostasis we must again note the indicators that Constantine's theology is not Sabellian. One is his qualifier "doubtless" to his claim that Arius' belief is bad. A second is his abandonment of the word homoousios. However, the important points are his acceptances of the depositions of Eustathius in 328 and of Marcellus of Ancyra in 336. We must do credit to the difficulties of the eastern theologians in 333. In fact, the Nicene formula became progressively more Sabellian as time went on, because Constantine's suppression of Arianism (there seems to have been no Arian writing of this period) gradually withdrew from the formula the credit which the emergency of 325 had conferred upon it. If we contemplate the exiles of Eustathius and Marcellus together with the letter of 333 to Arius, we can see Constantine as another theologian in trouble with the Nicene formula after 325. He understands Arianism quite well, but cannot express his anti-Arianism without sounding Sabellian. When we consider Constantine's knowledge of theology, we should keep in mind how things stood in theology during the years 325-337, and not expect him to be fifty years ahead of his time.

35 Opitz, Urkunde 34.38. This remark is much more generous than anything one can imagine from Athanasius.

Page 285

CHAPTER 15

CONSTANTINE AND ATHANASIUS TO THE COUNCIL OF TYRE IN 335

The many documents concerning the Council of Tyre present important problems of such complexity as to preclude an account of the Council which would gain general assent. Rather than add to the number already in existence, I shall offer below my comments on most of the documents, and their interrelation. This will not make for easy reading, but the reader will not be deceived as to the difficulty of the subject. The subject is important because the orthodox tradition, which mistakenly supposes that its cause is to be equated with that of its hero Athanasius, has never quite forgiven Constantine for exiling the schismatic bishop.

At some time after the letter of Constantine to Arius, in 333/334, the Melitians again attacked Athanasius, alleging in writing to the emperor that a priest, Macarius, acting as an agent of Athanasius, had broken the chalice of one Ischyras, who, as it happened, had been ordained priest of a village in the Mareotis by the schismatic Colluthus. They also claimed that one Arsenius, a bishop of Hypsele, had been murdered by Athanasius. Athanasius dealt with the first charge, which was not new, by producing a document in which Ischyras swore before thirteen priests that he had been intimidated by the Melitians into making the accusations of the overturning of his altar and breaking of his chalice. Constantine disregarded this charge, but wrote to the censor Dalmatius in Antioch ordering him to investigate the charge of murder. The censor wrote to Athanasius ordering him to appear and defend himself. Athanasius told all the bishops of Egypt

Page 286

to search for Arsenius, whom he had not seen for five or six years, and also sent a deacon after him. 1 Constantine ordered a council to meet at Caesarea, in 334. 2 Fortunately for Athanasius, his deacon found that Arsenius was alive, hidden in a monastery in the nome of Antaeopolis by Melitians who were trying to confirm the allegation of his murder. 3 Before the deacon could reach him he was sent away, and was found later at Tyre, where he refused to own that he was Arsenius until convicted in court before Paul, the bishop of Tyre. 4

The council at Caesarea wrote to Constantine complaining of the contumacy of Athanasius in refusing to appear among them, 5 and Athanasius wrote to inform him that Arsenius was alive. Constantine dissolved the council 6 and wrote a letter to Athanasius denouncing the perverse and ungodly Melitians, and threatening to deal with them in future personally, according to civil rather than ecclesiastical laws. He asked that Athanasius read the letter frequently in public. 7 Arsenius apologized to Athanasius and submitted to him. John Archaph, the Melitian bishop of Memphis, who had been in charge of the prosecution of Athanasius, wrote to Constantine saying that he was now in communion with Athanasius, and wished to see the emperor. 8 Constantine granted him the use of the cursus publicus for this purpose. The cordiality of the letter in which he makes this grant indicates that the Melitians had, by the end of the whole affair in 334, not been discredited past forgiveness.

Most of us are accustomed to thinking of these years as a terrible period for the Church, as the bitter foes of orthodoxy made their repeated attacks on its great champion and waited for the day when his fall would enable them to establish the heresy. Athanasius, and our later sources

1 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 63-65.

2 Theodoret, HE 1.28.

3 Apologia contra Arianos 67.

4 Apologia contra Arianos 65.

5 Theodoret, HE 1.28.3-4.

6Apologia contra Arianos 65.

7 Apologia contra Arianos 68.

8 D. W. H. Arnold, The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (Notre Dame, 1991), 142 notes that Athanasius seems to have regarded this peace as artificial.

Page 287

following him, repeatedly make the unsupported claim that Eusebius and his "Arian" friends acted throughout in concert with the Melitians in order to "bring in the heresy," as though the Melitians needed any prompting to continue their attacks on Athanasius. 9If "the Eusebians" had had this intent to establish the heresy, they should have been causing a great deal of trouble for other orthodox bishops in the east during these years, following up their success against the Eustathians with new victories under the leadership of their returned chief. This did not happen. There was little strife, except in Egypt. There seems to have been no Arian writing during the period 325-337, 10 which indicates that the Nicene anathemas were in force. The activity of Eusebius against Athanasius can be explained on the hypothesis that he wanted the decisions of councils, such as that at Nicaea in 327, to be respected by bishops. Eusebius' actions were damaging to Athanasius, and Eusebius was not completely stricken by that fact. That

9 Arnold, in Early Career, adopts this view of an alliance and notes throughout when it does or does not seem to operate

10 J. Quasten in his Patrology (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1966), vol. 3, 13 says that "the number of Arian writings which have perished must be considerable, see J. De Ghellinck, 'En marge des controverses ariennes. Quelques allusions des écrits disparus. Réminiscences d'écrits d'adversaires: Miscellanea Historica Alberti De Meyer.' Louvain, 1946, 159-180." I have the impression from reading De Ghellinck that Quasten overestimated the amount of this Arian literature. It seems quite possible that none dates to the period 325-337. Asterius the Sophist (cf. R-E II, 2, 1786-1787) may be an exception. Jerome dated his works (presumably referring to his homilies on the Psalms) to the reign of Constantius. His Arian tract was probably written before Nicaea. Cf. Philostorgius' complaint about Asterius in HE 2.14-15. The difficulty with this subject is caused by Athanasius' persistent attacks on pre-Nicene Arian statements. These give the impression that Arianism remained a going concern. The real situation seems to be indicated in his encyclical letter (of 356) Ad episcopos Aegypti 18: after Nicaea the Arians did not dare to put an Arian proposition into writing. There is a discussion of Asterius by M. F. Wiles (in collaboration with R. C. Gregg)-"Asterius: A New Chapter in the History of Arianism?" in R. C. Gregg (editor), Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (Papers from the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies, at Oxford, England, 1983, published in Cambridge, Mass. in 1985), 111-151. The authors do not deal with the question of the dates of Asterius' writings. See now W. Kinzig, In Search of Asterius (Göttingen, 1990).

Page 288

does not mean either that we should applaud him or that he was engaged in a big heretical conspiracy. Athanasius refused to acknowledge the existence (except in a slip") and the decision of the council which readmitted Arius. We are entitled to suppose that he thought that his case had a serious weakness, and this supposition is confirmed by the fact that Athanasius did not quote all of the letter which Constantine wrote when threatening to have him deposed in 328 (or soon thereafter). 12 I think that that letter contained arguments which Athanasius would have found it very hard to answer. 13

It seems that Constantine's peacemaking efforts were successful everywhere in the east except in Egypt. Over a period of several years he came to think that Athanasius bore a good deal of the responsibility for that situation. Having backed Athanasius for a long time, he became fed up. He had complained to the Catholics of Alexandria that the enemies of Athanasius were wearing him out with their complaints. 14 He never got any help from Athanasius with the attempt to achieve some harmony between the Church in Egypt and the Church outside it. Even when he got rid of Arius in 333 the troubles in Egypt did not stop, and there is no need to think that Arius simply went away. In 334 he denounced the Melitians after the aborted council of Caesarea, but his cordiality to John Archaph shows that the bishop was not completely discredited. It seems that in 335 the opponents of Athanasius persuaded him to convoke the Council of Tyre to settle the controversies. His early actions suggest that he had decided, or agreed, before the Council met that Athanasius should be removed from his see.

He sent the count Flavius Dionysius with some troops to superintend the proceedings of the Council and to maintain order. Macarius was sent to Tyre under a guard of soldiers, and Constantine wrote to Athanasius

11 This is an Apologia contra Arianos 59. As it stands the passage confuses the Council of Nicaea in 325 with the council of 327. See Jones, C&C 181.

12 Apologia contra Arianos 59.

13 In HE 2.22, 1 Sozomen says that Theognis of Nicaea accused him before Constantine of causing all the troubles of the Church and of excluding persons who wanted to join the Church.

14 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 62.

Page 289

ordering him to go to the Council. 15 We do not know when the Council began. In late May or early June, probably of 335, a Melitian named Celestas wrote to Paieou and Patabeit, priests at the Melitian monastery of Hathor, 16 a letter which eventually became the London Papyrus 1914. 17 On May 20, he says (lines 6-44 18):

Isaac the bishop of Letopolis came to Heraiscus (apparently the Melitian bishop of Alexandria) at Alexandria, and he desired to dine with the bishop in the Camp. So the adherents 19 of Athanasius, hearing of it, came bringing with them soldiers of the Dux and of the Camp; they came in a drunken state at the ninth hour, having shut the Camp, wishing to seize both him and the brethren. So certain soldiers who were in the Camp and had the fear of God in their hearts, hearing of it, took them and hid them in the store-chambers in the Camp; and when they could not be found they went out and found four brethren coming into the Camp; and they beat them and made them all bloody, so that they were in danger of death, and cast them forth outside Nicopolis. After they had cast them forth they departed again to the Gate of the Sun, to the hostel in which the brethren are entertained, and they seized five others there and confined them in the Camp in the evening; and they shut them up till the praepositus came out to the guard-room towards morning; and the praepositus and the scribe took them and he ordered them to be cast forth out of Nicopolis; and Heraclides the keeper of the hostel they bound and maltreated, threatening and enjoining him; "For what reason did you admit monks of the Melitian party into the hostel?"Another brother Ammon, who was in the Camp and himself receives the brethren, they shut up in the Camp, forbidding him to receive monks in his house. For there is no other brother but these two

15 Eusebius, VC 4.42.4.

16 H. Idris Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt: the Jewish troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy (Oxford, 1924), papyrus 1913, 1.9 and 1920, 1.4.

17 Ibid., pp. 53-71.

18 Bell's translation reprinted by permission of the British Museum Trustees.

19 D. W. H. Arnold discusses the Greek for this word in Early Career, 82-84.

Page 290

who receives the brethren; they made them play the coward. So we are greatly afflicted, being separated by them each in his own place; and so we are troubled that they will not suffer us to depart to the papas Heraiscus and visit him; for on the night in which the brethren were maltreated the praepositus of the soldiers sent a report to the bishop saying: "I sinned and was drunken in the night, in that I maltreated the brethren." And that day he had a service said, though he is a Gentile, on account of the sin which he had committed. Athanasius is very despondent, and on his side he causes us distress by reason of the writings and reports that come to him from abroad, since the Emperor, having found Macarius abroad at court, . . . to -yrus writing . . . that having bound him and he should . . . in order that ... So Archelaus the ... and having departed with Athanasius son of Capito, wishing to carry off Macarius, the report came to Apa John at Antioch; he came and seized them and put them under arrest, because they had written vile slanders against Heraiscus, and Archelaus himself took the letters abroad. It was God who sent the three of them abroad and keeps them abroad! So Athanasius heard this news, that Archelaus was arrested, and Athanasius is very despondent. Often(?) did they come for him, and till now he has not left the country; but he had his baggage embarked at sea as though he would leave the country, and then again he took his baggage off the ship, not wishing to leave the country ... I have written to you in order that you might know in what affliction we are; for he carried off a Bishop of the Lower Country and shut him in the Meat Market, and a priest of the same region he shut in the lock-up, and a deacon in the principal prison, and etc. 20

20 Readers of Frend, Barnes, and Hanson will realize what an effect the publication of this papyrus has had on the reputation of Athanasius. Instead of accepting eagerly whatever martyrdom Athanasius was willing to send their way, the Melitians complained endlessly about him. They needed no prompting from Eusebius of Nicomedia to do what they did. As for Eusebius, he seems to have acted throughout on the basis of decisions of councils, as a good Catholic should have. Athanasius was an orthodox schismatic.

Page 291

I have accepted the conclusions of Bell that the Athanasius referred to above is our Athanasius, just before the Council of Tyre. Well might Athanasius despond-his agents under arrest and himself under a peremptory order by the emperor to appear at a Council supervised by a count in command of troops. When he finally appeared at Tyre, whither he sailed on July 11, 21 he again faced various accusations, of which we are best informed by Sozomen. 22 Callinicus, now the Melitian bishop of Pelusium, and Ischyras once more repeated the charge of breaking Ischyras' chalice, and claimed that he had often caused Ischyras to be chained, and once to be imprisoned by falsely claiming to the governor Hyginus that he had stoned pictures of the emperor. They added that he had deposed Callinicus, then a Catholic bishop at Pelusium, when he said that he would not communicate with Athanasius until he cleared himself of the charge of breaking the chalice, had given Callinicus' church to the deposed priest Mark, had put Callinicus himself under military guard, and had inflicted judicial tortures upon him. Other charges of assault were preferred. All accusers claimed that he had obtained his see improperly, and had treated his critics with violence and thrown them into prison. An attempt was made to use the case of Arsenius again, and he was also accused of having violated a woman.

Macarius denied that he had broken the chalice. The count Dionysius then received a proposal to send an episcopal commission to the Mareotis in order to obtain the facts of the matter. He concurred, and the Council chose Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Macedonius of Mopsuestia, Theodorus of Heraclea, Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa. They departed for Egypt with Ischyras, escorted by soldiers. Athanasius immediately objected that the commissioners selected had been those whose names he had rejected. In view of Athanasius' repeated objections to this commission, it is interesting to note Hanson's description of it as an extraordinarily fair idea for an ecclesiastical council. 23

The clergy of the City of Alexandria wrote to the commission (with a copy to Palladius, the curiosus Augusti) complaining of the appearance of

21Festal Index 8.

22HE 2.25.2-6.

23 Superscript, Search, 260.

Page 292

the prefect Philagrius among the commissioners, and accusing the commission of engaging in a conspiracy against Athanasius. The clergy of the Mareotis wrote to the council that they had accompanied Athanasius on all of his visits, that no cup had been broken by him and no table overturned, that Ischyras was not a priest, having been ordained by Colluthus, who had been returned to the rank of priest by Ossius and a council in Alexandria. They complained of the role of the prefect Philagrius in the work of the commission, assisting the ''Arian madmen" with his swords. They accused the commissioners of having obtained evidence against Athanasius by threats of force and in secret, with the support of "the Arian madmen." On September 8 they also wrote to Philagrius, Palladius, and another official to deny that Ischyras was a priest, etc. This letter contains a complimentary reference to Constantine and the Caesars. Given their earlier complaints about Philagrius, the letter represents something of a departure. Unfortunately, we do not know at what stage in the proceedings it was written. It is usually assumed that it followed directly on the appearance of the Mareotic commission, 24 but there is no ground for thinking that it did. There is no list of signatures attached. Given the date at which Athanasius left Tyre, he may have had time to get back to Alexandria and write it, before going on to Constantinople. The point to be observed is that the letter was written at an undetermined interval after the Mareotic commission appeared in Egypt.

At Tyre, forty-eight Egyptian bishops addressed two almost identical letters to the bishops at the Council and the count Dionysius. They accused Eusebius and others of conspiring against Athanasius out of enmity toward him for the sake of Arius, and of having sent a biased commission to the Mareotis, but obtained no result. They therefore appealed through the count Dionysius to the emperor himself, and notified the bishops of their appeal.

The first document concerning the Council itself to be mentioned here is that referred to in VC 4.41, where Eusebius paraphrases from the letter which Constantine sent inviting the bishops to Tyre. He ordered them to settle their differences there, and then proceed to Jerusalem for the festival of the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, saying that it was

24 See, for example, Barnes, CE 238.

Page 293

not proper for them to attend such a service until they had been reconciled. When they had assembled he sent them another letter which Eusebius quotes in VC 4.42.

Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to the holy Council at Tyre.

Surely it would best consist with and best become the prosperity of these our times, that the Catholic Church should be undivided, and the servants of Christ be at this present moment clear from all reproach. Since, however, there are those who, carried away by a baleful and furious spirit of contention (for I will not say that they were living a life unworthy of their profession), are endeavoring to create that general confusion which, in my judgment, is the most pernicious of all evils; I exhort you, forward as you already are, to meet together and form a synod without delay: to defend those who need protection; to administer remedies to your brethren who are in peril; to recall the divided members to unity of judgment; to rectify errors while opportunity is yet allowed: that thus you may restore to so many provinces that due measure of concord which, strange and sad anomaly! the arrogance of a few individuals has destroyed. And I believed that all are alike persuaded that this course is alike pleasing to Almighty God (as well as the highest object of my own desires) and will bring no small honor to yourselves, should you be successful in restoring peace. Delay not, then, but hasten with redoubled zeal to terminate the present dissensions in a manner becoming the occasion, by assembling together in that spirit of true sincerity and faith which the Savior whom we serve especially demands from all of us, I may almost say with an audible voice, on all occasions. No proof of pious zeal on my part shall be wanting to you. Already I have done all to which my attention was directed by your letters. I have sent those bishops whose presence was desired, that they may be present and share your counsels. I have despatched Dionysius, a man of consular rank, who will both remind those prelates of their duty who are bound to attend the Council with you, and will himself

Page 294

be there to superintend the proceedings, but especially to maintain good order. Meantime should any one, though I deem it most improbable, venture on this occasion to violate my command, and refuse his attendance, a messenger shall be despatched forthwith to banish that person in virtue of an imperial edict, and to teach him that it does not become him to resist an emperor's decrees when issued in defense of truth. For the rest, it will be for your Holinesses, by your united judgment unbiased either by enmity or favor, but consistently with ecclesiastical and apostolic order, to devise a fitting remedy whether it be for positive offences or for unpremeditated errors; in order that you may at once free the Church from all reproach, relieve my anxiety, and, by restoring the blessings of peace to those who are now divided, procure the highest honor for yourselves. God preserve you, beloved brethren! 25

It is clear from this letter that there had already been considerable co-operation between Constantine and the bishops at Tyre, and this must have occurred after the aborted Council at Caesarea in 334. The bishops had asked him, in a letter, to make sure that this time Athanasius would be present, and he has looked after that particular detail by referring it to the Count Dionysius, who had been given an imperial edict authorizing him to banish Athanasius if he absented himself from Tyre. The Count was also to supervise the Council, and given troops to maintain order, which shows what Constantine expected from the Egyptian bishops. It seems that Constantine expected the Council to depose Athanasius, "whether it be for positive offences or for unpremeditated errors," 26 and that he approved this decision in advancethe Savior was calling for it, and it will honor the bishops. The only note of warning is the "unbiased by enmity or favor." Anyone at the Council would have recognized the letter at once as (conditional) approval in advance of a finding against Athanasius. The emperor who issued it was clearly unwilling to proceed against Athanasius on his own. I think that he was not particularly interested in the Melitians:

25 Richardson's translation, adapted.

26 The second sentence also makes clear that the bishops did not have to show malicious intent in order to depose Athanasius.

Page 295

his concern seems to be Athanasius' exclusion of the "Arians." He certainly had changed his mind about keeping Athanasius in his see in the past year since he had sent his letter denouncing the Melitians, and in the past two years since he had sent his letter of 333 to Arius.

The next document is the letter of the count Dionysius to "Eusebius and his fellows," 27 in response to a letter to him by Alexander of Thessalonica which was prompted by the letter to him of the Egyptian bishops at Tyre.

This is what I have already mentioned to my lords, Flacillus 28 and his fellows, that Athanasius has come forward and complained that those very persons have been sent whom he objected to; and crying out that he has been wronged and deceived. Alexander the lord of my soul has also written to me on the subject; and that you may perceive that what his Goodness has said is reasonable, I have subjoined his letter to be read by you. Remember also what I wrote to you before: I impressed upon your Goodness, my lords, that the persons who were sent ought to be commissioned by the general vote and decision of all. Take care, therefore, lest our proceedings fall under censure, and we give just grounds of blame to those who are disposed to find fault with us. For as the accuser's side ought not to suffer any oppression, so neither ought the defendant's. And I think that there is no slight ground of blame against us, when my lord Alexander evidently disapproves of what we have done.

Alexander had warned Dionysius that a conspiracy of Colluthians, Arians, and Melitians was at work against Athanasius. Dionysius, like a good official, decided to protect himself by giving the bishops the impossible task of finding members of the commission on whom all the bishops present would agree. The letter indicates that Dionysius was not present and presiding over the Council. The problem faced by the bishops was that they could condemn on specific, but not general charges, 29 and they

27 The address is supplied by Athanasius in Apologia. contra Arianos 80.

28 He seems to be referred to as presiding over the council.

29 Hanson, Search, 262.

Page 296

therefore began again with claims which had already been heard elsewhere. They could not deal with the matter of the exclusion of "Arians" because Athanasius would simply contend that the ex-heretics were lying when they said that they accepted (Nicene) orthodoxy. I think that a copy of this letter was sent to Constantine along with the letter of the forty-eight Egyptian bishops at Tyre appealing through Dionysius to the emperor.30 If Constantine were primarily interested in the problem of the exclusion of "Arians" he would not have found these letters reassuring. Eusebius continues (in VC 4.43) as follows:

No sooner had these injunctions [i.e., to be reconciled, probably by getting rid of Athanasius] been carried into effect, than another emissary arrived with despatches from the emperor, and an urgent admonition to the Council to hasten their journey to Jerusalem without delay. Accordingly they all took their departure from the province of Phoenicia, and proceeded to their destination, availing themselves of the public means of transport. Thus Jerusalem became the gathering place for distinguished prelates from every province, and the whole city was thronged by a vast assemblage of the servants of God. The Macedonians had sent the bishop of their metropolis; the Pannonians and Moesians the fairest of God's youthful flock among them. A holy prelate from Persia too was there, deeply versed in the sacred oracles; while Bithynian and Thracian bishops graced the Council with their presence; nor were the most illustrious from Cilicia wanting, nor the chief of the Cappadocians, distinguished above all for learning and eloquence. In short, the whole of Syria and Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and Arabia together with Palestine itself, Egypt, and Libya, with the dwellers in the Thebaid, all contributed to swell the mighty concourse of God's ministers, followed as they were by vast numbers from every province. They were attended by an imperial escort, and officers of trust had also been sent from the palace itself, with instructions to heighten the splendor of the festival at the emperor's expense. .. (Richardson).

30 Above, p. 292.

Page 297

The reference to bishops from Pannonia and Moesia here means that Valens and Ursacius had returned from the Mareotis. We do not know when. The letter of protest of the clergy of the Mareotis is dated September 8, and the dedication festival September 13-20. 31 This leaves very little time between the letter regarding the work of the Mareotic commission and the festival in Jerusalem, but there may have been an interval between the work of the commission and the sending of the letter. Eusebius goes on to describe the entertainment of the bishops in Jerusalem by the notary Marianus, and their celebration of Constantine's tricennalia by the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which had just been completed. The first sentence of this chapter must mean that as soon as the Council had settled on the deposition of Athanasius, a new letter from the emperor arrived instructing the bishops to proceed to Jerusalem. It would be very interesting to know what the "despatches from the emperor' that accompanied this instruction were about, and Eusebius' silence is tantalizing. Eusebius had already said in chapter 41 that the bishops had instructions to proceed from Tyre to Jerusalem. The account in the succeeding chapters says nothing about a return to Tyre.

In the meantime Athanasius had been busy. He had fled from Tyre on a raft at some time in August, 32 with five of the Egyptian bishops who had signed the letter from Tyre to the Count Dionysius, and had subsequently gone with them to Constantinople. 33 He arrived there, according to the

31 This is discussed by H. A. Drake, "Athanasius' First Exile" in GRBS 27 (1986), 198, who concludes, against Eusebius, that the formal finding of the guilt of Athanasius was not made until late September.

32 For a chronology which assumes that the Mareotic commission was in Egypt on September 8, and that Athanasius had left Tyre in late August or early September, see H. A. Drake, "Athanasius' First Exile" in GRBS 27 (1986), 197-198, and note 12, following P. Peeters, "Comment Saint Athanasius s'enfuit de Tyr en 335" in Bulletin de l'academie royale de Belgique 530 (1944, appeared in 1946), 131-137, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et dephilologie orientales vol. 2 (Brussels, 1951), 53-90, at 76-77. For the raft see Peeters. I agree that it is not necessary to make this flight dramatic, and would swap the raft for a small boat of some description.

33 He had enough time to go to Egypt first and issue the protest of the clergy of the Mareotis dated September 8. He may have fled from Tyre after the return of the Mareotic commission. The Festal Index clearly implies, however, that he went

Page 298

Festal Index for 336, on October 30, and after 8 days (i.e., on November 6) presented himself to Constantine and spoke plainly. The next day he set out for exile in Gaul. In his Apologia contra Arianos 86 Athanasius quotes an abridged version of a letter which, most modern scholars are agreed, is best preserved in full by Gelasius of Cyzicus in his HE 3.18.1-13. In what follows I add, in bold type (in square brackets if it is a replacement for something in Athanasius' text), my translation of Gelasius to Robertson's translation of Athanasius, which appears in plain type. Italicized words were used by Constantine himself elsewhere. 34 The bold type italicized words appear only in Athanasius' text.

Constantine Victor, Maximus, Augustus,35 to the bishops assembled 36[reconvened from Jerusalem] at Tyre.

I know not what the decisions are which you have arrived at in your Council amidst noise and tumult: but somehow the truth seems to have been perverted in consequence of certain confusions and disorders, in that you, through your mutual

directly to Constantinople.

34 G. Loeschke, "Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzicenus" in Rheinisches Museum n.f. 60 and 61 (1905, 1906), 594-613 and 35-77, esp. 34-38.

35 The absence of victory titles may indicate that the salutation is not original, but Constantine may have simply omitted them when writing to the bishops.

36 The translation of the aorist participle sunelthousin in Athanasius' test seems to be problematic. Given the phrase later in the letter "who constituted the Council which was held at Tyre," one might translate the aorist as "who assembled at Tyre""and then went home" (understood). C. T. H. R. Ehrhardt in "Constantinian Documents in Gelasius of Cyzicus, Ecclesiastical History" in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 23 (1980), p. 55, translated the aorist anazeuxantas of Gelasius 3.18.1 as "who reconvened at Tyre (sc. in the past) from Jerusalem" and developed the view that Constantine had sent copies of the letter to all the bishops who had been present at Tyre, after they had gone home. Against this view it should be noted that in the very next chapter (87) of the Apologia Athanasius clearly states that the "Eusebians" were still assembled with the other bishops (he does not specify a location) when they received the letter. Gelasius also uses the aorist, even though his account assumes that the bishops are still in their second session at Tyre, as he had earlier in the address of Constantine's second letter to the bishops at Tyre in HE 3.17.1a letter written with the certain knowledge that the bishops were still at Tyre.

Page 299

contentiousness, which you are resolved should prevail, have failed to perceive what is pleasing to God. However, it will rest with Divine Providence to disperse the mischiefs which manifestly are found to arise from this contentious spirit, and to shew plainly to us, whether you, while assembled in that place, have had any regard for the truth, and whether you have made your decisions uninfluenced by either favor or enmity. Wherefore I wish you all to assemble with all speed before my piety, in order that you may render in person a true account of your proceedings.

The reason why I have thought good to write thus to you, and why I summon you before me by letter, you will learn from what I am going to say. As I was entering on a late occasion our all-happy patria 37[As I was entering, after an imperial progress our eponymous and all-fortunate Constantinople] of Constantinople, which bears our name (he happened at the time to be on horseback 38), on a sudden the bishop Athanasius the disciple of the divine law with certain others whom he had with him, approached me in the middle of the road, in mourning and lamentation so unexpectedly as to occasion me much amazement. God, who knoweth all things, is my witness, that I should have been unable at first sight even to recognize him, so downcast and dejected was he had not some of my attendants, on my naturally inquiring of them, informed me both who it was, and under what injustice he was suffering. I was moved to unspeakable pity for him, knowing that this was Athanasius, the holy sight of whom is sufficient to lead the heathen to the worship of the universal God, whom once wicked men, strangers to peace and agreement, encompassed with extraordinarily vexatious prosecutions, to the point where I myself, carried away by their artful deceit, was about to do the man an injustice, had

37 As Barnes points out, Constantine's patria was the Balkans (Naïssus).

38 I agree with Barnes that the phrase in round brackets must be an editorial addition by Athanasius. (Athanasius and Constantius, 31.)

Page 300

I not been moved by a divine judgment and ordered him then to come from Alexandria to the court of our Clemency. And thus, having been closely examined by my Carefulness concerning the things falsely contrived against him, coming together in dependence on me, the man proved the falsity of the accusations, and having appeared innocent of all of them, he was sent home in the highest honor by us, having been given back in peace to his orthodox flock. And now with greater boldness he calls out that a second set of charges worse than before has been brought against him, asking nothing from us but your arrival to us, that he might have opportunity of complaining in your presence, of the ill-treatment he has met with. I did not however enter into any conversation with him at that time, nor grant him an interview: but when he requested to be heard I was refusing, and all but gave orders for his removal; when with increasing boldness he claimed only this favor, that you should be summoned to appear, that he might have an opportunity of complaining before me in your presence, of the ill-treatment he has met with. As this appeared to me to be a reasonable request, and suitable to the times, I willingly ordered this letter to be written to you, in order that all of you, who constituted 39 the Council which was held at Tyre, might hasten without delay to the Court of my clemency, so as to prove by facts that you had passed an impartial and uncorrupt judgment. This, I say, you must do before me, whom not even you will deny to be a true servant of God. For indeed through my devotion to God, peace is preserved everywhere, and the Name of God is truly worshiped even by the barbarians, who have hitherto been ignorant of the truth. And it is manifest, that he who is ignorant of the truth, does not know God either. Nevertheless, as I said before, even the barbarians have now come to the knowledge of God, by means of me, His true servant, and have learned to fear Him Whom they perceive from actual

39 The tense of the verb recognizes the fact that makes the address of the letter impossible.

Page 301

facts to be my shield and protector everywhere. And from this chiefly have they come to know God, Whom they fear from the dread which they have of me. But we, who are supposed to set forth (for I will not say to guard) the holy mysteries of His Goodness, we, I say, engage in nothing but what tends to dissension and hatred, and, in short, whatever contributes to the destruction of mankind. But hasten, as I said before, and all of you with all speed come to us, being persuaded that I shall endeavor with all my might to amend what is amiss, so that those things specially may be preserved and firmly established in the law of God, to which no blame nor dishonor may attach; while the enemies of the law, who under pretense of His holy Name bring in manifold and divers blasphemies, to deceive the simple-minded shall be scattered abroad, and entirely crushed, and utterly destroyed, while we earnestly desire, as far as possible, the purity of the catholic Church, which our Savior preserves unblemished and holy and faultless, having bought it with his saving and precious blood, as his divine and unbreakable laws proclaim.

Gelasius goes on to say that this letter caused great consternation among the bishops reconvened at Tyre, who were there awaiting the return of the liars of the Mareotic commission. While they delayed further, Constantine, he says, sent Athanasius back to Alexandria, with a letter of recommendation saying that he had been falsely accused. 40 When Athanasius saw that Alexandria was being disturbed by the doings of the Jerusalem council, he wrote to Constantine, who sent back his letter of 333 to Arius and the Arians. Gelasius then quotes that letter. The quotation of these letters so far out of context makes it quite clear that he or his source was very partisan indeed. Athanasius continues in ch. 87 of the Apologia contra Arianos as follows:

When Eusebius and his fellows read this (i.e., Constantine's) letter, being conscious of what they had done, they prevented the

40 Gelasius quotes the letter of 334 in HE 3.18.17-20.

Page 302

rest of the Bishops from going up, 41 and only themselves went, viz. Eusebius, Theognius, Patrophilus, the other Eusebius, Ursacius and Valens. And they no longer said anything about the cup and Arsenius (for they had not the boldness to do so), but inventing another accusation which concerned the Emperor himself, they declared before him, that Athanasius had threatened that he would cause the corn to be withheld which was sent from Alexandria to his own home. The bishops Adamantius, Anubion, Agathammon, Arbethion and Peter, were present and heard this. It was proved also by the anger of the Emperor; for although he had written the preceding letter and had condemned their injustice, as soon as he heard such a charge as this, he was immediately incensed, and instead of granting me a hearing, he sent me away into Gaul.

It is impossible to reconcile the account in the Apologia contra Arianos with the statements of the Festal index. There was not time in eight days (let alone in one day) for a letter from Constantine to reach either Tyre or Jerusalem, and for bishops there to get to Constantinople. If we suppose that Constantine wrote the letter after a first meeting with Athanasius on November 6, it would be hard to explain why Athanasius ever thought, even after twenty years, that this account of the reception of the letter would be believed by anyone. 42 Perhaps he was simply trying to set it in a context as unfavorable to his adversaries as possible. They would not have had the material in the Festal Index.

Neither does the chapter fit very well with the claim of the beginning of the Festal Letter for 338, that ''the Eusebians" were looking for a letter in order to destroy Athanasius. Athanasius must have been debarred from the exercise of episcopal function, and that must have been a result of a decision of the bishops, not of a sentence of exile decreed by an emperor who had ignored the bishops' decision.

It is also impossible to reconcile the letter quoted by Athanasius with the dispatches mentioned by Eusebius, in which Constantine has already

41 Gelasius, in HE 3.18.15, represents the other bishops as going home in fear on the receipt of Constantine's letter.

42 H. A. Drake, "Athanasius' First Exile" in GRBS 27 (1986), 197.

Page 303

told the bishops to hasten to Jerusalem, after they had deposed Athanasius. The rest of Eusebius' account implies that the Council ended there, 43 but the letter quoted by Gelasius was written two months later and addressed to bishops reconvened at Tyre. One of these accounts has something wrong with it. In this case I see no reason to suspect Eusebius. He had already said in VC 4.41 that the emperor, in inviting the bishops to the synod, had instructed them to reconcile their differences in Tyre before proceeding to Jerusalem. Athanasius himself, a few chapters earlier, 44 quotes from a letter to Alexandria from the Council of Jerusalem implying that the Council has finished dealing with him, and Socrates 45clearly accepted this implication. So did Sozomen 46 and Theodoret. 47 Admittedly, the evidence of the last two would not exclude the view that it was only in Jerusalem that the final condemnation of Athanasius occurred, perhaps as late as the end of September, 48 but they do rule out any return to Tyre. The agreement of Eusebius and the letter to Alexandria quoted by Athanasius must constitute a powerful argument. The explanation of the address of the letter quoted hy Gelasius must, it seems, be sought elsewhere. In early November Constantine would not have used the address of either version, and one cannot help wondering why they occur.

Any bishop who had been at Tyre as a consequence of the letter quoted by Eusebius and who then read the letter which Athanasius and Gelasius quote would have been immediately struck by the change of tone from the earnest exhortation quoted by Eusebius to the plain rebukes of the letter quoted by Gelasius, 49 and would have supposed that when Athanasius met Constantine in the street he got more of an interview than the emperor

43VC 2.42-47.

44Apologia contra Arianos 84, quoting the letter of the Council of Jerusalem to the Church in Alexandria.

45 HE 1.33.

46 HE 2.25-28.

47HE 1,30,11-1.31.5 edited by Parmentier and Scheidweiler in GCS 44 (Berlin, 1954), 87-88.

48 H. A. Drake, "Athanasius' First Exile" in GRBS 27 (1986), 198-199. Those who accept such a late date must reject the evidence of Eusebius.

49 e.g., "whom not even you would deny to be a true servant of God." "you, through your mutual contentiousness, which you are resolved should prevail."

Page 304

indicates, and used his opportunity to most remarkable effect. The emperor, who had been expecting, and hoping for, Athanasius' deposition and would have thought that the disheveled appearance of the bishop was explained by that, promptly reversed himself on the whole issue and wrote a letter, as full of rebuke as Athanasius could have wished, to the Council. 50 Instead of his earlier exhortation to the bishops to restore the blessings of peace to those now divided, he warmly praises Athanasius. He even accepts the bishop's contention about "the enemies of the law, who under pretense of His holy Name bring in manifold and divers blasphemies," and hopes that they "shall be scattered abroad, and entirely crushed, and utterly destroyed." This last sentence must refer to "Arians," not to Melitians. Gone is the concern for unity. The reversal is stunning, and one can understand Schwartz' view that Athanasius had charmed the emperor. 51

There are other internal difficulties in the letter. Constantine begins by saying that he does not know what the Council has decided, in spite of the fact that this letter, on the chronology of the Festal Index, must have been written about two months after Athanasius fled from Tyre, 52 and seven weeks after the Dedication Festival (Sept. 13-20 53) for which Constantine had told the bishops to go to Jerusalem. The bishops would have known that the emperor had heard some report of the final result of Tyre by that time. 54 Furthermore, Constantine is represented as saying that when he met Athanasius in the street, his attendants made clear to him the injustice from which Athanasius was suffering, but that he denied Athanasius a hearing at that point. However, he did accede to Athanasius' "reasonable request" for an interview with the emperor and the bishops from Tyre. Hence his letter.

50 We must remember here that it was the Melitians, not the "Eusebians" with whom Constantine had been angry earlier. He did not share Athanasius' views of Eusebius.

51 E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften 3, 259.

52 For this chronology see P. Peeters, "Comment Saint Athanasius s'enfuit de Tyr en 335" in Bulletin de l'academie royale de Belgique 30 (1944, appeared in 1946), 131-137, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales vol. 2 (Brussels, 1951), 53-90, at 76-77, followed by H. A. Drake, "Athanasius' First Exile" in GRBS 27 (1986), 197-198, and n. 12.

53 H. A. Drake, "Athanasius' First Exile" in GRBS 27 (1986), p. 198, n. 15.

54 This is not a major point, because he might have wished to avoid the appearance of rejecting the Council's decision, but it should be made.

Page 305

Moreover, his letter does far more than he says he promised to Athanasius, since all through it he charges the bishops with improper conduct at Tyre, having prejudged this question on the say-so of Athanasius. 55 In short, having convoked the council in order that it might depose Athanasius, he has now made Athanasius the prosecutor of the Council, even though he had not given Athanasius a hearing. Perhaps he found that Athanasius' complaints confirmed those of the Egyptian bishops and the Count Dionysius at Tyre, and believed that the Council had operated on lines different from those on which his earlier understanding with the bishops had been reached.

It must be carefully noted that Athanasius' exile was not followed directly by his replacement as bishop of Alexandria, as had been the case with other bishops exiled by Constantine. Barnes concluded that "Athanasius left Constantinople on 7 November 335, still technically bishop of Alexandria but effectively debarred from exercising the power which he had wielded with such vigor and enjoyment." 56 It must be acknowledged that this goes beyond our evidence, for Constantine might have refused to allow the replacement of Athanasius simply in order to avoid disruptions in Alexandria, even though inaction left the city without a bishop. He may also have thought that he could get the verdict of Tyre-Jerusalem reversed by another council at some future time, when Athanasius had submitted to the decisions of the Council regarding "the Arians." The failure to replace him does not mean that Athanasius was still bishop of Alexandria. 57

Moreover, this letter did not represent the last reversal of Constantine on the issue. Sozomen's HE 2.31 may be considered here.

The death of Arius did not terminate the doctrinal dispute which he had originated. Those who adhered to his sentiments did not cease from plotting against those who maintained opposite

55 We should note that Athanasius, in introducing this letter, says that Constantine wrote it after hearing his report.

56 Barnes, CE 240. This conclusion is also accepted in his Athanasius and Constantius of 1993. I note that Athanasius did not write festal letters for 336 and 337, and that mere exile was no bar to writing them.

57 See below, p. 318-320.

Page 306

opinions. The people of Alexandria loudly complained of the exile of Athanasius, and offered up supplications for his return; and Antony, the celebrated monk, wrote frequently to the emperor to entreat him to attach no credit to the insinuations of the Melitians, but to reject their accusations as calumnies; yet the emperor was not convinced by these arguments and wrote to the Alexandrians, accusing them of folly and of disorderly conductHe commanded the clergy and holy virgins to remain quiet, and declared that he would not change his mind nor recall Athanasius, whom, he said, he regarded as an exciter of sedition justly condemned by the judgment of the Church. He replied to Antony, by stating that he ought not to overlook the decree of the Synod; for even if some few of the bishops he said, were actuated by ill-will or the desire to oblige others, it scarcely seems credible that so many prudent and excellent bishops could have been impelled by such motives, and he added that Athanasius was contumelious and arrogant, and the cause of dissension and sedition. The enemies of Athanasius accused him the more especially of these crimes, because they knew that the emperor regarded them with peculiar aversion. When he heard that the Church was split into two factions, of which the one supported Athanasius and the other John, he was transported with indignation, and exiled John himself. This John had succeeded Melitius, and had, with those who held the same sentiments as himself, been restored to communion and reestablished in his clerical functions by the Synod, despite the fact that the urgency of the emperor's summons might be thought to have cut short the deliberations at Tyre. His banishment was contrary to the wishes of the enemies of Athanasius, yet it was done, and the decrees of the Synod of Tyre did not benefit John, for the emperor was beyond supplication or petition of any kind with respect to anyone who was suspected of stirring up Christian people to sedition or dissension. 58

58 Hartranft's LNPF^2vol. 2 translation.

Page 307

I take it that Sozomen was paraphrasing a letter of Constantine to the Alexandrians and Antony. Constantine had doubts about some of the bishops, and recognized that he could, on his own, let Athanasius out of exile, but he refused to do so because he regarded the verdict of Tyre, or of Tyre-Jerusalem, as just. 59 This letter clearly implies that Athanasius was exiled pursuant to the decisions there. I note that for Constantine to say that Athanasius was an exciter of sedition is a very general way indeed to describe a threat to the grain supply of Constantinople. 60 It seems that soon after the exile of Athanasius and the readmission of Arius, there was trouble in Alexandria, which may be the background for the fictions of Gelasius.

Finally, we must consider the letter which Constantine II sent to the Alexandrians after his father's death.

Constantine Caesar to the people of the Catholic Church of the city of Alexandria.

I suppose that it has not escaped the knowledge of your pious minds, that Athanasius, the interpreter of the adorable Law, was sent away into Gaul for a time, with the intent that, as the savageness of his bloodthirsty and inveterate enemies persecuted him to the hazard of his sacred life, he might thus escape suffering some irremediable calamity, through the perverse dealing of those evil men. In order therefore to escape this, he was snatched out of the jaws of his assailants, and was ordered to pass some time under my government, and so was supplied abundantly with all necessaries in this city, where he lived, although indeed his celebrated virtue, relying entirely on divine assistance, sets at nought the sufferings of adverse fortune. Now seeing that it was the fixed intention of our master Constantine

59 Sozomen in HE 2.25.15-16 says that the Council of Tyre deposed Athanasius, said that he was not to reside in Alexandria, and that John Archaph was admitted to communion, and sent its acta to Constantine, and wrote to the bishops telling them not to communicate with Athanasius--before leaving for Jerusalem

60 Many scholars have remarked on his beheading of the pagan philosopher Sopater, who was accused of interfering with the grain supply by "fettering the winds."

Page 308

Augustus, my Father, to restore the said bishop to his own place, and to your most beloved piety, but he was taken away by that fate which is common to all men, and went to his rest before he could accomplish his wish; I have thought it proper to fulfil that intention of the Emperor of sacred memory which I have inherited from him. When he comes to present himself before you, you will learn with what reverence he has been treated. Indeed it is not wonderful, whatever I have done on his behalf; for the thoughts of your longing desire for him, and the appearance of so great a man, moved my soul, and urged me thereto. May Divine Providence continually preserve you, beloved brethren.

Dated from Trier, June 27. 61

This letter represents Constantine I as having adopted a view even more extreme than that expressed in the letter to the bishops at Tyre which Athanasius quotes. Athanasius was sent to Gaul in order to preserve his life from the savagery of his bloodthirsty enemies 62 (the leader of whom had just baptized Constantine). Surely this owes more to the representations of Athanasius to Constantine II than it does to anything written by Constantine I, for neither he nor Athanasius was the man to run away from trouble. That Constantine had intended to restore Athanasius, or to have his deposition reversed by a future council, is another matter. I have suggested above that if Athanasius had submitted to the decisions of the Council of Tyre-Jerusalem regarding Arius, Constantine would have favored letting him back to Alexandria. The continuing disorders there may have changed his mind about the cause of them, and led him to more friendly feeling toward Athanasius.

The first question raised by these documents is that of the authenticity of Constantine's third letter to the bishops at Tyre, in the two versions quoted. Otto Seeck regarded this letter in three 63 versions as proof that

61 Robertson's translation, Apologia contra Arianos 87.

62 Barnes accepted this letter as proof that Constantine did not simply execute the judgment of Tyre.

63 The first of these versions is the references to the letter in the encyclical letter of the Council of the bishops of Egypt in 338 (quoted by Athanasius in Apologia contra Arianos 9.3). Seeck made the mistake of thinking that the rest of that chapter was

Page 309

Athanasius was a forger, who quoted the letter as it suited him. Seeck then decided that he knew what those circumstances were: the letter as quoted in the Apologia contra Arianos was from the time when everybody knew that Constantine was not friendly to Athanasius in 335, and the letter as quoted by Gelasius was from a later period, when Constantine was long dead, and Athanasius, emboldened by other forgeries, 64 was able to make himself into the friend of the sainted emperor. This reconstruction was vulnerable. Eduard Schwartz thought that the letter as quoted by Gelasius was interpolated, and that the version quoted by Athanasius must have been genuine, because it was not satisfactory to him. 65 I would note that by 370 Athanasius' propaganda against Constantius II had spread to include Constantine, who was being presented as having declined into Arianism toward the end of his life, and as such was no fit friend for Athanasius. 66

In the meantime G. Loeschke had defended the authenticity of the version quoted by Gelasius, noting the Constantinian phrases in it. 67Seeck returned to the charge, still convinced that the letter was forged. However, after his death, Norman Baynes examined his argument about the letter, and pointed to two defects. First, Seeck was simply in error about the first version, so that there were really only two. 68 Second, Seeck's argument from differences between the second and third versions was not conclusive, since the version quoted in the Apologia contra Arianos, which Seeck took to be the second version, might have left out some of the original material which appears in the quote in Gelasius, whose source was (Baynes accepted Seeck's view on this point) Athanasius' Synodicus. 69 Baynes thought that

quoting from this letter, a point on which he was corrected by Baynes.

64 O. Seeck, "Urkundenfalschungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (Schluss)" in ZKG 30 (1909), 399-422, which took up an argument originally published in the same journal 17 (1896), lff.; 319ff.

65 E. Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften 3, 258-260-originally published in 1911.

66 See Bidez' Appendix 7 to his edition of Philostorgius (GCS Berlin, 1981, ed. J. Bidez and F. Winkelmann).

67 G. Loeschke, "Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzicenus" in Rheinisches Museum N.F. 61 (1906), at 38-39.

68 N. H. Baynes, "Athanasiana" in JEA 11 (1925), 63. Two different letters are mentioned by the bishops-one early in the chapter, the other later in the chapter.

69 Baynes, "Athanasiana," 58-65.

Page 310

it may have been embarrassment that prompted Athanasius to omit parts of the letter quoted by Gelasius, and he referred specifically to the references to Athanasius' pitiful condition in Constantinople. On Baynes' argument, Gelasius' version is the original letter, which Athanasius abbreviated in the Apologia, so that both quotations are of a genuine document. Those later scholars who took Seeck seriously have considered Seeck refuted by Baynes' hypothesis, which has been accepted. 70 In the 1940s Paul Peeters expressed indignation that Seeck should have imagined that Athanasius would have dared a forgery as soon as fifteen years after the event. 71

Barnes has recently sought to strengthen arguments for the preference of Gelasius' version over that of Athanasius as the original version of the letter, 72 and accepts Baynes' conclusions. This leads him to adopt the view, based on the statements in the Festal Index of Athanasius' letters, that the letter was overtaken by events within a few hours of its writing, which leaves us with an inexplicable belief by Athanasius regarding the reception of the letter by the bishops. Barnes also believes, from the address in Gelasius' version, that the council reconvened at Tyre. 73Schwartz regarded that as impossible, 74 and so do I. There was no business left for it to do. It did not have to wait for the members of the Mareotic commission, as Gelasius asserts, 75 because they had already gone to Jerusalem. 76 If the council had reconvened at Tyre we would certainly have heard about that fact from the pro-Athanasius Church historians. I suspect that Seeck would have explained the linguistic and technical points made by Loeschke and Barnes as retouches of an original forgery by Athanasius.

Baynes proved that the claim of forgery as made by Seeck could be dismissed if the chronological order of the two versions were reversed, and

70 Loeschke, Peeters, Barnes.

71 "Comment Saint Athanase s'enfuit de Tyr en 335" in Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales vol. 2 (Brussels, 1951), 88-89, extracted from the end of the Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres de l'Academie royale de Belgique, 30 (1944, appearing in 1946), 131-177.

72 T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 31.

73 T. D. Barnes, CE, 239-240; Athanasius and Constantius, 30-33.

74Gesammelte Schriften 3, 259 originally published in 1911.

75 Gelasius, HE 3.17.38.

76 Eusebius, VC 4.43.3.

Page 311

he explained two of the phrases appearing only in Gelasius' version quite plausibly on this hypothesis. He did not deal with all of the consequences of such a reversal, and we should note them carefully. If the version quoted by Gelasius is the original, Constantine becomes an emperor completely without a policy on a question on which his other actions and sayings reveal, as Baynes himself was later to argue, real consistency. 77 In addition to that, he seems quite foolishconvoking a council in order to get rid of the schismatic bishop and then, without giving him a hearing, making him the prosecutor of the council from which he had fled contrary to the emperor's orders. I really doubt that Constantine was such a fool. To me it seems that Baynes' argument becomes the victim of his own later view, with which I agree. The more coherence we can see in Constantine's policy, the less ready we are to accept Gelasius' text as the original version of an authentic document. Finally, we are left with the task of explaining why Athanasius, in quoting a genuine letter by Constantine, left out so much material so complimentary to himself personally, and so much in agreement with his own eccentric policy regarding "Arians." He certainly needed all the support he could get. The question that has to be answered, and has not been addressed, is whether the argument of forgery is suited to the view that the version quoted by Gelasius is prior to that of Apologia contra Arianos 86. We should note at this point that it could be a forgery even if substantial parts of the letter were written by Constantine, as long as they were not written to the bishops who were (or who had been) at Tyre in 335. Baynes and his successors seem to have regarded his disproof of Seeck's contention as proof of the authenticity of the document, 78 but of course it is not. It happens that we know, from Apologia contra Arianos 9.3, that the Egyptian bishops knew of some version of the letter by 338. 79 Forgery would have taken place only after Constantine's death, when it could be useful and no longer proved. Athanasius would have known by that time that the bishops were no longer at Tyre when the letter was supposed to have been written, but for him to have claimed to a general audience that the council had reconvened at Tyre from Jerusalem was

77 Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, 29-30.

78 Baynes says on p. 28 that the authenticity of the letter was now (1929) unquestioned.

79 For the date see T. D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 36, and notes.

Page 312

surely out of the question in 337, as was the representation of Constantine as an exponent of Athanasian policy regarding the ex-Arians. Such a complete about-face by the emperor would have been simply too much for the eastern bishops to swallow, especially when it had to be followed by yet another about-face, which would leave Constantine back where he started.

However, as far as we know, Athanasius' audience in 337 was not general. It consisted entirely of Egyptian bishops, whose experience of these councils was peculiar. None of Athanasius' allies would have dared to go from Tyre to Jerusalem in September of 335, to look on as Arius was readmitted to communion. Furthermore, they had no knowledge of Constantine's decision against Athanasius prior to the Council of Tyre. They had been well schooled to believe, on the strength of fairly recent letters of the emperor, that he thoroughly approved of the bishop of Alexandria, and also, on the strength of the law of 333, that he espoused Athanasius' policy with regard to the Arians. They must have been very pleased with the letter of Constantine II. All of this made them the best possible audience for a forgery. Nevertheless, Athanasius had been deposed by the Council of Tyre, and could not expect the Egyptian bishops to feel easy about the proposed imperial restoration: it was not Constantine II who was their ruler, but Constantius II, who is not on record as having been willing immediately to welcome Athanasius' return to Alexandria. Moreover, in order to show the Egyptian bishops why they should continue the struggle on his behalf against Pistus, who had recently been consecrated bishop of Alexandria, he had to persuade them that he was deposed by Constantine himself, for no ecclesiastical reason. The letter is in accord with some acknowledged facts in Constantinople during November of 335, but to whom could it have been written? It had to be to bishops at Tyre, because Constantine had to profess, as the letter does, ignorance of what they had decided, which he would not simply reverse. It is therefore certain that the letter as quoted by Gelasius is the original version, because its address recognizes the difficulty of harmonizing the chronology with the location of the bishops. Athanasius seems to have taken the risk of reconvening the Council at Tyre at a date when the bishops had all gone home.

To the Egyptian bishops, who had not gone to Jerusalem, this would have appeared as simply another event that they had missed by going home instead of to Jerusalem, and it would accord better with the chronological

Page 313

facts known to five of them. When Athanasius came to write the Apologia contra Arianos for a more general audience (on Barnes' recent reckoning, for the Council of Antioch which deposed him in 349, on Hanson's in 357/358 80), he had to make substantial alterations to the letter. The address had to be changed, because the bishops outside Egypt would have certainly remembered that the council was not reconvened at Tyre, and it could safely be changed, because they would not have had, fourteen years after the event, the chronological data that Athanasius possessed regarding his own movements, of which they were ignorant. Because some of the Egyptian bishops knew that the Council was no longer in session at Tyre when the letter was purported to have been written, the phrase ''who constituted the synod which was held at Tyre" had to be retained, no matter how odd it looked with the new address. Athanasius also had to admit the hostility of Constantine to himself in 335, which involved deleting the long passage of his own praises, and to remove much of the last sentence expressing imperial approval of his own intransigent policy. He also removed the references to his own sad condition on the street in Constantinople. This was not necessarily out of embarrassment with them, as Baynes thought, but because they had elicited from Constantine the praises of Athanasius which were being deleted.

This reconstruction, incidentally, accounts for the peculiar structure of the Apologia contra Arianos, for it was desirable that the letter come before the reader as a document of which the Egyptian bishops had long known.

The address of Gelasius' version of the letter was not an accident, but part of a systematic distortion of these events. Gelasius introduces the letter by saying 81 that after the conspiracy against Athanasius at the Council of Tyre the attendance of the Council of Jerusalem was greatly augmented on Constantine's orders, and that the Council of Jerusalem rejected Arius' petition that he be readmitted to communion as orthodox. Thereafter most of the bishops went home, and only Eusebius' faction reconvened at Tyre to await the return of the liars of the Mareotic commission. 82 Athanasius anticipated them with his meeting of Constantine in the street in

80 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius 195; Hanson, Search, 417-421.

81 HE 3.17.38.

82 Gelasius, HE 3.17.31-38.

Page 314

Constantinople, and the emperor wrote the letter. Arius was rejected at Alexandria, which was ready to welcome Athanasius, but the latter, in view of the local disturbances, sent a letter to Constantine, who sent back a letter to the Alexandrians telling them that Athanasius was entirely innocent-the letter discussed above as that of 334. 83 The emperor also sent a letter to Arius and the Arians which has been discussed above-the letter of 333, which Gelasius quotes in full.

It is clear enough that Athanasius was behind this systematic distortion of events of 335, and that he thought that he could present whatever account he liked of the Council of Jerusalem to Egyptian clerics. It happens that about three years after he produced this forgery he also wrote his Letter 54 to Serapion concerning the death of Arius 84 with the stated purpose of settling a dispute between Egyptian clerics regarding the question whether Arius had been readmitted to catholic communion before his death. 85 The dispute shows that some of the clerics had left the Council of Tyre (or heard from those who had) expecting that Arius would be readmitted at Jerusalem, and that something had created a doubt in their minds regarding what had happened at Jerusalem. I take it that they were troubled by Athanasius' claim that the Council had reconvened at Tyre after all the good bishops had gone home from Jerusalem. Athanasius settled their dispute with yet another fiction concerning the death of Arius while still excommunicated. 86 His instructions to Serapion in sec. 5 to read the

83 Gelasius, HE 3.18.17-20.

84 Letter 54.1 (Robertson's translation). Barnes accepted Kannengiesser's date of c. 340 for this letter in Athanasius and Constantius 127 and note 27 on p. 278. On the present argument this date must be approximately correct.

85 All the participants in the controversy seem to assume that Arius was excommunicate at the time of the Council of Tyre. This must mean either that they had not heard of the work of the Council of Nicaea of 327, or that they knew that Arius had been excommunicated by Athanasius in 333. See ch. 15 above, note 35.

86 This story had a future worthy of its origins, for which see Alice Leroy-Molinghen, "La mort d'Arius" in Byzantion 38 (1968), 105-111. E. Stein simply rejected it in his Histoire du Bas-Empire vol. 1 (Paris, 1959), p. 469, n. 72, part of which reads as follows: "Rogala, Die Anfnge des arian. Streites 109-114 s'est efforcé, sans succès naturellement, de présenter 'comme absolument dignes de foi' les récits d'Athanase sur la mort d'Arius destinés des lecteurs trés naïfs, etc."

Page 315

letter out, but not to allow anyone to make a copy, and not to make one himself, have been fitly characterized as the signs of a bad conscience, 87 and, incidentally, provide the answer to Peeters's objection to Seeck that Athanasius would not have dared a forgery at such an early date as 357. In fact, it was only in the years soon after the Council of Tyre that Athanasius could have gotten away with the forgery as transmitted by Gelasius, and only to his Egyptian audience. Later, before a more general audience, Athanasius dropped this pretense that Arius had not been readmitted to communion, and argued that the deposition of himself and the readmission of Arius showed that the Council of Tyre was a cabal of Arians. 88 This is very closely paralleled by his (later) letter to the monks 89 in which he seems to have treated the subject of Arius' death as a proof that Arianism was hateful to God, not as proof that Arius died excommunicate. This switch of arguments must have been very hard on the Egyptian bishops, from whom we do not hear.

It is quite clear, therefore, that Athanasius did quote the letter as it suited him, as Seeck thought, but the argument for forgery must accept Baynes' view of the order of the production of the two versions of the letter, and must remember not only the times at which the two versions were produced, but the audiences for which they were produced. To Seeck Athanasius seemed bolder in the version quoted by Gelasius, but in fact his letter was carefully tailored to an isolated but contemporary audience schooled in the belief that the emperor approved of the bishop of Alexandria, and profoundly ignorant on the subject of the Council of Jerusalem. No Egyptian bishop at Tyre who had anything to do with Athanasius would have gone near Jerusalem in September of 335. Athanasius remained cautious after he had gotten his story across to the Egyptians; it was at least fourteen years before he sought a wider audience for it, and again he has been rewarded with success.

The letter is much too uncharacteristic of his policy and of his actions regarding the Council of Tyre to have been written by Constantine,

87 By R. Lorenz, "Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nica (327)" in ZKG 90 (1979), 30.

88Apologia contra Arianos 84.

89 Letter 52 in Robertson's translation.*

Page 316

whatever similarities of phrasing can be proven. I do not know of any scholar's argument as to why Athanasius would have abandoned the solid advantages of Gelasius' version in quoting the letter in the Apologia if Gelasius' version had been authentic, and I myself cannot think of one. The idea that in these circumstances Athanasius was being modest is laughable. I think that my explanation of the addresses of the two versions is correct, and I regard the two versions of the letter as variants, as Seeck thought, of a forgery by Athanasius.

Its original purpose must have been to explain to the Egyptian bishops, in 337, 90 why it was all right to take Athanasius back from exile, on the say-so of Constantine II, or why they should continue the struggle for the bishopric of Alexandria on Athanasius' behalf. 91 Athanasius was alleging that he had been exiled not as a result of a conciliar decision but because the emperor, having ignored the Council's decision, had been incensed against him by the bishops who had gone from Tyre (ostensibly) to Constantinople. Both the letter and the "scene" in Constantinople are necessary to such a reconstruction of events. Nobody disputes the claim that a stormy interview took place. 92

The truth about this will presumably never be known, but we can be sure that if there was a heated dispute in Constantinople, Athanasius welcomed it-perhaps even promoted it. It may well have been for the purpose of witnessing it that he had taken to Constantinople the five

90 According to Festal Index 10 he arrived back in Alexandria on Nov. 23.

91 They refer to the letter in their encyclical of 338 in Apologia contra Arianos 9.3. The letter cannot have been forged while Constantine lived, and there was no need of it then. After his death and the consecration of Pistus as bishop of Alexandria, there may have been need of such a letter.

92 Epiphanius is often cited for this. All of the evidence seems to go back to Athanasius. I note that it may be no accident that the eastern bishops at the Council of Serdica make no mention of the alleged tampering with the grain supply in their list of complaints against Athanasius. See L. W. Barnard, Studies in Athanasius' Apologia Secunda, 186, who takes the absence of the charge as evidence that it could not be proved, not as evidence that it was never made.

Page 317

Egyptian bishops he mentions. 93 He had known what the decision of the Council of Tyre would be well in advance, and it may have been clear to him that he might do better with the emperor, and at the worst, that it would be easier to deal with alleged views of Constantine than with the verdict of the Council. He could not have foreseen that Constantine would keep him waiting until the bishops arrived from Jerusalem, but that did not greatly alter his chances of producing a row. This could be the reason for Constantine's description of him in his later letter to Antony as "contumelious and arrogant." 94

The second question raised by these documents is the real reason for the exile of Athanasius. Did Constantine simply execute the judgment of the Council of Tyre? Did he annul, or bypass temporarily, the verdict of Tyre, and exile Athanasius for another reason? This is still being disputed. 95

The "letter of Constantine" is consistent with Athanasius' claim that he was not exiled as a result of a conciliar decision, since it provided some indication of the emperor's dissatisfaction with the Council of Tyre. However, even if the letter is genuine, it would show only that Constantine was not satisfied, in the absence of complete information, with the doings of the Council, but thought that he could salvage the operation. Paul Peeters, to be sure, accepted Athanasius' understanding of the letter"he condemned their injustice"and has argued that by this letter Constantine

93 P. Peeters, "Comment Saint Athanasius s'enfuit de Tyr en 335" in Bulletin de l'academie royale de Belgique¬ 30 (1944, appeared in 1946), 131-137, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales vol. 2 (Brussels, 1951), 53-90, at 83.

94 Sozomen, HE 2.31. In the foregoing discussion I have tried to make minimal use of this conclusion that the letter is forged in explaining Constantine's behavior. I have no particular or personal interest is saving the credit of Constantine at the expense of that of Athanasius, or vice versa. The first version of this chapter, like my earlier work on the subject, was written on the assumption that the letter was genuine, and I have not hastened to my present conclusion.

95 Notably by Barnes, Drake, and Girardet.

Page 318

annulled the verdict of the Council of Tyre, without withdrawing it. 96 This different view of the letter from that presented above overlooks two points. First, Constantine did not, in the letter, commit himself to disapproval of the Council's decisions. How could he have done so after hearing only Athanasius? Second, on November 6 Constantine did not receive the account of the proceedings at Tyre, but of those at both Tyre and Jerusalem. This would certainly have included the findings of the Mareotic commission, of which Athanasius may have had no first-hand knowledge, and of which Constantine had heard only through the Egyptian bishops. Since the letter was ostensibly written before he received the complete account, we have no document which indicates what he thought of the full result of the Council. There are only his actions of sending Athanasius into exile, without having him replaced as bishop of Alexandria, and his letter to the Alexandrians and Antony paraphrased by Sozomen.

I take it that Athanasius was exiled as a result of the verdict of the Council of Tyre-Jerusalem, because of misconduct in the administration of his see and because Constantine agreed with the decision of that, and of earlier councils, regarding the faith of Arius. 97 It must be recognized that, if the letter is genuine, Constantine was in a real difficulty. He could not get rid of Athanasius without accepting a deposition by a council of bishops which he may have regarded as somewhat faulty. His choices would have been to continue his defense of Athanasius against the Melitians in defiance of the bishops or to accept the judgment of the bishops. Acceptance of their judgment in these circumstances does not prove that he was in complete agreement with it, nor does his letter to the Alexandrians and Antony paraphrased by Sozomen. Athanasius might have believed that he was not in agreement with it. He may have overrated whatever success he

96 P. Peeters, "Comment Saint Athanasius s'enfuit de Tyr en 335" in Bulletin de l'academie royale de Belgique^530 (1944, appeared in 1946), 131-137, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales vol. 2 (Brussels, 1951), 53-90 and "L'épilogue du synode de Tyr en 335" in Analecta Bollandiana 63 (1945) 131-144, at 138. This argument, which is self-contradictory, is accepted by Barnes in AJAH 3 (1978), 62-63 and CE, 239.

97 Baynes, in JEA on the real reason. Constantine did not care about the Melitians. If Constantine had thought that Athanasius was a threat to the grain supply of Constantinople, I believe that he would have had him replaced as bishop.

Page 319

had had in Constantinople, and he may have underestimated Constantine's reliance on the judgment of the bishops. Of course, if the letter quoted as Constantine's is a forgery, the problem disappears.

The situation as Constantine left it was ambiguous. Athanasius had been deposed by the Council and exiled by the emperor, but he was not replaced. The fact that he was not replaced shows that Con-stantine probably did not enforce all of the decisions of the Council (or all of their implications). To say, however, that Athanasius was still bishop of Alexandria, but effectively deprived of his functions, neglects Constantine's mention of the Council in his letter to the Alexandrians and Antony, 98 and Athanasius' own admission in his Festal Letter for 338 that if his enemies had found a Festal Letter for the previous year, they could have destroyed him. I prefer the view implied there to Athanasius' account of being exiled as a threat to the grain supply of Constantinople. That account of his exile does not accord with the content of the letter of Constantine II to the Alexandrians.

The third question raised by these documents is that of Constantine's policy. Seeck thought that he was vacillating between orthodoxy and Arianism, and incapable of keeping to any consistent policy. Schwartz considered him a political opportunist. Baynes thought that he was steadily catholic. Barnes thought that he had been, to a considerable extent, taken over by the Arians. Drake has considered his policy remarkably consistent-preferring unity over purity and common sense over rigid adherence to principle. In this book I have stressed the catholic nature of his policy which I think was consistent, and I have admitted the schismatic nature of the efforts of Athanasius. The principle to which he adhered so rigidly"Once an Arian, always an Arian"was absurd, and the Catholics were quite right to repudiate it, despite the demands of local circumstances in Egypt.

Athanasius had set himself an impossible task. He had decided, against the arrangements of the first Council of Nicaea, to hammer the Melitians into submission. In order to do this effectively, he had to have

98 Athanasius did not write Festal Letters in 336 and 337, and at the beginning of his letter for 338 he complains of "The Eusebians" looking for a letter in order to destroy him.

Page 320

friends in the Church at large who would vouch for him if the Melitians protested. His chronic campaign against imaginary or suspected Arianism deprived him of the friends he needed outside of Egypt, and eventually turned the eastern bishops against him. Perhaps he thought that the Melitians would not complain so vehemently, because they were so in love with martyrdom. It appears that they did not want martyrdom if it came from Athanasius, and their everlasting whining did have an effect on Constantine. 99

Constantine wanted a Catholic peace. For some time he was willing to support Athanasius in his war with the Melitians in order to get it, but eventually he seems to have decided that Athanasius was not going to get peace: his quarrelsomeness with the "Arians" had produced an embarrassment to Constantine, annoyed a good many of the eastern bishops, and must have seemed increasingly unchristian, as the difficulties of the Nicene formula became apparent. I think that this is the reason why the emperor convoked the Council of Tyre. He must have thought that Athanasius would not prove a willing victim, and he warned the bishops that their decision would have to be made "without favor or enmity." The first news that he got back from the Council was of the appeal of the Egyptian bishops, which was probably supported by Dionysius' complaint to the other bishops. The Council had not begun well: it was once again going over the complaints of the Melitians, and had complicated the difficulties with those by gambling on its disputed Mareotic commission. When Athanasius turned up in Constantinople, the emperor may have been ready to listen to him, but when the other bishops arrived from Jerusalem with the whole story of the council, he promptly exiled the deposed Athanasius, and gave him time to think over his opposition to the decisions at Tyre-Jerusalem. Athanasius proved to be a much tougher nut than Arius, and, as was to be expected, he had more time than Constantine had.

99 See his letter to the Alexandrians quoted in Apologia contra Arianos 62.

Page 321

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

LAST YEARS

At the Council of Tyre Athanasius had some support other than that of the Egyptian bishops, notably that of Marcellus of Ancyra. To Marcellus many leaders of the eastern bishops appeared to be Arian heretics, and he readily fell in with the Athanasians at Tyre. He objected to the decisions of the Council against Athanasius, and when it moved to Jerusalem to readmit Arius, he refused to communicate with him. The bishops at Jerusalem complained of his conduct to Constantine, adding that he had refused to attend the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with them. In order to defend himself, Marcellus quickly wrote a tract which he sent to Constantine, in which he accused many of the eastern leaders of heresyi.e., polytheism. His own theology was now revealed as a dynamic modalism similar to the views of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. Faced with this production, Constantine summoned a council of bishops to Constantinople in 336, and met with them. The council deposed Marcellus, who was sent into exile by Constantine, and elected Basil bishop of AncyraIt still went hard, as it had in 326, for anyone in the eastern Church who published views similar to those of Paul of Samosata. Marcellus was not the last bishop to get into trouble by taking Athanasius too seriously. 1

When Athanasius was exiled, Arius, readmitted to communion by the Council of Jerusalem, 2 returned to Alexandria, but trouble ensued, and

1 On the two see J. T. Lienhard, "Did Athanasius Reject Marcellus?" in M. D. Barnes, D. H. Williams edd., Arianism after Arius (Edinburgh, 1993), 65-80.

2 Constantine's caution when confronted with the choice between allowing bishops to continue the excommunication of Arius and forcing Arius on them is asserted by Athanasius, Ad episcopos Aegypti 18 (PG xxv, 580-581) and the Letter to the monks (PG xxv, 696).

Page 322

Constantine ordered him out of the city. 3 Athanasius represents Arius' attempt to return as part of the conspiracy to establish the heresy, but Eusebius may simply have wanted to get Arius out of his own diocese. Arius died soon thereafter, under circumstances of which we have only an account by Athanasius which is obviously untrustworthy. It is found in a letter to the Egyptian bishop Serapion, who had asked him for information about the death of Arius. 4 Athanasius says that he was not at Constantinople when Arius died, but he has the following account from the priest Macarius, who was. Eusebius and company had obtained an invitation to Arius from the emperor, who asked Arius whether he held the faith of the Catholic Church. Arius replied that he did, and Constantine dismissed him, saying, "if your faith be impious and you have sworn, God judge of you according to your oath." Eusebius and company then tried to force Alexander, then bishop of Constantinople, to receive Arius into communion, but he refused on the ground that Arius was the inventor of heresy. They replied that the emperor wished that Arius be received, and that so he would be, on the morrow. Alexander, with Macarius, prayed all night in the church that this disaster should not come to pass. The next day, when Arius, with Eusebius and company, was exultantly proceeding to the church, he stopped at a latrine, where his bowels burst, like those of Judas Iscariot, and he died. 5

Athanasius later sent the same story to some monks, with the same instructionsthat they should read it to anyone who wished to hear it, but give no one a copy, nor even transcribe it for themselves. These instructions, fitly characterized as the signs of a bad conscience, show considerable confidence in his ability to get quite extraordinary commands obeyed. The story of Constantine asking Arius yet again about his faith requires that the emperor be ignorant of the actions of the council which he had convoked at Jerusalem. The purpose of the story was, as Athanasius says, to settle the question whether Arius died after communicating with the Church. Athanasius simply ignored the Council of Jerusalem and concocted a tale which would prove that Arianism was hateful to God. As we have seen, he later dropped this story in favor of arguing that the decision of the

3 Cf. Rufinus, HE 1.11,12; Socrates, HE 1.37; Sozomen, HE 2.29-cited by Duchesne at vol. 2, 145, note 2.

4 The letter is discussed in ch. 16 above.

5 Cf. Acts 1.18.

Page 323

Council of Jerusalem in Arius' favor proved that the Council of Tyre was an Arian cabal. I do not know whether any of this account of Arius' death has a basis in fact, although Athanasius seems to think that his readers would expect a story which ended in Constantinople. Whatever the circumstances of Arius' death, it seems to have ended Constantine's efforts both for and against him.

During these last years Constantine's religious mission had had some effect on his foreign policy. It is a fair inference from what Athanasius has him say about the barbarians in the third (forged) letter to the bishops at Tyre 6 that after his conquests of the Goths in 332 and the Sarmatians in 334 there had been provisions regarding christianization in his treaties with them. During the spring of 337 he was preparing for war with the Persians, which he was going to fight openly, if we must judge from Eusebius' description of the preparations, as a Christian crusade. 7 His reasons for going to war were also religious, at least in part. He had, at an unknown date after his defeat of Licinius in 324, written a letter to Sapor, the beginning of which was quoted above. 8 In this letter he described God's blessings to him, and God's destruction of the persecutors, including Valerian. He declared that he had heard that there were many Christians in Persia, and recommended to Sapor that he look after them, since their prayers were valuable to him. The letter is very polite, and was written in his own hand. Sozomen describes the letter as Constantine's response to violent persecution of Christians in Persia, 9 9 but the martyrdoms which he narrates seem to belong to 340, at the earliest. 10 That does not disprove Sozomen's notion that the letter was a response to persecution in Persia. Armenia had become ''officially" Christian in 314, the whole Roman empire in 324. These events certainly did not bode well for Christians in Persia. Barnes has sought to demonstrate that it was Constantine's preparations for an invasion in 337 that made Sapor regard the Christians of Persia as a fifth column, but

6 Quoted above at p. 253. I assume that this part of the letter was taken from an earlier genuine letter of remonstrance to Athanasius.

7 VC 4.56

8VC 4.9 is on p. 50. See also Theodoret, HE 1.24.

9HE 2.9ff.

10 T. D. Barnes, "Constantine and the Christians of Persia" in JRS 75 (1985), 126-136, at 128.

Page 324

a passage from a Persian source which he quotes to support this view clearly contemplates a Persian invasion of the Roman empire, 11 which is mentioned by Eutropius and Aurelius Victor. 12 I think that government activity against the Christians of Persia is the natural background for the delicacy of Constantine's letter to Sapor. In 337 Hannibalianus, the son of Constantine's step-brother Flavius Dalmatius, who had already married Constantina, 13 the emperor's elder daughter, was given the title "king of kings." After the campaign he would have replaced Sapor. 14

Constantine's succession arrangements reflect considerable insecurity regarding his young sons. After executing Crispus in 326 he was left with his three sons by Fausta:

Born

Caesar

For

Constantinus II

316

328?

Spain, Gaul, Britain

Constantius II

317

329?

Danubian area, then the east

Constans

323?

335?

Italy, Pannonian diocese 15

To these he added in 335 the younger Flavius Dalmatius, his nephew, as Caesar over Moesia and Thrace. A praetorian prefect, Nestorius Timonianus, 16 was in charge of all the provinces of Africa. Then there was Hannibalianus. In view of the shipwreck of these plans in the massacre of the imperial family in Constantinople after Constantine's death, his arrangements can seem very peculiar. However, given his own age, the oldest of his sons must have appeared to him as a youth, 17 and Constans, at fourteen, certainly needed time. Hence, I suppose, the addition of

11 ibid., 130.

12 Eutropius, Brev. 10.8 bellum adversus Parthos moliens, qui iam Mesopotamiam fatigabant; Victor, Caesares 41.16-in Persas tendens, a quis bellum erumpere occeperat. See Jones, C&C, 207-208. The Continuatio Antiochiensis Eusebii (ed. R. Burgess, forthcoming) describes Persian activity against the empire in 336 and 337. See also Libanius, Or. 3.p. 120d. See G. Fowden, "The Last Days of Constantine: Oppositional Versions and Their Influence" in JRS 84, (1994), 146-153.

13 Philostorgius, HE 3.9.

14 Barnes, CE 259 and n. 150 thereto.

15 The table is from Barnes, NE 76.

16PLRE 1. 915; Barnes, NE 134-136.

17 He was old enough to be grandfather of all of them.

Page 325

Dalmatius, who was probably older than Constans.

The emperor's last ecclesiastical adventure was to be his baptism. Soon after Easter of 337 he became ill, and went to the hot baths of Constantinople, then to Helenopolis in Bithynia, where he prayed at the church of the martyrs, confessed his sins, and received the laying on of hands with prayer. From there he went on to the suburbs of Nicomedia, and summoned the bishopsi.e., apparently, Eusebius. 18 He declared that the time had come when he too might now receive the blessing of baptism, which he asked for without delay. After receiving the sacrament on Ascension day he put aside forever his imperial purple, and, in the white of a neophyte lay down on a white couch, and thanked God for His blessings. To his generals, who came to him in tears, he declared that he was now in possession of true life, and in a hurry to go to God. He died about noon on the day of Pentecost (May 22).

That baptism by Eusebius upset the orthodox later on, after Athanasius' rant against Constantius II had done its work. However, a modest working relationship, or cautious friendship, between Constantine and Eusebius does not prove a change in the theological views of Constantine after Nicaea. 19 After all, Eusebius was one of Constantine's big successesa prominent bishop who had cleared himself of the suspicion of Arianism. 20 He had signed the Nicene creed, both in 325 and 327. He may have been distantly related to the imperial family. 21 He was also the local bishop. If he was not the most suitable person to baptize the emperor, he was certainly suitable. 22

18 In VC 4.61-62 Eusebius uses the plural of clergy who baptized Constantine. It is Jerome, in Chron. 2353, who names Eusebius of Nicomedia.

19 A close working relationship seems to be ruled out by such things as Constantine's death sentence for those concealing Arius' books, which were to be burned, or his persistent defense of Athanasius.

20 Socrates, HE 1.23. The story about the emperor's sister found in Rufinus, HE 10.12; Socrates, HE 1.25; Sozomen, HE 2.27; Theodoret, HE 2.3; Gelasius of Cyzicus, HE 3.12 probably had an orthodox source.

21 Ammianus Marcellinus (in 22.9) describes Julian the Apostate as Nicomediae ab Eusebio educatus episcopo, quem genere longius contingebat.

22 His later efforts against Athanasius and Julius of Rome seem to me to have been a temperate response to the autocratic restoration of Athanasius by Constantine II, with which those bishops heartily concurred.

Page 326

Constantine's failure to be baptized until near death has naturally raised suspicions about the quality of his Christianity. However, those suspicions cannot be confirmed. So long as Constantine was trying to act as "the bishop of those outside" he may have thought baptism inappropriateMoreover, he was probably ineligible earlier. Everybody looks at the baptism as something that Constantine postponed voluntarily. However, on the foregoing argument there was something in Constantine's career which would have made him a special case, namely, his acquiescence in the Persecution prior to 306. There were also times at which he had done pagan things in order to make the imperial iconography understandable to pagans. 23 He was still pontifex maximus. 24One can understand his not wishing to make a spectacle of himself by doing penance for these actions. In these circumstances I am inclined to think that Constantine was baptized not only at the last possible moment, but also at the first possible moment, as is implied in the words with which he requested baptism, according to Eusebius of Caesarea. He was about to die, and the canons of Nicaea allowed his baptism in those circumstances.

23 On these points see Rudolph Leeb, Konstantin und Christus.

24 As his successors were until Gratian renounced the title in 382.

Page 327

CONCLUSION

The main thrust of this book has been to show that Constantine's religion and policy were much more ordinary and consistent than they have appeared to be in earlier historical writing. There seem to me to be strong connections between the emperor of 306-312 and the emperor of 313-324/25, and also between the emperor of 324/325 and of the last years of the reign. These connections are due largely to my views of Constantine's "conversion" and of two of the important Constantinian documentsthe letter of 324 to Alexander and Arius, which I regard as insincere, and the letter to the bishops at Tyre quoted by Athanasius, which is almost certainly a forgery by Athanasius. The view that the first of these is insincere calls into question all of the argument based on it in favor of the view that Constantine's religion was simply political: the view that the second was a forgery requires that I dispense with the argument that Constantine did not know where he was going on the Arian question, and did not much care. Those who still believe in the sincerity of the first letter and the authenticity of the second will have been disappointed by this book. I can only say that after long thought about both documents I am confident that the views I have adopted accord best with our evidence. I realize what a weight of scholarly speculation goes against the argument which I have presented. My opinion about the Speech to the assembly of the saints is just one more novel view regarding that work, and I do not think that it requires comment here.

Constantine kept at his Christianizing mission throughout his career, and that mission was, to his mind, the most important thing about his reign. I do not believe that he was a consummate hypocrite, who suddenly saw that he might take advantage of the persecution to make himself emperor, who imposed himself on his father, killed off Maximian, Maxentius, and Licinius by means of various deceits and treacheries, and set himself up as the great Christian ruler of the whole empire, whereupon he promptly executed Crispus and Fausta, to say nothing of Sopaterall the while

Page 328

making big holy speeches about how God was using him for His ends-and who even tried to usurp the place of Christ in the Church. We know that we all act from mixed motives, and there can be little direct evidence against the view that Constantine was a wily and ruthless politician who masqueraded as a devout Christian for fun and profit. The main point to be made against such explanation is its lack of economy: I have tried to present argument based upon the ancient evidence, rather than my own speculations, or those of modern scholarship.

In accepting a religious explanation for his career I have done what is not fashionable nowadays. How does Karl Marx, or any other latter-day prophet, fit into all this? What are we to make of "the boundless ambition" which Gibbon (and Alföldi following him) have assured us was the mainspring of Constantine's character? I suggest that we simply leave these explanations in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries, or wherever else they fit, and attend to the ancient evidence. Constantine's ambition was obviously not boundless. If it had been, the second war with Licinius would have taken place long before 324, and the campaign against Persia would have been projected long before 337. It requires only a moment's thought to see that this ambition explanation is a quack theory. Fortunately the execution of Fausta and the general opinion of the ancient sources regarding his chastity have spared us the twentieth-century explanation of everything 1 as the key to what Constantine did: or perhaps the death of Classics as a subject really has already occurred. Constantine was not above saying or implying things that were not true, on occasion, but he was sufficiently honest that his assertions that his whole career was a Christianizing mission should not be ignored by those who have nothing better to offer than the figments of their own imaginations.

The consistency which I have mentioned has the effect of excluding interpretation of Constantine as "a poor man, groping his way," or a superstitious convert, easily persuaded to the views of his current ecclesiastical advisor. He was throughout his imperial career a man with a mission. If this makes him into a larger figure than most modern historians have made him, I am not disturbed. If it makes him into a larger figure than Eusebius made him, I remain undisturbed, although such a

1 I mention a loud murmur of this in C. B. Coleman, Constantine the Great and Christianity (New York, 1914), 90-91 as the exception to the rule.

Page 329

result would be interesting. In this connection I should acknowledge my omission of Eusebius' tricennial oration from the present discussion. Eusebius must have had the same freedom to deal with the subject of the emperor's religion that some earlier pagan panegyrists had had, and I do not regard the speech as reliable evidence of an imperial program.

To me it seems that Constantine's actions were in line with his Christian professions from the beginning, and I have not felt much suspicion of him. I thus would find no particular difficulty in accepting the favorable remarks on his character made by the pagan sources. I could also accept some of those made by Eusebius, with a grain of salt i.e., allowing for the fact that he was trying to put before Constantine's sons his own ideal of the Christian ruler as much as a factual account of their father. The unfavorable remarks of the pagans 2 deal mainly with the executions of Crispus, Fausta, and Sopater, with some unnamed laws regarded as unnecessary, and with his alleged extravagance. I have already said that I do not know the reason for two of the executions, which may have been justified, that on Eunapius' account Sopater was begging for trouble, and that the legislation which survives does not seem unreasonable. It would be absurd to expect from a Roman emperor of the early fourth century nothing but sweetness and light. Extravagance is a somewhat different proposition. I regard the expenditure on Constantinople as one of history's big bargains. The expenditure on churches and clerics (which is what the pagans mean by "prodigality") was part and parcel of his christianizing policy, and was successful. In discussing his tax exemptions for clerics I have shown that his generosity had limits, which Eusebius does not make clear. Other lavish expenditure I attribute to the size of the administration to be supervised. I suspect that he tried to buy the loyalty of some officials at a time when the bureaucracy did not contain many people he could trust. I therefore have no qualms about rejecting criticism of him as a prodigal. In general, I do not see much wrong with the personal character of the author of the letter of 324 to the people of the eastern provinces. 3 That was not written by a man governed by his passions, nor was the letter of 333 to Arius, which is not devoid of respect for the addressee, despite the prevailing sarcasm. Constantine clearly regarded Arius as a fellow

2 I have discussed Zosimus' (Eunapius') attack in ch. 14 above.

3VC 2.48-60.

Page 330

Christian as well as a subject.

Constantine was not a fanatic. It surely would have been easy for him to become one after 324, yet he held to his course of trying to persuade people, both pagan and Christian, to peaceable ways. Norman Baynes thought that in an age which had no understanding of toleration his invention of religious toleration and persistence in it was his real glory. 4 We must surely feel grateful for his example and give him much of the credit for this idea. 5 Of course, on the view of the size of the Christian population in 312 or 324 which I have accepted in this book, his choice of a policy of toleration was certainly encouraged by the circumstances. Furthermore, his toleration was accompanied by the hope that paganism would rapidly disappear, and it may be difficult for some modern readers to recognize it as such. Toleration for him meant toleration, not equal treatment. Constantine did not love toleration for its own sake: he regarded it as a means to peace.

For a man with so much ability in war to be so devoted to peace as Constantine was need not surprise us, but we should not ignore the fact. He had the same attitude to the ecclesiastical wars as to civil ones: as Sozomen said, "the emperor was beyond supplication or petition of any kind with respect to anyone who was suspected of stirring up Christian people to sedition or dissension." 6 He was convinced that God did not want that, and, in exiling Athanasius, he acted accordingly. As he had earlier told Arius, 7 he was accustomed to "putting an end to the wars of senseless men." "My own desire is, for the common good of the world

4The Byzantine Empire (London, 1925 and reprints), 17. This was taken up by H. Dörries in his Constantine and Religious Liberty. For late actions of Constantine on behalf of pagans or paganism see H. A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine, 27. Drake cites F. Millar's article "P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third- Century Invasions" in JRS 59 (1969), 12-29 at 27, dealing with OGIS 721. See also H.- U. Wiemer, "Libanius on Constantine" in CQ 44.2 (1994), 520-523.

5 Some of it might be given to Licinius because of his role (as I see it) in the writing of the "Edict of Milan." I have discussed briefly at the end of ch. 7 and in ch. 13 above my rejection of Barnes' view that Constantine issued a general ban on pagan sacrifice in 324.

6HE 2.31.

7 Opitz, Urkunde 34.6.

Page 331

and the advantage of all mankind, that thy 8people should enjoy a life of peace and undisturbed concord." 9He thought that peace came from virtue (justice), which was a result of truth, which mankind were enabled to see by Christ. 10

On the view argued in this book, the critical experience of Constantine's life was not the "miracle of 312," but the Great Persecution. I have had nothing to say about the "god of battles," but more than earlier scholars about the effects of the Persecution on his mission and policies. He relied on his own career to teach the pagans about the errors of persecution, but maintained that the Persecution had lessons for Christians as well: "for it is one thing voluntarily to undertake the conflict for immortality, another to compel others to do so from fear of punishment." 11

Constantine's policy with regard to the Church is a thorny subject, upon which I give my opinions somewhat cautiously. To begin with, I admit to great perplexity over the description of Constantine as having "established Christianity as the official religion of the empire." I am not sure what is meant by the phrase, although it sounds imposing and legal, and I do not wish to get into a dispute about words. There was no law that said "Christianity is now the official religion of the empire." The phrase should not reflect any change either in Christianity or in the officials, and must therefore have to do with the fact that the emperor was a Christian. Otherwise we would have to speak of a disestablishment under Julian the Apostate, and a re-establishment under Jovian. It seems preferable to me to use more personal language. For Constantine Christianity was the true religion as opposed to the lies of paganism, but a pagan was still a Roman, despite the fact that the practice of his religion was not pleasing to God and therefore not helpful to the empire. Under Constantine the empire no longer had an "official religion," because the emperor knew that religion was a matter of the individual conscience: it had an emperor who was trying to persuade everyone to become a Christian, and was actively

8 Not "my" people. Constantine is addressing God.

9 VC 2.56.

10VC 2.56-57.

11 VC 2.60. I accept the argument of H. A. Drake in In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations (Berkeley, 1976) that Eusebius' failure to mention Christ in the oration of 336 reflects his audience rather than the personal religious views of Constantine.

Page 332

favoring the Church. The pagans became upset by his neglect of the gods, and by the end of the fourth century the Christians had shown that they were not going to imitate his slackness with regard to the enforcement of the true religion. Constantine himself had taken something of a lead in all this by his law regarding Christian heretics, whose meeting places he required to be turned over to the Catholic Church. 12 Eusebius preserved this law from oblivion and tried to sell it, along with his claim that Constantine banned pagan sacrifice throughout the empire, to Constantius II as his father's policy.

Constantine did not invent the Catholic Church, but he always supported it. I think that he was sufficiently able to understand the defects of Arius' theology to form an opinion that it was alien to the Church, and also to see when Arius had renounced enough of the Thalia to be received back into the Church, provided that the bishops agreed. I therefore find it unnecessary to accept Ullmann's idea about the public law of the Roman empire as the means by which Constantine approached the Church .13 The Church was open to anyone who approached it in a proper spirit, so that Constantine had no need of the public law, which had been, after all, the means by which the Persecution had been enacted. It seems to me that at Nicaea, as at Arles, and as at Tyre, Constantine smoothed the bishops' way to the council, but that he left the theological questions to them, and provided some enforcement of their decisions. 14 At Tyre the Count Dionysius seems to have been present only to the extent necessary for the preservation of order. Constantine's third letter to the bishops at Tyre, even if it were genuine, would indicate that he thought that all had not gone well at that council, but that the situation could be salvaged. Eventually he enforced the decisions of Tyre, possibly with some misgivings. There were things which he obviously thought that the bishops had to do. "I myself await the judgment of Christ" remained his message from 314 until the end of his life. The background to all this was his view of the Great

12 Eusebius, VC 3.64-65.

13 W. Ullmann, "The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement" in JEH 27.1 (1976), 1-16. I acknowledge passages in which Constantine gives color to this view, such as VC 2.64-66 regarding the Donatists.

14 See J. M. Sansterre, "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie Césaropapiste" in Byzantion 42 (1972), 131-195, 532-594, esp. 156-184.

Page 333

Persecution, and of God's judgment upon it.

Constantine wanted orthodoxy and unity, but which was more important to him? The plentiful texts expressing his desire for unity have been quoted and discussed above, and may be taken for granted here. 15 His definition of orthodoxy was not necessarily bounded by the Nicene formula, which did not protect the Eustathians or Marcellus of Ancyra, and did not govern his denunciation of Arius in 333. He seems to have wanted a correct expression of ''the apostolic faith." 16 He had the same view in 325 as Athanasius had later, on the need for the Nicene formula in order to express the doctrine that Christ was the Redeemer. If he had ever tried to bend the doctrine of the Church in the interests of unity it could be argued that political considerations influenced him more than theological ones did. As things stand, however, that cannot be demonstrated: he is not on record as having opposed the verdict of any of the councils which he convoked. His opposition to the exclusion of persons suspected of Arianism but professing orthodoxy may be regarded as evidence that he valued unity most, but it was in fact the Catholic position, and we should not be persuaded to the contrary by the opportunistic diatribes of the schismatic Athanasius. I take it that Constantine was reasonably wellinformed on the theological questions, consistently and genuinely anti- Arian, and wise, or at least shrewd, in his choice of methods for dealing with the heresy. 17

Did Constantine subordinate the Church to the empire? As Gaudemet pointed out, it could as easily be asked whether he subordinated the empire to the Church 18 I see no reason to doubt the claim of Eusebius of Caesarea that he was a fairly determined amateur theologian, by our standards, and from that point of view he was an acceptable participant in the doctrinal debates of the fourth-century bishops. The view taken in this book of

15 See Oyvind Norderval, "The Emperor Constantine and Arius: Unity in the Church and Unity in the Empire" in Studia Theologica (also known as the Scandinavian Journal of Theology) 42 (1988), 113-150.

16 Opitz, Urkunde 32.4. This would have led him to seek orthodoxy in the past.

17 H. Chadwick remarked that Constantine always expected compliance (with councils), and was usually right.

18 I owe this reference to J. Gaudemet, La formation du droit seculier et du droit de l'église au IV et V siècles (Paris, 1957), 179-181 to Barnes. See Athanasius and Constantius, 168-173.

Page 334

Constantine's early religious development does not lend itself readily to theories about a cynical political opportunist, determined to make the Church the footstool of his throne. Constantine's notion of the relationship between Church and state was clearly one of collaboration. The empire would benefit from the prayers and the work of the Church, and would in return make the world safe for Christianity. I do not see his operations at Nicaea as tending to subordinate the Church to the empire, because I think that Constantine played a less dominant role at Nicaea than Eusebius of Caesarea says or implies he did in his letter to the Caesareans. Constantine never contemplated making the Church the servant of the empire, because he was a good churchman. 19 Nevertheless, we must not allow his deference to the bishops to blur the fact that in his time everyone looked to him for leadership of the Church. 20

It follows that I am very skeptical regarding the conventional view that the Church was worse off at Constantine's death than it was when he attained supreme power, and with the caricature of that viewthat Constantine corrupted a Church which was glorying in its pristine virtue by making it into a servant of the state. 21 Constantine found a Church which was being severely damaged by persecutionwitness the Donatist and Melitian schismsand further split in the east by a serious doctrinal controversy. He left a Catholic Church the mistress of her own doctrine and materially enriched and integrated into the life of the empire, which could not be wrecked even by so ardent a persecutor, and one in so commanding a position, as his nephew Julian. If the schisms were not completely healed, the extreme obstinacy of the schismatics, for which Constantine was not responsible, must be remembered. The doctrinal problem had not yet been solved, but by applying the results of the Council of Nicaea for twelve years, Constantine had, I think, done much to remove Arianism as a practicable solution. I take it that the eastern bishops would

19 His confidence in the bishops was not as misplaced as readers of Athanasius are apt to think. I do not wish to belabor the point, but I think that the Arianism of the eastern episcopate was desperately exaggerated by Athanasius.

20 See the beginning of K. M. Girardet's "Kaiser Konstantin der Grosse als Vorsitzender von Konzilien" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 1, 445-459.

21 For this dream, which originated in the seventeenth century, see S. Mazzarino, The End of the Ancient World (London, 1959), 109-113.

Page 335

have gotten to the same solution of the problem presented by Arius without him, and that his work may have caused some of the trouble in the doctrinal history of the Church in the fourth century, but the Council of Nicaea made it possible for the Church to present a united front to a pagan world, thereby allowing Constantine to hasten on with his Christianizing mission. The effect was clear to Julian the Apostate, if to no one else. Moreover, as Hanson has reminded us, the search for a Christian doctrine of God was a major undertaking. It was bound to cause plenty of trouble in the fourth century, no matter how skillfully and tenderly the Christian emperors had behaved in ecclesiastical affairs.

To be sure, the emperor convoked big councils, but that would have availed nothing if the bishops had refused to come, 22 and we do not know that he thought that he alone had the power to convoke them. He convoked them when the Church (or bishops) brought to him big problems. He was not the first Roman emperor to deal with the problems of the Church. There is no protest of his recorded against the enlargement of the council at Rome by Miltiades in the autumn of 313. We do not hear of a case when the emperor refused to have a council deal with a problem, so that there cannot really be a question of his exercising a Synodalgewalt. If he had such a power, it must have been given to him by the Church, and there is no record of such an action. I think that the reason why Constantine's efforts were so readily accepted by the bishops was that they could not see that he had any ulterior motive. He was just trying to be helpful, and he succeeded in being helpful.

Was the Church as well integrated into the life of the world to come as it had been, or did Constantine make it worldly? I think there can be no doubt that he accelerated the movement away from the Donatists and

22 See however, the remarks of H. C. Brennecke, "Bischofsversammlung und Reichssynode. Das Synodalwesen im Umbruch der Konstantinischen Zeit" in Oikonomia 25 (Einheit der Kirche in vorkonstantinischer Zeit) (Erlangen, 1989), 35ff.I would not make too much of Eusebius' use of the word "ordered" to express Constantine's invitations to councils. We have texts of some of those invitations, and a letter from Constantine to the bishops not present at Nicaea. Seven of the bishops who signed at Antioch early in 325 were not at Nicaea, according to Schwartz, Gesammelte Schriften 3, 154. I judge from Schwartz' translation of the invitation of the bishops to Nicaea (Opitz, Urkunde 20), that Constantine did not think himself to be issuing a direct order.

Page 336

Melitians and heretics, and toward a Catholic Church, but I am far from believing that the Donatists and Melitians were simply good for the Church. His laws on tax exemptions for clerics make clear his desire that the Church become a welfare agency subsidized by the empire. I think, however, that his ambition was to integrate the Church so thoroughly into the life of the empire that no persecution would ever occur again. He was almost successful. When we contemplate the possibilities for ill in Constantine's relationship with the Church, and see how little was realized, I think that we must give much of the credit for that to the emperor. In ecclesiastical affairs he had a light touch. The responsibility for all later developments does not lie with him.

Constantine was a great warrior and an able administrator who carried out his extraordinary mission with deliberate speed, indefatigable industry, and great generosity of spirit, convinced all the while that his spectacular success was a blessing of Almighty God, who had sought his service and from whom he held the empire in trust. After his death his pagan subjects, prone to find in his favor, deified him, while Christians venerated him as a saint. Constantine's final destination is none of my business, but I do prefer the spirit of these verdicts of his contemporaries to that of much of modern scholarship. Saints, as Saint Paul reminds us, are sinners too, and the overwhelming impression made by Constantine is that of a man who spent his life in excellent service to God and to his fellow men, to whom he was always trying to bring the blessings of peace.

Page 337

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANCIENT WORKS CITED

I have cited translations wherever I knew of them, without making any attempt to be exhaustive.

Ambrose, De Fide, ed. Otto Faller in CSEL 78 (Vienna, 1962).

Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae, ed. C. U. Clark in 2 vols. (Berlin, 1910-1915, repr. 1963); ed. & translated by J. C. Rolfe in 3 Loeb Classical Library vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1935-1940).

Analecta Nicaena, ed. B. H. Cowper (1857) (English translation in Syriac Miscellanies, 1861). The text with a Greek translation by E. Schwartz may be found in Opitz, Urkunde 20.

Année Épigraphique.

Athanasius: All of the works cited were edited in PG 25 and 26. Some of them, including the Apologia contra Arianos (Apologia secunda) were edited by H.-G. Opitz in vol. 2 of Die Werke des Athanasius (Berlin, 1935). The Historia acephala, Festal Index, and Letters have recently been edited and translated by A. Martin and M. Albert in Sources chrétiennes 317 (Paris, 1985). Selected Writings, including the Historia acephala, Festal Index, and Letters were translated by A. Robertson in LNPF, 2vol. 4.

Augustine: The works dealing with the Donatists were edited by M. Petschenig in CSEL 51-53 (Vienna, 1908-1910), and later edited and translated in the collection of the works of Augustine by the Bibliothèque Augustinienne (Paris, 1963, 1968, 1965 for vols. 28, 31, 32. J.-L. Maier, Le Dossier du Donatisme (Texte und Untersuchungen 134) (Berlin, 1987), provides a French translation of all the material cited from Augustine. The documents had been collected earlier by H. von Soden in Urkunden zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Donatismus (Bonn, 1913 in Kleine Texte 122 ed. H. Lietzmann, 2nd ed. by H. von Campenhausen in 1950). Both collections are cited in the notes.

Page 338

Basil of Caesarea, Letters, ed. & translated by Roy J. Deferrari in 4 Loeb Classical Library vols. (London, 1926-1934).

Canons of the seven ecumenical councils of the undivided Church are translated by Henry R. Percival in LNPF,2 vol. 14.

Codex Justinianus (vol. 2 of the Corpus Iuris Civilis) ed. P. Krueger (Berlin, 1892).

Codex Theodosianus ed. T. Mommsen (Berlin, 1905); The Theodosian Code, and Novels, and the Sirmondian Constitutions, translated by Clyde Pharr (Princeton, 1952, repr. New York, 1969).

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum I^2.

Chronicle of Hydatius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana, ed. & translated by R. W. Burgess (Oxford, 1993).

Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf (CSHB 4, 1832); translated for 284-628 AD by Michael Whitby and Mary Whitby in vol. 7 of Liverpool Translated Texts for Historians, 1989.

Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta luris Antiquissima, ed. C. H. Turner (Oxford, 1899-1931), 2 vols.

Epiphanius, Panarion, ed. K. Holl in GCS 25; 31, 37 (Leipzig, 1915-1933); Selected Passages translated by Philip R. Amidon, S.J. (New York, 1990).

Epitome de Caesaribus, ed. Fr. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel (Leipzig, 1961).

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. E. Schwartz in Eusebius Werke 2 (GCS 9.1 of 1903; 9.2 of 1908; 9.3 of 1909); translated by H. J. Lawlor and J. E. L. Oulton in 2 vols. (London, SPCK, 1927-1928); translated by K. Lake (vol. 1 of 1926) and J. E. L. Oulton (vol. 2 of 1932) in the Loeb Classical Library series; translated by Roy J. Deferrari in Fathers of the Church 19 of 1953 and 29 of 1955 (Washington D.C.).

Eusebius, The Church History and Martyrs of Palestine, translated by A. C. McGiffert; The Life of Constantine; Constantine, Speech to the assembly of the saints; Eusebius, Oration in praise of Constantine translated by E. C. Richardson are all in LNPF,2 vol. 1.

Eusebius, Contra Marcellum, ed. E. Klostermann (Eusebius' Werke, vol. 4 in GCS 14 of 1906), which was revised with unchanged pagination by G. C. Hansen (GCS of 1972).

Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, ed. K. Mras, Eusebius Werke vol. 8

Page 339

(GCS 43.1, 1954; 43.2, 1956); translated by E. H. Gifford (Oxford, 1903) in 5 vols.

Eustathius: The fragments were edited and translated into Latin in PG 18, 675-693, and the complete remains edited by L. Parmentier [GCS 19, (1911), revised by F. Scheidweiler in GCS 44, (1954)].

Eutropius, Breviarium, ed. H. R. Dietsch (Leipzig, 1883); translated by H. W. Bird (Liverpool Translated Texts for Historians, vol. 14, 1993).

Festus, Breviarium, ed. J. W. Eadie (London, 1967).

FIRA^2 = Fontes luris Romani Anteiustiniani,¬ pars altera ed. J. Baviera (Florence, 1968); This volume contains the Fragmenta Vaticana at 463-540 and the Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio at 543-589.

Fragmenta Vaticana; see FIRA.

Gelasius of Cyzicus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. G. Loeschke (and M. Heinemann) in GCS 28 (Leipzig, 1918).

Hilary of Poitiers, Opera part IV, ed. A. Feder in CSEL 65 (Vienna, 1916, repr. 1966).

Jacoby, Felix ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Praxagoras is 219T in Part II, B at Leiden, 1962).

Jerome, Dialogus contra Luciferianos in PL 23, 163-192.

Jerome, Epistulae are in PL 22.

Jerome, Chronicle in R. Helm ed., Eusebius Werke 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (GCS 47 of 1956 following on 24 of 1913 and 34 of 1926).

Julian, Works, ed. & tr. W. C. Wright in 3 Loeb Classical Library vols. (London, 1913-1923)

Lactantius, Divine Institutes, edd. S. Brandt and G. Laubmann in CSEL 19 (Vienna, 1890); translated by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series, vol. 21 (Edinburgh, 1871); translated by Sr. M. F. McDonald, O.P., in Fathers of the Church 49 (Washington D.C., 1964).

Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, ed. & translated with a commentary by J. L. Creed (Oxford, 1984); ed. & translated with a commentary by J. Moreau in Sources chrétiennes 39 (Paris, 1954) 2 vols.

Libanius, Oratio 30, ed. R. Foerster (vol. 3 at Leipzig, 1906).

Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne with an introduction and commentary (Paris, 1886-1892) 2 folio vols. There was a third vol. of Duchesne's

Page 340

corrections published by C. Vogel in 1957.

Liber Pontificalis to AD 715, translated by Raymond Davis in Liverpool Translated Texts for Historians 6 of 1989.

Lucifer, De non conveniendo cum haereticis, ed. G. Hartel in CSEL 14 (Vienna, 1886), 1-34.

Malalas, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf in CSHB vol. 28 (Bonn, 1831); The Chronicle of John Malalas, translated by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys, Roger Scott, and others (Melbourne, 1986).

Maternus, Julius Firmicus, Mathesis, ed. & translated by P. Monat in 2 vols. (Paris, 1992-1994); translated by J. R. Bram (Oak Ridge N.J., 1975); De errore profanarum religionum, ed. C. Halm in CSEL 1 (Vienna, 1866).

Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legum Collatio; see FIRA.

Müller, C. ed., Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (vol. 4 containing Petrus Patricius at Paris, 1851).

Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger in 2 vols. in 1903 and 1905, reprinted at Hildesheim, 1970.

Optatus, Libri VII ed. C. Ziwsa in CSEL 26 (1893); translated by O. R. Vassall-Phillips (London, 1917).

Oracula Sibyllina ed. A. Rzach (Vienna, 1891); ed. Joh. Geffcken in GCS (1902); translated by M. S. Terry into blank verse (New York, 1890).

Origo Constantini, (= Anonymus Valesii or Excerpta Valesiana) ed. & translated by J. C. Rolfe in LCL vol. 3 of Ammianus Marcellinus (Cambridge Mass., 1939); ed. Ingemar König (Trier, 1987).

Orosius, Historiarum adversum paganos libri VII ed. C. Zangemeister in CSEL 5 (Vienna, 1882); translated by Roy J. Deferrari in Fathers of the Church 56 (Washington D.C., 1964).

Oxyrhynchus, The Papyri (London, part 1, 1898-vol. 60, 1994).

Panegyrici, XII Latini, ed. & translated by E. Galletier (Paris, 3 vols. of 1949, 1952, 1955); ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford 1964).

In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini, translated with an introduction and historical commentary by C. E. V. Nixon and Barbara S. Rodgers (Berkeley, 1995). This book contains a reprint of Mynors' text of 1964.

Peter of Alexandria, Epistula Canonica, in PG 18, 467-508.

Petrus Patricius, Excerpta Vaticana; See Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum.

Page 341

Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez and F. Winkelmann in GCS 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1981); translated by E. Walford (London, 1855).

Photius, Bibliotheca ed. & translated by R. Henry (Paris, 1959-1991), 9 vols.

Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius, Carmina, ed. G. Polara (Turin, 1973).

Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. T. Mommsen in vols. 1-3 (parts 1-3) of Eusebius Werke (Leipzig, 1903; 1908; 1909) ed. E. Schwartz in GCS 9(1-3).

Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio, ed. J. D. Mansi (Florence, 1759).

Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. R. Hussey (Oxford, 1853); translated by A. C. Zenos in LNPF,2vol. 2.

Sozomenos, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez and G. C. Hansen in GCS 50 (Berlin, 1960); translated by C. D. Hartranft in LNPF,¬ vol. 2.

Tertullian, De corona, ed. A. Kroymann in CSEL 70 (Vienna, 1942), 153-188; Apologeticum, ed. H. Hoppe in CSEL 69 (Vienna, 1939); translated by S. Thelwall in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, vol. 3 (Buffalo, 1887).

Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. L. Parmentier GCS 19 (Leipzig, 1911), 2nd ed. by F. Scheidweiler in GCS 44 (Berlin, 1954); translated by B. Jackson in LNPF,2vol. 3.

Victor, Sextus Aurelius, Liber de Caesaribus, edd. Fr. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel (Leipzig, 1961).

Zonaras, Epitome historiarum, ed. L. Dindorf in 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1868-1875).

Zosimus, Historia Nova, ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1887); translated by James Buchanan and Harold Davis (San Antonio, 1967); ed. & translated by F. Paschoud in 5 vols. (Paris, 1971-1989).

Page 342

MODERN WORKS CITED

Acta Sanctorum (Antwerp, 1643 - ).

Adams, J. N. and P. M. Brennan, "The text at Lactantius DMP 44.2" in ZPE 84 (1990), 183-186.

Aiello, V., "Costantino, Lucio Domizio Alessandro e Cirta: un caso di rielaborazione storiographiche" in L'Africa Romana 6.1 (1991), 179-196.

Alföldi, A., The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (Oxford, 1948, repr. 1969).

Alföldi, M. R. "Die Niederemmeler 'Kaiserfibel'. Zum Datum des ersten Krieges zwischen Konstantin und Licinius" in Bonner Jahrbücher 176 (1976), 183-200.

-"Die Sol-Comes Münze vom Jahre 325" in Mullus, Festschr. Th. Klauser (1964), 10-16.

Arnold, D. W. H., The Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria (Notre Dame, 1991).

Austin, N. J. E., "Constantine and Crispus, A.D. 326" in Acta Classica 23 (1980), 131-188.

Banduri, Anselmo, Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum a Traiano Decio ad Palaeologos Augustos (Paris, 1718).

Barcelo, Pedro A., "Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Constantins des Grossen vor der Schlacht an der Milvischen Brücke" in Hermes 116.1 (1988), 76-94.

Barnard, L. W., "The Council of Serdica-Two Questions Reconsidered" in A. G. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria [Nottingham. Dept. of Classical and Archaeological Studies (Archaeology Section). Monograph series. 1983], 220-231.

Studies in Athanasius' Apologia Secunda (Bern, 1992): European University Studies: Series 23, Theology: vol. 467.

Barnes, T. D., "Lactantius and Constantine" in JRS 63 (1973), 29-46.

-"The Beginnings of Donatism" in JThS 26 (1975), 13-22.

-"The Victories of Constantine" in ZPE 20 (1976), 149-155.

-"Three Imperial Edicts" in ZPE 21 (1976), 275-281.

-"Sossianus Hierocles and the antecedents of the "Great Persecution" in HSCP 80 (1976), 239-252.

Page 343

-''Emperor and Bishops, A.D. 324-342: Some Problems" in AJAH 3 (1978), 53-75.

-"The Editions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History" in GRBS 21 (1980), 192-201.

-Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass., 1981).

-The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, Mass., 1982).

-"The Constantinian Reformation" in The Crake Lectures, 1984 (Sackville, New Brunswick, 1986), 39-57.

-"Constantine and the Christians of Persia" in JRS 75 (1985), 126-136.

-"Pagan Perceptions of Christianity" in Early Christianity (ed. Ian Hazlett, SPCK, 1991), 231-243.

-Review of Kriegbaum in Catholic Historical Review 77 (1991), 95-96.

-Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge Mass., 1993).

-Review of Drijvers and Borgehammer in JEH 44.2 (1993), 292-297.

-"Scholarship or Propaganda? Porphyry against the Christians and its Historical Setting" in Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies (London) 39 (1994), 53-65.

-"Statistics and the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy" in JRS 85 (1995), 135-147.

Barsanti, Claudia, "Costantinopoli: Testimonianze Archeologiche di Et Costantiniana" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 1, 115-150.

la Bastie, M. Le Baron de, "Du souverain pontificat des empereurs Romaius" in Mémoires de l'académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, vol. 12 (1740), 355-427, and vol. 15 (1743), 38-144.

Batiffol, P., La paix constantinienne et le catholicisme (second edition, Paris, 1914).

-"Les sources de l'Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" in Miscellanea Geronimiana (Rome, 1920).

Baynes, N. H. "Two Notes on the Great Persecution" in CQ 18 (1924), 193-194.

-The Byzantine Empire (London, 1925 and reprints).

-"Athanasiana" in JEA 11 (1925), 58-65.

-Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (London, 1931)-reprinted from Proceedings of the British Academy 15 (1929),

Page 344

341-442. Second edition with preface by H. Chadwick (Oxford, 1972).

-In CAH 12, pp. 646-709.

-"Sozomen Ecclesiastica Historia I. 15" in JTS 49 (1948), 165-168.

Bell, H. Idris, Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy (Oxford, 1924).

Bizzarri, M. and G. Forni, "Diploma militare del 306 D.C. rilasciato a un pretoriano di origine italiana" in Athenaeum 38 (1960), 3-25.

Boak, A. E. R., "The Roman Magistri in the Civil and Military Service of the Empire" in HSCP 26 (1915), 73-164. This was expanded into TheMaster of the Offices in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empires. University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series, 14.1 (Ann Arbor, 1919), which was revised with unaltered pagination and appeared in the same series under the title Two Studies in Later Roman and Byzantine Administration (Ann Arbor, 1924), 1-160.

Bonamente, G., "Sulla Confisca dei Beni Mobili dei Templi in Epoca Costantiniana" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 1, 171-201.

Bonamente, Giorgio, Franca Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, dall' antichitd all' umanesimo in 2 vols. (Macerata 1992, 1993). Universit degli Studi di Macerata, Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia, Atti 21.

Bradbury, Scott, "Constantine and the Problem of Anti-pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century" in CP 89 (1994), 120-139.

Brennecke, H. C., Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bishofsopposition gegen Konstantius II in vol. 26 of Patristische Texte und Studien (Berlin, 1984).

-"Bischofsversammlung und Reichssynode. Das Synodalwesen im Umbruch der Konstantinischen Zeit" in Oikonomia 25 (Einheit der Kirche in vorkonstantinischer Zeit) (Erlangen, 1989), 35-53.

Bruun, Patrick, "The Constantinian Coinage of Arelate." Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 52.2 (Helsinki, 1953), 15ff. and 49.

-The Roman Imperial Coinage (London, 1920) vol. VII.

-Studies in Constantinian Chronology. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 146 (New York, 1961).

-"The Church triumphant intra muros" in Numismatica e Antichit Classiche 10 (1981), 353-374.

-"The Heraclean coinage of Maximinus Daza: a drastic proposal" first

Page 345

published in Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics presented to Rudi Thomsen (Aarhus, 1988), 179-194, reprinted in Bruun's Studies in Constantinian Numismatics (Rome, 1991), 175-182.

-Studies in Constantinian Numismatics: Papers from 1954 to 1988 (Rome, 1991).

Cameron, Averil, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire (Berkeley, 1991), 54-56.

du Cange, Charles du Fresne, Historia Byzantina (Paris, 1630).

Carney, T. F., Bureaucracy in a Traditional Society (Lawrence, Kansas, 1971).

Casey, P. J., Carausius and Allectus (New Haven, 1994).

Chadwick, H., "The Fall of Eustathius of Antioch" in JThS 49 (1948), 27-35.

-"Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, 325" in JthS n.s. 9.2 (1958), 292-304.

-"Faith and Order at the Council of Nicaea" in HTR 53 (1960) 171-195.

-Preface to the second edition of Baynes' Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (repr. London, 1972).

Chantraine, H., "Die Erhebung des Licinius zum Augustus" in Hermes 110.4 (1982), 477-487.

Charlesworth, M. P., Trade Routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire (second edition, revised, New York, 1970).

Chastagnol, A., review of Barnes CE and NE in CPh 79 (1984), 253-259.

Christensen, Torben, "The So-called Edict of Milan" in Classica et Mediaevalia 35 (1984), 129-175.

Christol, M. and P. Sillières, "Constantin et la péninsule ibérique" in REA 82 (1980), 70-80.

Cochrane, C. N., Christianity and Classical Culture (Oxford, 1944).

Coleman, C. B., Constantine the Great and Christianity (New York, 1914).

Coleman-Norton, P. R., Roman State and Christian Church (London, SPCK, 1966), vol.. 1.

Comparetti, D., Vergil in the Middle Ages, tr. E. F. M. Benecke (London, 1895).

Dagron, G., Naissance d'une Capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 451 (Paris, 1974).

Davies, P.S., "The Origin and Purpose of the Persecution of A.D. 303" in

Page 346

JThS 40.1 (1989), 66-94.

-"Constantine's Editor" in JThS 42.2 (1991), 610-618.

De Clercq, V. C., Ossius of Cordova (Washington, D.C. 1954).

de Decker, D., "La politique religieuse de Maxence" in Byzantion 38 (1968), 472-562.

De Ghellinck, J., En marge des controverses ariennes. Quelques allusions des écrits disparus. Réminiscences d'écrits d'adversaires: Miscellanea Historica. Alberti De Meyer. Louvain, 1946, 159-180.

Delmaire, Roland, Largesses sacrées et res privata in Collection de l'école française de Rome 121 (Rome, 1989).

Dörries, Hermann, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins in Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologischhistorische Klasse^3 34 (Göttingen, 1954).

-Constantine and Religious Liberty tr. Roland Bainton (New Haven, 1960).

-"Constantine the Great" tr. R. Bainton (New York, 1972).

Drake, H. A., in In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations (Berkeley, 1976).

-Review of Barnes, CE in AJP 103 (1982), 462-466.

-"Suggestions of Date in Constantine's Oration to the Saints" in AJP 106 (1985), 335-349.

-"Athanasius' First Exile" in GRBS 27 (1986), 193-204.

-"What Eusebius Knew: The Genesis of the Vita Constantini" in CPh 83.1 (1988), 20-38.

-"Policy and Belief in Constantine's 'Oration to the Saints"' in Studia Patristica 19 (1989), 43-51.

-"Constantine and Consensus" in Church History 64.1 (1995), 1-15.

Duchesne, L., Early History of the Christian Church (London, 1912, reprinted 1957), vol. 2.

Dupont, C., "Les privileges des clercs sous Constantin" in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 62 (1967), 729-752.

Duval, Y.-M., "La manoeuvre frauduleuse de Rimini" in Hilaire et son temps, Paris, 1968), 51-103.

Ehrhardt, A. A. T., "Constantin d. Gr. Religionspolitik und Gesetzgebung" in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte 72 (1955), 127-190; reprinted in Konstantin der Grosse, ed. Heinrich Kraft, Wege der Forschung 131 (Darmstadt, 1974), 388-456.

-"Some Aspects of Constantine's Legislation" in Studia Patristica 2. Texte

Page 347

und Untersuchungen 64 (Berlin, 1957), 114-121.

Ehrhardt, C. T. H. R., "Constantinian Documents in Gelasius of Cyzicus, Ecclesiastical History" in Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 23 (1980), 48-57.

-"Monumental Evience for the Date of Constantine's First War against Licinius" in Ancient World 23.2 (1992), 87-96.

Eichholz, D. E., "Constantius Chlorus' Invasion of Britain" in JRS 43 (1953), 41-46.

Elliott, T. G., "The tax exemptions granted to clerics by Constantine and Constantius II" in Phoenix 32 (1978), 326-336.

-Ammianus Marcellinus and Fourth-Century History (Toronto, 1983).

-"Constantine's Conversion: Do We Really Need It?" in Phoenix 41.4 (1987), 420-438.

-"The Date of the Council of Serdica" in AHB 2.3 (1988), 65-72.

-"Constantine's Early Religious Development" in JRH 15.3 (1989), 283-291.

-"The Language of Constantine's Propaganda" in TAPA 120 (1990), 349-353.

-"Eusebian Frauds in the Vita Constantini in Phoenix 45.2 (1991), 162-171.

-"Constantine's Explanation of his Career" in Byzantion 62 (1992), 212-234.

-"Constantine's Preparations for the Council of Nicaea" in JRH 17.2 1992), 127-137.

-"Constantine's Conversion" Revisited" in AHB 6.2 (1992), 59-63.

-"Constantine and the 'Arian Reaction after Nicaea'" in JEH 43.2 (1992), 169-194.

Errington, R. M., "Constantine and the Pagans" in GRBS 29.3 (1988), 309-318.

Evans-Grubbs, Judith, "Abduction Marriage in Antiquity: a Law of Constantine (CTh 9.24.1) and its Social Context" in JRS 79 (1989), 59-83.

Fowden, G., "The Last Days of Constantine: Oppositional Versions and their Influence" in JRS:4 (1994), 146-170.

Frend, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford, 1965; Garden City N.Y., 1967).

-"Prelude to the Great Persecution: the Propaganda War" in JEH 38

Page 348

(1987), 1-18.

-"Athanasius as an Egyptian Christian Leader in the Fourth Century" in the New College Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 1 (Edinburgh, 1974), 20-37.

-The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia, 1984).

-"The Church in the Reign of Constantius II (337-361): Mission- Monasticism-Worship" in L'église et l'empire au IVe siècle. Entretiens Fondation Hardt pour l'étude de l'antiquité classique 34 (1989), 94-99.

Galletier, E., Panégyriques latins ed. Budé (Paris, 1949-1955), 3 vols.

Gaudemet, J., "La législation religeuse de Constantin" in Revue d'histoire de l'église de France 33 (1947), 25-61.

-"Constantin et les Curies municipales" in Iura 2 (1951), 44-75.

-La formation du droit seculier et du droit de l'église au IV et V siècles (Paris, 1957).

-"La legislation anti-païenne de Constantin Justinien" in Cristianesimo nella Storia 11 (1990), 449-468.

Gelzer, M., "Der Urheber der Christenverfolgung von 303" in Vom Wesen und Wandel der Kirche, Fs. E. Vischer (Basel, 1935 reprinted in Kleine Schriften 2 Wiesbaden, 1963), 378-386.

Gibbon, E., The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The edition usually cited is that of J. B. Bury in 7 vols. (London, 1909-1914).

Gibbon, E., Memoirs of My Life (ed. G. A. Bonnard, London, 1966).

Giordani, Roberto, "Note sulla cronologie della costruzione della basilica Vaticana" in Studi Romani 35 (1987), 346-358.

Girardet, K. M. in "Die Petition der Donatisten an Kaiser Konstantin (Friihjahr 313)" in Chiron 19 (1989), 185-206.

-"Kaiser Konstantin der Grosse als Vorsitzender von Konzilien" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande vol. 1, 445-459.

Godefroy, J., "Chronologia Codicis Theodosiani" is to be found in his (posthumously published) edition of the CTh.

Grant, M., The Emperor Constantine (London, 1993).

Grant, R. M., Eusebius as a Church Historian (Oxford, 1980).

Gregg, R. C. and D. E. Groh, Early Arianism: A View of Salvation (Philadelphia, 1981).

Grégoire, H., "Deux champs de bataille: 'Campus Ergenus' et 'Campus Ardiensis'" in Byzantion 13 (1938), 585-586.

Page 349

-"L'authenticité et l'historicité de la Vita Constantini attribuée Eusèbe de Césarée" in Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres^5 39 (1953), 462-479.

-"Eusèbe n'est pas l'auteur de la Vita Constantini" Byzantion 13 (1938), 561-583.

Grünewald, T., Constantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Überlieferung (Stuttgart, 1990) (Historia Einzelschriften 64).

Guthrie, P., "The Execution of Crispus" in Phoenix 20 (1966), 325-331.

Habicht, C., "Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Konstantin" in Hermes 86 (1958), 360-378.

-"Ein neues Fragment des Edictum de Accusationibus" in Museum Helveticum 43 (1986), 135-144.

Hagg, T., "Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist" in Symbolae Osloenses 67 (1992), 138-150.

Hall, S. G., "The Sects under Constantine" in Voluntary Religion: Studies in Church History no. 23 (Blackwell, 1986), 1-13.

Hanson, R. P. C., "The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch" in ZKG 95 (1984), 171-179.

-The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (Edinburgh, 1988).

Hatt, J. J., "La vision de Constantin au sanctuaire de Grand et l'origine celtique du labarum" in Latomus 9 (1950), 427-436.

Heather, P. J., Goths and Romans 332-489 (Oxford, 1991).

Helgeland, J., "Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine" in ANRW 2.23.1 (Berlin, New York, 1979), 724-834.

Honigmann, E., Patristic Studies [Studi e Testi 173 (1953)], 36-38.

Jones, A. H. M., Constantine the Great and the Conversion of Europe (London 1948).

-On the halo phenomenon in Constantine the Great and the Conversion of Europe (London 1948, repr. 1964), 96-97, and the article "Solar Halo Complexes" in Sky and Telescope 54 (1977/8), 185-187.

-"Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius's Life of Constantine" in JEH 5 (1954), 196-200.

-The Later Roman Empire (Oxford, 1964).

Jordan, D. P., Gibbon and his Roman Empire (Urbana, 1971).

Kannengiesser, C., "(Ps.-) Athanasius, Ad Afros Examined" in Logos:

Page 350

Festschrift L. Abramowski ed. H. C. Brennecke (Berlin, 1993): Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaften und die Kunde der lteren Kirche.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds (Longmans, New York, 3rd ed., 1982).

Kienast, Dietmar, "Das Bellum Cibalense und die Morde des Licinius" in Roma Renascens Fs. Ilona Opelt (Frankfurt, 1988), 149-171.

Kinzig, Wolfram, In Search ofAsterius (Göttingen, 1990).

Klein, Richard, Constantius II und die christliche Kirche (Darmstadt, 1977).

-"Zur Glaubwürdigkeit historischer Aussagen des Bishofs Athanasius von Alexandria über die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Constantius II" in Studia Patristica 17.3 (1982), 996-1017.

-"Das Kirchenbauverstndnis Constantins d. Gr. in Rom und in den östlichen Provinzen" in Das antike Rom und der Osten ed. C. Börker und M. Donderer as festschr. Klaus Parlasca (Erlangen, 1990), 77-101.

Kolb, F. Diocletian und die erste Tetrarchie (Berlin, 1987).

-Review of Barnes, CE in Gnomon 60 (1988), 45-50.

Kraft, H., Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung (Tübingen, 1955).

Krautheimer, R., "The Ecclesiastical Building Policy of Constantine" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 2, 509-552.

Kriegbaum, B., Kirche der Traditoren oder Kirche der Mrtyrer: Die Vorgeschichte des Donatismus (Innsbruck, 1986).

Kuhoff, Wolfgang, "Ein Mythos in der römischen Geschichte: Der Sieg Konstantins des Grossen über Maxentius vor den Toren Roms am 28. Oktober 312 n.Chr." in Chiron 21 (1991), 127-174.

Landmann, K. R. von, "Konstantin der Grosse als Feldherr" in Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit ed. by F. J. Dölger. Römische Quartalschrift, Supplementband 19 (Freiburg, 1913), 143-154.

Lane Fox, R., Pagans and Christians (London, 1986).

Leeb, R., Konstantin und Christus: Die Verchristlichung der imperialen Reprsentation unter Konstantin dem Grossen als Spiegel seiner Kirchenpolitik und seines Selbstverstndnisses als christlicher Kaiser (Berlin, 1992), Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 58.

Le Gall, J., "Les cheveux de Constantin" in Mélanges d'histoire ancienne offerts William Seston (Paris, 1974), 267-276.

Page 351

Lenain de Tillemont, L. S., Histoire des Empereurs (Paris, 1700).

-Mémoires pour servir l'histoire ecclésiastique des vi premiers sicles, tome vi (second edition, Paris, 1704).

Leroy-Molinghen, Alice, "La mort d'Arius" in Byzantion 38 (1968), 105-111.

Liebeschuetz, J. W. H. G., "Government and Administration in the Late Roman Empire" in The Roman World (London, 1987) ed. J. Wacher, vol. 1.

Lienhard, J. T., "Did Athanasius Reject Marcellus?" in M. R. Barnes, D. H. Williams, edd., Arianism after Arius (Edinburgh, 1993).

Lietzmann, H., A History of the Early Church, translated by B. Woolf (London, 1961, repr. 1967).

Lippold, A., "Kaiser Claudius II (Gothicus), Vorfahr Konstantins d. Gr., und der römische Senat" in Klio 74 (1992), 380-394.

-"Konstantin und die Barbaren (Konfrontation? Integration? Koexistenz?)" in Studi Italiani difilologia classica 10.1-2 (1992), 371-391.

Loeschke, G., "Das Syntagma des Gelasius Cyzicenus" in Rheinisches Museum N.F. 60 (1905), 594-613, and 61 (1906), 34-77.

Logan, Alastair H. B., "Marcellus of Ancyra and the Councils of 325: Antioch, Ancyra and Nicaea" in JThS 43.2 (1992), 428-446.

Löhr, W. A., Die Entstehung der homöischen und homöusianischen Kirchenparteien: Studien zur Synodalgeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts (Bonn: Wehle, 1986).

Loofs, F., "Das Nicaenum" in Festgabe für K. Müller (Tübingen, 1922).

Lorenz, R., "Das Problem der Nachsynode von Nica (327)" in ZKG 90 (1979), 22-40.

-Arius judaizans? (Göttingen, 1980).

Louth, A., "The Date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica" in JThS 41.1 (1990), 111-123.

Luibhéid, Colm, "Finding Arius" in the Irish Theological Quarterly 45 (1978), 81-101.

-"The Alleged Second Session of the Council of Nicaea" in JEH 34.2 (1983), 165-174.

-"The Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia" in the Irish Theological Quarterly 43 (1976), 3-23.

-Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis (Galway, 1981). MacCormack, S. G., "Roma, Constantinopolis, the Emperor and his

Page 352

Genius" in CQ 69 (1975), 131-150.

MacMullen, R., Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400) (New Haven, 1984).

-"What Difference Did Christianity Make?" in Historia 35.3 (1986), 322-343.

Maier, J. L., Le Dossier du Donatisme (Texte und Untersuchungen 134) (Berlin, 1987).

Mango, Cyril, review of Dagron, Naissance in JRS 66 (1976), 255.

Marasco, G., "Costantino e le uccisioni di Crispo e Fausta (326 D.C.) in Rivista difilologia e di istruzione classica 121.3 (1993), 297-317.

Martin, A., "Athanase et les Mélitiens (325-335)" in Politique et Théologie chez Athanase d' Alexandrie ed. C. Kannengiesser (Paris, 1974), 33-61.

Mazzarino, S., The End of the Ancient World, (London, 1959).

-Antico, tardantico ed èra costantiniana I (Rome, 1974). (ch. 5, 99-116, is "La data dell' Oratio ad sanctorum coetum.")

Millar, F., "P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third- Century Invasions" in JRS 59 (1969), 12-29.

-The Roman Near East (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993).

-The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca, 1977).

Mitchell, S., "Maximinus and the Christians in A.D. 312: A New Latin Inscription" in JRS 78 (1988), 103-124.

Moreau, J., "Zum Problem der Vita Constantini" in Historia 4 (1955), 234-245, reprinted in his Scripta Minora (Heidelberg, 1964), 124-134.

Mosheim, Joh. Laurent. (1694-1755), Ecclesiastical History (translated into English, London, 1833) (Originally published in 1726).

Nesselhauf, H., "Der Toleranzgesetz des Licinius" in Historisches Jahrbuch 74 (1954), 44-61.

Nicholson, O., "Flight from Persecution as Imitation of Christ: Lactantius, Divine Institutes IV 18, 1-2" in JThS 40.1 (1989), 48-65.

-"The 'Pagan Churches' of Maximinus Daia and Julian the Apostate" in JEH 45.1 (1994), 1-9.

Nixon, C. E. V., "The Panegyric of 307 and Maximian's Visits to Rome" in Phoenix 35.1 (1981), 70-77.

-"Constantinus Oriens Imperator: Propaganda and Panegyric. On Reading Panegyric 7 (307)" in Historia 42.2 (1993), 229-246.

Page 353

Nixon, C. E. V. and Barbara Saylor Rodgers, In praise of Later Roman Emperors (Berkeley, 1995).

Nock, A. D., ''The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year" in HTR 45 (1952), 186-252, reprinted in his Essays on Religion and the Ancient World (Oxford, 1972), ed. Zeph Stewart. 2 vols.)

Norderval, Oyvind, "The Emperor Constantine and Arius: Unity in the Church and Unity in the Empire" in Studia Theologica (also known as the Scandinavian Journal of Theology) 42 (1988), 113-150.

Nuyens, M., Le statut obligatoire des décurions dans le droit de Constantin (Louvain, 1964), Odahl, Charles, "Constantine's Epistle to the Bishops at the Council of Arles: A Defence of Imperial Authorship" in JRH 17.3 (1993), 274-289.

Opitz, H.-G., Athanasius' Werke 3.1: Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites (Berlin and Leipzig, 1934).

-"Die Zeitfolge des arianischen Streites von den Anfngen bis zum Jahre 328" in ZNTW 33 (1934), 131-159.

Palanque, J.-R., "Chronologie Constantinienne" in REA 40 (1938), 241-250.

Palanque, J.-R. et al, The Church in the Christian Roman Empire (translated from the French by E. Messenger, New York, 1953).

Peachin, M., "A note on the early days of Diocletian's reign" in AJAH 9 (1984), 153-15.

Peeters, P., "Comment Saint Athanasius s'enfuit de Tyr en 335" in Bulletin de l'academie royale de Belgique^530 (1944, appeared in 1946), 131-137, reprinted in his Recherches d'histoire et de philologie orientales vol. 2 (Brussels, 1951), 53-90.

-"L'épilogue du synode de Tyr en 335" in Analecta Bollandiana 63 (1945) 131-144, at 138.

Pezzela, S. "Massenzio e la politica religiosa di Costantino" in Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 38 (1967), 434-450.

Pizzani, Ubaldo, "Costantino e l' Oratio ad Sanctorum Coetum" in G.

Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 2, 791-822.

Pietri, Ch., "Evergetisme et richesses ecclésiastiques en Italie" in Ktema 3 (1978), 317-337.

Pollard, T. E., "Eusebius of Caesarea and the Synod of Antioch (324/25)" in Texte und Untersuchungen 125 (1981), 457-464.

Page 354

Portmann, W., "Zu den Motiven der diokletianischen Christenverfolgung" in Historia 39.2 (1990), 212-219.

Quasten, J., Patrology (Utrecht/Antwerp, 1966), vol.3.

Reymond, E. A. E. and J. W. B. Barns, Four Martyrdoms from the Pierpont Morgan Coptic Codices (Oxford, 1973).

Richard, M., "Le comput pascal par octaétéris" in Le Muséon 87 (1974), 307-339.

Ridley, R. T., "Anonymity in the Vita Constantini" in Byzantion 50 (1980), 241-258.

Rist, John M., "Basil's Neoplatonism" in Basil of Caesarea: Christian Humanist and Ascetic Part One, ed. P. J. Fedwick (Toronto, 1981), 137-220.

Ritter, A. M., Arianismus, in TRE III (1977).

Rodgers, Barbara S., "Constantine's Pagan Vision" in Byzantion 50 (1980), 259-278.

-"Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini" in Historia 35.1 (1986), 69-99.

Rogala, S., Die Anfnge des arian. Streites. Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur und Dogmengeschichte (Paderborn, 1907).

Rusch, William G., "A la recherche de l'Athanase historique" in Politique et Théologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie: Actes du colloque de Chantilly 23-25 Septembre 1973 ed. Charles Kannengiesser (Paris, 1974), 161-177.

Salzmann, M. R., "Aristocratic Women: Conductors of Christianity in the fourth century" in Helios 16 (1989), 207-220.

Sansterre, J. M., "Eusèbe de Césarée et la naissance de la théorie Césaropapiste" in Byzantion 42 (1972), 131-195, 532-594.

Sargenti M. published his views in a reprint of Seeck's "Zeitfolge" in Materiali per una Palingenesi delle Costituzioni Tardo-Imperiali (Milan, 1983 Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana 2).

-"Costantino nella Storia del Diritto" in G. Bonamente, F. Fusco edd., Costantino il Grande, vol. 2, 865-881.

Schferdiek, Knut, "Christian Mission and Expansion" in Early Christianity (ed. Ian Hazlett for SPCK, 1991).

Schamp, J., "Gélase ou Rufin: Un fait nouveau. Sur des fragments oubliés de Gélase de Césarée (CPG no. 3521)" in Byzantion 57 (1987), 360-390.

Page 355

Schanz, M., Geschichte der römischen Litteratur (Münich, expanded second edition of 1914, reprinted in 1970).

Scheidweiler, F., "Die Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia" in ByzZ 46 (1953), 277-301.

Schmidt, L., Die Ostgermanen (1934, repr. Dresden, 1941, and Munich, 1969).

Schrörs, H., Konstantins des Grossen Kreuzerscheinung (Bonn, 1913).

Schwartz, Eduard, "Zur Kirchengeschichte des vierten Jahrhunderts" in Zeitschriftfür neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 34 (1935).

-Kaiser Konstantin und die christliche Kirche (Leipzig and Berlin, 1936; repr. Darmstadt 1969).

-"Christliche und Jüdische Ostertafeln" in Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philol. Hist. Klasse, vol. 8 (Berlin, 1905) No. 6.

-Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1959), vol.3, "Zur Geschichte des Athanasius" (originally published in Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse of 1904, 1905, 1908, and 1911).

Seeck, Otto, "Die Verwandtenmorde Constantin's [sic] des Grossen" in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftlichen Theologie 33 (1890), 63-77.

-"Urkundenflschungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (Schluss)" in ZKG 30 (1909), 399-422, which took up an argument originally published in the same journal 17 (1896), lff.; 319ff.

-"Die Zeitfolge der Gesetze Constantins" in Zeitschriftfir Rechtsgeschichte 10 (Rom. Abt.) (1909), 1-44 and 177-251.

-Regesten der Kaiser und Ppste (Stuttgart, 1919).

Sellers, R. V., Eustathius of Antioch and his Place in the Early History of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1928).

Simonetti, M., La crisi ariana nel IVsecolo (Rome, 1975).

Sirks, A. J. B., "The Size of the Grain Distributions in Imperial Rome and Constantinople" in Athenaeum 79 (1991), 215-237.

Smith and Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography (London, 1887).

Soden, Hans von, Urkunden zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Donatismus (Bonn, 1913).

Stead, G. C., "'Eusebius' and the Council of Nicaea" in JThS n.s. 24 (1973), 85-100.

-Review of Gregg and Groh, Early Arianism in JThS 33 (1982), 285-289.

Page 356

-Review of Hanson, Search in JThS 41 (1990), 668-673.

Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire vol. 1, (Paris, 1959).

Stevenson, J. / W. H. C. Frend, A New Eusebius (London, SPCK, 1987).

Straub, J., "Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol" in Historia 4 (1955), 297-313 (reprinted in his Regeneratio Imperii (Darmstadt, 1972).

Talbert, R., review of R. MacMullen, Corruption and the Decline of Rome in Phoenix 45.1 (1991), 85-87.

Tanner, R. G., "The aim of Lactantius in the Liber de mortibus persecutorum" in Studia Patristica 17.2 (1987), 836-840.

Tarn, W. W., "Alexander Helios and the Golden Age" in JRS 22 (1932), 151-157.

Tartaglia, L., Eusebio di Cesarea, Sulla Vita di Costantino, (Naples, 1984) and the review thereof by F. Winkelmann in ByzZ 79 (1986), 57-58 Telfer, W., "When Did the Arian Controversy Begin?" in JTS 47 (1946), 129-142.

-"St. Peter of Alexandria and Arius" in Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949), 117-130.

-"Sozomen I. 15, A Reply" in JTS 50 (1949), 187-191.

Todd, M., Roman Britain (London 1981).

Tomlin, R. S. O. has written on the army of the later empire in ch. 7 (vol. 1) of J. Wacher (ed.), The Roman World (London, 1987), 107-120.

Ullmann, W., "The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement" in JEH 27.1 (1976), 1-16.

Veyne, P., "Clientèle et corruption au service de l'état: La vénalité des offices dans le bas-empire romain" in Annales 36 (1981), 339-360.

Vigorita, Tullio Spagnuolo, "Nuovi Indirizzi di Politica Fiscale nella Legislazione di Costantino" in Societd Romano e Impero Tardoantico edited by A. Giardina (Rome, 1986), 71-80.

Vogt, J., "Berichte über Kreuzeserscheinungen aus dem 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr" in Mélanges Grégoire [Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves, vol. 9 (1949)], 593-606.

Warmington, B. H., "The Sources of some Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine" in Studia Patristica 18.1 (1983), 93-98.

-"Eusebius of Caesarea's Versions of Constantine's Laws in the Codes" in Studia Patristica 24 (1993), 201-207.

Page 357

Wassink, A., "Inflation and Financial Policy in the Roman Empire to the Price Edict of 301 A.D." in Historia 40.4 (1991), 465-493.

Wieacker, F., "Vulgarismus und Klassizismus im Recht der Sptantike" in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philologisch-historische Klasse 1955 Abh. 3, 7-64.

Whittaker, C. R., "Inflation and the Economy in the Fourth Century A.D." in Imperial Revenue, Expenditure and Monetary Policy in the Fourth Century A.D. (British Archaeological Reports, Int'l. Series 76 (1980), 1-22.

Wiemer, H.-U., "Libanius on Constantine" in CQ 44.2 (1994), 511-524. -"Libanios und Zosimos über den Rom Besuch Konstantins I im Jahre 326" in Historia 43.4 (1994), 469-494.

Wiles, M. F. (in collaboration with R. C. Gregg)-"Asterius: A New Chapter in the History of Arianism?" in R. C. Gregg (editor), Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (Papers from the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies, at Oxford, England, 1983, published in Cambridge, Mass. in 1985), 111-151.

Williams, R., Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London, 1987).

Winkelmann, F., "Zur Geschichte des Authentizittsproblems der Vita Constantini" in Klio 40 (1962), 187-243.

-"Untersuchungen zur Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia" in Sitzungsberichte der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Nr. 3 (1965), 123 pages.

-"Charakter und Bedeutung der Kirchengeschichte des Gelasios von Kaisareia" in Byzantinische Forschungen 1 (1966), 346-385.

-"Die Quellen der Historia Ecclesiastica des Gelasius von Cyzicus" in Byzantinoslavica 27 (1966), 104-130.

Woods, David, "Two Notes on the Great Persecution" in JThS 43.1 (1992), 128-134.

Yarnold, Edward J., "Who planned the churches in Christian holy places in the Holy Land?" in Studia Patristica 18, 1 (1990), 105-109.

Page 359

INDEX

A

Abraham 260

Achillas, reader of Alexandria 240

Adamantius, Egyptian bp. 300

Adige 58

Aetius 150, 244

Agathammon, Egyptian bp. 300

Agentes in rebus 269

Alamanni 254

Albanum 260

Alexander, bp. of Alexandria 6, 145, 147, 149, 155, 159, 160, 162, 166, 210, 217, 234, 238, 271, 320

Alexander and Arius 6, 46, 163, 172, 324, 327

Alexander, bp. of Byzantium 159, 322

Alexander, bp. of Thessalonica 295

Alexandria 148

Alica, Gothic prince 132

Amandus, naval commander of Licinius 131

Ammianus Marcellinus 261

Ammonius, friend of Arius 149

Anastasia, daughter of Constantius 21

Anastasis 260

Ancyra 168, 186

Anomoean 244

Antaeopolis 286

Antioch 145, 186, 246, 260, 276

Antonius, M. 191

Antony, Egyptian monk 305, 317

Anubion, Egyptian bp. 300

Anullinus, proconsul of Africa 75, 76, 106

Apa John, Egyptian bp. 290

Aphrodite 257

Apollo 9, 35, 37, 51, 120, 193, 258

Apollo-Helios 257

Apollonius, Egyptian bp., 141

Aquileia 59, 237

Arbethion, Egyptian bp., 300

Archelaus 290

Arian 251

Arianism 189, 190, 201, 207, 218, 249, 279

Arians 205, 229

Ariminum 221

Ariomaniacs 202

Arius 6, 112, 140, 145, 147, 149, 154, 158, 166, 203, 209, 218, 226, 234, 238, 241, 271, 275, 276, 304, 313, 322, 329

Arles 30, 34, 36, 126, 332

Arrianus, governor in Egypt 141

Arsenius, bp. of Hypsele 285

Artemis-Selene 257

Ascaric, Frankish king 41

Asclepas, bp. of Gaza 244, 248

Asterius, cleric ("the sacrificer") 158

Athanasian 19

Athanasius of Alexandria, 4, 145, 150, 164, 195, 204, 226, 239, 242, 271, 272, 278, 288, 290, 302, 305, 327, 333

Athanasius son of Capito 290

Augustus 7, 51, 110

Aurelian 20

Aurelius Maximianus 8

Aurelius Victor 124, 324

Aureus 8

Autun 52

B

Babylon 29

Barnes, T. D. 13, 14, 108, 110, 120,

Page 360

24, 128, 170, 182, 184, 215, 274, 303, 309, 311, 318, 323

Basil, bp. of Ancyra 321

Basil, St., bp. of Caesarea 207

Bassianus, brother-in-law of C. 125, 130

Batiffol, P. 177

Baynes, N. H. 1, 122, 308, 309, 318, 330

Bell, H. I. 290

Beroea 126

Bethlehem 260

Bidez, J. 215

Bithynia 44

Bononia 258

Boulogne 20, 39

Britain 37

Brixia 58

Bruun, P. 122

Burckhardt, J. 3

Byzantium 116, 131, 255

C

Caecilian, bp. of Carthage 75, 78, 90, 106

Caesarea 286, 293

Caesaropapism 82

Callinicus, bp. of Pelusium 290

Callipolis 132

Callistus 289

Campona 254

Campus Ardiensis 126

Campus Ergenus 116

Candidianus, son of Galerius 120

Capito, Donatist bp. 86

Cappadocia 117

Capua 260

Carausius 9, 20

Carnuntum 42

Carterius, bp. of Antaradus 248

Carthage 75, 95

Cataphrygians 138, 210

Celsus, vicarius of Africa 91

Chadwick, H. 276

Chalcedon 132

Chares, priest of Alexandria 149

Chi-rho 71

Christ 67, 79, 89, 229, 258, 328, 332

Chrysopolis 132, 255

Church of the Holy Sepulchre 260

Church of the Nativity 260

Cibalae 85, 126

Cicero 188

Cirta 94

Colluthians 170

Colluthus, Egyptian bp. and priest 285, 291

Comes rei privatae 268

Comes sacrarum largitionum 268

Comitatenses 266

Comitatus 266

Comites 268

Commodus 7

Constans, son of C. 324

Constantia, sister of C. 74, 132, 217, 222, 263

Constantina (see Constantia) 217, 324

Constantine, son of C. 126, 254, 307, 312, 324

Constantinople 182, 264, 297, 329

Constantius 2, 9, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 39

Constantius II, son of C. 15, 216, 218, 220, 258, 260, 311, 324

Corduba 78

Creed, J. L. 125

Crispus, son of C. 18, 29, 68, 111, 126, 131, 219, 232, 233, 324, 327

Crocus, Alamann king 40

Ctesiphon 10

Culcianus, associate of Maximinus 120

Cymatius, bp. of Paltus 248

Page 361

Cyprian, St., bp of Carthage 80

Cyril, bp. of Jerusalem 5

Cyrus, bp. of Beroea (in Syria) 248, 249

D

Dacia 126

Dagron, G. 257

Dalmatius 285

Danube 9, 255

Davies, P. S. 13, 190

Decennalia 53

Decius 34, 47

Dignus, Donatist bp. 86

Diocletian 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29, 34, 35, 37, 42, 47, 84, 103, 136, 266

Diodorus, bp. of Asia 248

Dionysius, St. 27

Dionysius, Comes 290, 294, 303, 319, 332

Domnio, bp. of Sirmium 248

Donatists 6, 22, 23, 30, 75, 78, 85, 138, 141, 251, 334

Donatus, African bp. 82

Dörries, H. 98

Dracilianus, Comes Orientis 251

Drake, H. A. 189, 318

Drepanum 17

Duces 267

Duchesne, L. 242

E

Easter 211, 262

Edict of Milan 117, 137, 212

Egypt 141

Ehrhardt, A. A. T. 98, 104, 124

Eleona 260

Emesa 115

Emona 126

Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis 27, 143, 149

Epitome de Caesaribus 40, 125

Erythraean Sibyl 188, 191

Eulalius, bp. of Antioch 245

Eumelius, vicarius Africae 92

Eunapius 261, 265

Eunomian 146

Euphrantion, bp. of Balaneae 248

Euphronius, priest 245

Eusebius and Theognis 69, 240

Eusebius, bp. of Caesarea 2, 3, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 36, 40, 49, 52, 56, 57, 63, 83, 85, 110, 112, 115, 120, 133, 138, 140, 150, 155, 158, 165, 170, 183, 187, 190, 197, 244, 246, 250, 257, 261, 292, 294, 300, 322, 328

Eusebius, bp. of (Beroea,) Nicomedia (and Constantinople) 149, 151, 155, 156, 158, 170, 202, 215, 216, 221, 230, 240, 242, 276, 300, 321, 324

Eustathius of Antioch 195, 200, 207, 219, 232, 248, 250, 284

Eustokios, priest 217

Eutropius 2, 323 Eutropius (=Euprepius) of Hadrianople 248

Euzoius, deacon of Alexandria 231, 234, 238, 240

Evans-Grubbs, J. 110, 111, 233

F

Fausta, wife of C. 42, 68, 87, 111, 232, 327

Felix, bp. of Abthungi 81, 90

Fidentius, Donatist bp. 86

Flacillus 293

Flavian 7

Flavius Constantius, father of C. 9

Flavius Dalmatius 323

Flavius Dionysius, comes 288

Frankish 41

Franks 9, 20

Frend, W. H. C. 13, 14, 15, 273

G

Galerius Maximianus 9, 10, 11, 29,

Page 362

39, 41, 43, 54, 115

Gallienus 7

Gaudemet, J. 108, 333

Gaza 263

Gelasius of Caesarea 5, 18, 23, 24, 31, 40, 56, 61, 69

Gelasius of Cyzicus 5, 31, 48, 204, 207, 208, 217, 271, 296, 312

George of Arethusa, priest 245

Germans 9, 20

Godefroy, 121

Goths 131, 254, 322

Greek Rufinus (=Gelasius of Caesarea) 70

Grégoire, H. 3, 122

Gregory, bp. 150

Grünewald, T. 123

Guthrie, P. 233

H

Habicht, C. 108, 123, 128

Hadrianople 116, 131

Hannibalianus 324, 325

Hanson, R. P. C. (bp.) 146, 224, 312

Harnack, A. 13, 14, 15

Hathor 288

Helena, mother of C. 17, 18, 233, 259

Helenopolis 324

Helios 257

Hellanicus 150

Hellanicus, bp. of Tripolis 248

Heraclides, procurator 76

Heraiscus, bp. 288

Herculean dynasty 9

Hermogenes, Cappadocian priest 207

Hesychius, Egyptian bp. 143

Hieracas, heretic 153

Homoiousios 216

Homoousios 200, 205, 207, 221, 241, 283

Hyginus, governor in Egypt 290

Hypostasis 283

Hypsele 285

I

Ingentius, forger 90

Irenaeus, deacon of Alexandria 149

Isaac, bp. of Letopolis 289

Isaiah 203

Ischyras, Egyptian priest 285, 290

Isidorus and Arius, associates of Melitius 144

Istria 232

J

Jerome, St. 240

Jerusalem 260, 292, 314

Jesus 68

Jews 112

John Archaph, Melitian bishop 286, 288, 305

Jones, A. H. M. 16, 119, 123, 128, 266

Jovian 9

Judas Iscariot 152, 321

Julian the Apostate 2, 15, 24, 52, 68, 260, 334

Julio-Claudian 7

Julius, bp. of Rome 242

Jupiter 9, 52, 53, 73

Justinian's Code 97

K

Klein, R. 216

L

Labarum 55, 61, 67

Lactantius 3, 12, 21, 22, 30, 35, 40, 45, 55, 61, 71, 116, 125, 191

Lane Fox, R. 14, 187

Leeb, R. 258

Libanius 2

Licinius 3, 42, 43, 47, 53, 58, 74, 85, 116, 119, 121, 125, 129, 130, 230, 254, 255, 326

Licinius' son Licinius 126

Lietzmann, H. 177, 200

Limigantes 254

Loeschke, G. 49, 308

Logan, A. 169

Lucian, priest of Antioch 44, 115

Lucianus, Donatist bp. 86

Page 363

Lucifer, bp. of Cagliari 240, 249

Luciferians 240

Lucilla 80

Lucius, bp. of Hadrianople 248

Luibhéid, C. 157, 220, 223

Lycopolis 141

M

Macarius, cited by Arius 150,

Macarius, Egyptian priest 276, 285, 288, 321

Macedonius, bp. of Mopsuestia 290

MacMullen, R. 14

Magister equitum 267

Magister officiorum 266

Magisterpeditum 271

Majorinus, Donatist bp. 78, 81, 87

Malalas 184

Mamre 264

Manichaeans 10, 25, 153

Marcellus, bp. of Ancyra 158, 169, 208, 209, 248, 250, 284, 320

Marcionites 138, 210

Marcus Aurelius 7

Mareotic commission 291, 300, 309, 312, 316

Mareotis 148, 290

Margus 254

Marianus, notarius 295

Marinus, bp. of Arles 87

Maris, bp. of Chalcedon 216, 290

Mark, Egyptian priest 290

Mars 9

Martinianus, Caesar of Licinius 132

Massilia 43

Maternus, bp. of Cologne 87

Maxentius 18, 34, 35, 41, 45, 48, 52, 54, 57, 72, 81, 267, 326

Maximian 9, 18, 20, 25, 42, 43, 326

Maximinus Daia 12, 41, 44, 50, 74, 115, 116, 120

Maximus, son of Maximinus 120

Maximus Augustus 74

Mazzarino, S. 187

Melitian 27, 334

Melitians 27, 170, 210, 272, 334

Melitius, Egyptian bp. 141, 143, 145

Memphis 29, 286

Mensurius, bp. of Carthage 79, 80

Merogaisus, Frankish king 41

Mestrianus 126

Milan 58, 74

Miletus 120

Miltiades, bp. of Rome 87, 259

Milvian Bridge 54, 55, 61, 72

Minervina, first wife of C. 29

Moesia 131

Mommsen, T. 110

Moreau, J. 128

Mt. Cenis 59

Mutina 58

N

Naissus 17

Naples 260

Narcissus, bp. of Neronias 170

Narseh 10

Nasutius, Donatist bp. 86

Nero 7

Nesselhauf, H. 123

Nestorius Timonianus, praetorian prefect 324

Nicaea 4, 31, 34, 35, 47, 48, 112, 138, 147, 181, 183, 225, 230, 237, 240, 246, 251, 275, 331

Nicomedia 10, 11, 15, 26, 30, 44, 116, 133, 176, 219, 242

Nicopolis 289

Novatians 112, 138, 187, 210

Numidia 79

O

Octavian 194

Octavianus, corrector of Lucania and Bruttium 106

Olympius, bp. of Aenus 248

Opitz, H.-G. 147, 234

Origen 14

Page 364

Origo 133

Orontes 120

Orosius 131

Ossius, bp. of Corduba 78, 158, 164, 169, 179, 181, 184, 200, 207, 211, 215, 291

Ostia 260

P

Pachomius, Egyptian bp. 143

Paieou, Egyptian priest 289

Palestine 29

Palladius, curiosus Augusti 292

Papinian, jurist 102

Parammon, Alexandrian priest 149

Patabeit, Egyptian priest 289

Patricius, vicarius prefectorum praetorio 76

Patrophilus, bp. of Scythopolis 155, 300

Paul, jurist 102

Paul, bp. of Tyre 286

Paul, bp. of Constantinople 248

Paul, bp. of Samosata 145, 320

Paulians 138, 210

Paulinus, priest of Antioch 249

Paulinus, bp. of Tyre 150, 155, 158, 156, 161, 201, 202

Peeters, P. 308, 314, 316

Pelusium 290

Perinthus 116

Persia 9

Persian 10

Persians 10, 322

Peter, Egyptian bp. 300

Peter of Alexandria 115, 141, 143, 145

Petrus Patricius 127

Peucetius, associate of Maximinus 120

Philagrius, praefectus Aegypti 291

Phileas of Thmuis, Egyptian bp. 143

Philogonius, bp. of Antioch 150, 182

Philostorgius 5, 146, 203, 204, 215, 272, 275

Philumenos, magister officiorum 277

Photius 5, 220

Picts 40

Pistus, bp. of Alexandria 149, 152, 275, 311

Plato 188, 190

Pola 232

Pontifex maximus 326

Porphyrians 112, 278

Praxagoras 127, 133

Prisca, wife of Diocletian 120

Protogenes, bp. of Serdica 127

Prudentius 55, 69

Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius 254

Q

R

Raetia 9

Rationalis rei privatae 268

Rationalis summae rei 268

Ravenna 42

Reticius, bp. of Autun 87

Rhea 257

Rhine 59

Rhône 43

Richard, M. 243, 248

Richardson, E. C. 187

Ritter, A. M. 206

Robertson, A. 296

Rodgers, B. S. 51

Rome 41, 48, 57, 73

Rufinus 5, 55, 69

Ruricius Pompeianus, praetorian prefect of Maxentius 58

S

S. Agnese 260

S. Lorenzo 260

S. Sebastiano 260

Sabellius 153, 160, 320

Sabinus, praetorian prefect of Maximinus 115

Santa Croce in Gierusalemme 259

Saône 43

Sapor 49, 262, 322

Sarapion, deacon of Alexandria 149

Page 365

Saras (a priest of Libya) 240

Sargenti, M. 98, 108, 110

Sarmatians 254

Schamp, J. 6

Schwartz, E. 186, 212, 216, 236, 302, 309, 318

Scrinia 266

Secundus, bp. of Ptolemais 180, 209, 216, 218, 231, 275

Secundus, bp. of Tigisis 80, 81

Seeck, O. 98, 106, 108, 110, 307, 318

Segusia 58

Sellers, R. V. 249

Senatusconsultum Claudianum 110

Senecio, brother of Bassianus 125

Septimius Severus 7, 255

Serapion, Egyptian priest 313, 321

Serdica 111, 126, 211

Severianus, son of Severus 120

Severus 12, 41, 42, 54, 120

Sibylline books 72

Silvanus, bp. of Emesa 115

Silvester, bp. of Rome 88, 90

Sirmium 126, 237

Socrates 5, 23, 69, 208, 243, 246, 301

Sol Invictus 9, 258

Solidus 8

Sopater, philosopher 265, 327

Sozomen 5, 69, 70, 215, 221, 271, 290, 301, 304, 322, 329

SS. Marcellino e Pietro 260

St. Acacius 257

St. Augustine 193

St. John Lateran 259

St. Menas 257

St. Michael of Anaplous or Sosthenion 257

St. Mocius 257

St. Paul 55

St. Peter 259

Straub, J. 73

Sunday 262

T

Tarsus 120

Terminalia 11

Terra 52

Tertullian 14, 80

Tetrarchy 9

Thalia 148, 209, 226, 275, 281, 331

Theodora, second wife of Constantius18, 20, 21

Theodoret 5, 18, 23, 205, 212, 224, 301

Theodorus, Egyptian bp. 143

Theodorus, bp. of Heraclea 291

Theodosian Code 97

Theodosius 5, 19, 52, 222

Theodotus, bp. of Laodicaea 150, 168, 170, 232

Theodulus, bp. of Aenus 248

Theognis, bp. of Nicaea 216, 230, 238, 290

Theognius, see Theognis 170, 300

Theonasbp. of Marmarice 178, 209, 216, 231, 275

Theotecnus, associate of Maximinus 115, 120

Thessalonica 131, 132

Thrace 116, 131

Tillemont, L. S. Lenain de 121, 177, 181

Tricennalia 56

Trier 41, 254, 306

Troy 191

Turin 59

Tyre 4, 115, 285, 331

U

Ullmann, W. 105, 119, 210, 212, 331

Ulpian, jurist 102

Ursacius, bp. of Singidunum 295, 295, 300

Ursus, catholicus of Africa 76

V

Valens, subordinate of Licinius 126, 128

Table of Contents

cover

cover-0

cover-1

cover-2

page_v

page_vi

page_vii

page_viii

page_ix

page_x

page_1

page_2

page_3

page_4

page_5

page_6

page_7

page_8

page_9

page_10

page_11

page_12

page_13

page_14

page_15

page_16

page_17

page_18

page_19

page_20

page_21

page_22

page_23

page_24

page_25

page_26

page_27

page_29

page_30

page_31

page_32

page_33

page_34

page_35

page_36

page_37

page_38

page_39

page_40

page_41

page_42

page_43

page_44

page_45

page_46

page_47

page_48

page_49

page_50

page_51

page_52

page_53

page_54

page_55

page_56

page_57

page_58

page_59

page_61

page_62

page_63

page_64

page_65

page_66

page_67

page_68

page_69

page_70

page_71

page_72

page_73

page_74

page_75

page_76

page_77

page_78

page_79

page_80

page_81

page_82

page_83

page_84

page_85

page_86

page_87

page_88

page_89

page_90

page_91

page_92

page_93

page_94

page_95

page_97

page_98

page_99

page_100

page_101

page_102

page_103

page_104

page_105

page_106

page_107

page_108

page_109

page_110

page_111

page_112

page_113

page_114

page_115

page_116

page_117

page_118

page_119

page_120

page_121

page_122

page_123

page_124

page_125

page_126

page_127

page_128

page_129

page_130

page_131

page_132

page_133

page_134

page_135

page_136

page_137

page_138

page_139

page_140

page_141

page_142

page_143

page_144

page_145

page_146

page_147

page_148

page_149

page_150

page_151

page_152

page_153

page_154

page_155

page_156

page_157

page_158

page_159

page_160

page_161

page_162

page_163

page_164

page_165

page_166

page_167

page_168

page_169

page_170

page_171

page_172

page_173

page_174

page_175

page_176

page_177

page_178

page_179

page_180

page_181

page_182

page_183

page_184

page_185

page_186

page_187

page_188

page_189

page_190

page_191

page_192

page_193

page_195

page_196

page_197

page_198

page_199

page_200

page_201

page_202

page_203

page_204

page_205

page_206

page_207

page_208

page_209

page_210

page_211

page_212

page_213

page_214

page_215

page_216

page_217

page_218

page_219

page_220

page_221

page_222

page_223

page_224

page_225

page_226

page_227

page_229

page_230

page_231

page_232

page_233

page_234

page_235

page_236

page_237

page_238

page_239

page_240

page_241

page_242

page_243

page_244

page_245

page_246

page_247

page_248

page_249

page_250

page_251

page_252

page_253

page_254

page_255

page_256

page_257

page_258

page_259

page_260

page_261

page_262

page_263

page_264

page_265

page_266

page_267

page_268

page_269

page_271

page_272

page_273

page_274

page_275

page_276

page_277

page_278

page_279

page_280

page_281

page_282

page_283

page_284

page_285

page_286

page_287

page_288

page_289

page_290

page_291

page_292

page_293

page_294

page_295

page_296

page_297

page_298

page_299

page_300

page_301

page_302

page_303

page_304

page_305

page_306

page_307

page_308

page_309

page_310

page_311

page_312

page_313

page_314

page_315

page_316

page_317

page_318

page_319

page_320

page_321

page_322

page_323

page_324

page_325

page_326

page_327

page_328

page_329

page_330

page_331

page_332

page_333

page_334

page_335

page_336

page_337

page_338

page_339

page_340

page_341

page_342

page_343

page_344

page_345

page_346

page_347

page_348

page_349

page_350

page_351

page_352

page_353

page_354

page_355

page_356

page_357

page_359

page_360

page_361

page_361-0

page_363

page_364

page_365