PROLEGOMENA.
I.--CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
CHAPTER I. LIFE (1) § I. Early Years.
The Emperor Flavius Valerius Constantinus, surnamed
the Great, (2) born February 27, 272 or 274, (3 at Naissus, (4) was son
of Constantius Chlorus, afterwards Emperor, (5) and Helena his wife. (6)
He was brought up at Drepanum, his mother's home, (7) where he remained
until his father became
412
Caesar (A.D. 292 acc. to Clinton) and divorced Helena (Anon. Vales. p.
471). He was then sent to the court of Diocletian, nominally to be
educated (Praxagoras, in Mailer, Fragm. 4 (1868); Zonar. 13. 1,
&c.), but really as hostage, (1) and remained with Diocletian, or
Galerius, until the year 306. (2) During this time he took part in
various campaigns, including the famous Egyptian expedition of
Diocletian in 296 (Euseb. V. C. 1. 19; Anon. Metroph., Theoph. p. 10).
(3) Shortly after joining the emperor he contracted (296 or 297) his
alliance with Minervina, (4) by whom he had a son, Crispus. (5) He was
at Nicomedia when Diocletian's palace was struck by lightning (Const.
Orat. 35), and was present at the abdication of Diocletian and Maximinus
in 305 (Lact. De M.P.c. 18 sq.). This last event proved a crisis for
Constantine. He had grown to be a man of fine physique (Lact. c. 18;
Euseb. V. C. 1. 19), of proved courage and military skill (cf. remarks
on physical characteristics under Character), and a general favorite
(Lact. 1.c.). He had already "long before" (Lact. c. 18) been created
Tribune of the first order. It was both natural and fitting that at
this time he should become Caesar in the place of his father, who
became. Augustus. Every one supposed he would be chosen (c. 19), and
Diocletian urged it (c. 18), but the princely youth was too able and
illustrious to please Galerius, and Constantine was set aside for
obscure, and incompetent men (cf. Lact.). His position was far from
easy before. His brilliant parts naturally aroused the jealousy and
suspicions of the emperors. They, or at least Galerius, even sought his
death, it is said, by tempting him to fight wild beasts (a lion, Praxag.
p. 3; cf. Zonaras 2, p. 623), or exposing him to special danger in
battle (cf. Philistog. 1. 6; Lact. c. 24; Anon. Vales. p. 471;
Theophanes p. 10--12, &c.). The situation, hard enough before, now
became, we may well believe, intolerable. He was humiliated,
handicapped, and even in danger of his life. He was practically a
prisoner. The problem was, how to get away. Several times Constantius
asked that his son might be allowed to join him, but in vain (Lact. c.
24; Anon. Vales. p. 471). Finally, however, Constantine gained a
grudging permission to go. It was given at night, and the emperor
intended to take it back in the morning (Lact. c. 24). But in the
morning it was too late. Constantine had left at once to join his
father. He lost no time either in starting or making the journey. Each
relay of post horses which he left was maimed to baffle pursuit (Anon.
Vales., Vict. Epit. p. 49; cf. Lact. c. 24, Praxag. p. 3). The rage of
the emperor when he learned of the flight was great but vain.
Constantine was already out of reach, and soon joined his father at
Bononia (Boulogne, Anon. Vales.; cf. Eumen. Paneg. (310), c. 7), (6)
just in time to accompany him on his final expeditions to Britain
(Eumen. Paneg. (310) c. 7; cf. Anon. Vales. 1.c.). Constantius died
shortly after at York (Anon. Vales. p. 471; Eutrop. 10. 1), having named
Constantine as his successor (Euseb. V. C. 1. 21; Eumen. Paneg. (310)
c. 7.; Lact. c. 24).
413
§ 5. The First Five Years of Reign.
The will of the father was promptly ratified by the
soldiers, who at once proclaimed Constantine Augustus. (1) Supported by
them, and also by Erocus, king of the Allemanni (Vict. p. 49-50), he
sent his portrait to Galerius, claiming the title of Augustus. This the
emperor refused to grant, but, much against his will, allowed him to
have the title of Caesar (Lact. c.
Constantine did not insist on his fight to the greater title, but
waited his time, and in the interim contented himself with the lesser,--
as the coins show. (2) There was enough to do. After his father's death
he waged war against the Francs, and later against the Bructeri and
others (Eutrop. 10. 3; Paneg. (307) c. 4; Eumen. Paneg. (310) cc.
10-12; Nazar. Paneg. (321) 18; Euseb. V. C. 1. 25, &c.; cf. Inscr.
ap. Clinton 2. 93), and celebrated his victories by exposing his
captives to the wild beasts (Eutrop. 10. 3; Eumen. Paneg. (310)
c. 12; Paneg. (313) c. 23; cf. Nazar. Paneg. (321) c. 16).
Meanwhile affairs were marching at Rome, too. The
same year (306) that Constantine was elected Augustus by the soldiers,
Maxentius at Rome was proclaimed emperor by the Pretorian Guards
(Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Caes. p. 156; Anon. Vales. p. 472; Zos. 2. 9 ;
Socr. 1. 2; Oros. c. 26, &c. ; Lact. c. 26). He persuaded the
willing (Eutrop. 10. 2) Maximian to resume the imperial purple (Lact. c.
26; Zos. 2. 10), but soon quarreled with him (Socr. 1. 2; Eutrop. 10.
3; Zos.
11; Lact. c. 28). (3) In 307 Constantine and Maximinus were named "sons
of the emperors," and the following year were reluctantly acknowledged
as emperors by Galerius. Maximian, after he had quarreled with his son,
betook himself to Gaul and made alliance with Constantine by giving his
daughter Fausta in marriage (307). He proved an uncomfortable relative.
The much-abused mother-in-law of fiction is not to be compared with this
choice father-in-law of history. First he tried to supersede
Constantine by corrupting his soldiers. At his persuasion Constantine
had left behind the bulk of his army while he made a campaign on the
frontier. As soon as he was supposably out of the way, the soldiers were
won by largesses, and Maximian assumed the purple again. But he had
reckoned without his host. Constantine acted with decisive promptness,
returned by such rapid marches that he caught Maximian entirely
unprepared (Lact. c. 29) and drove him into Marseilles, where the
latter cursed him vigorously from the walls (Lact. c. 29), but was able
to offer no more tangible resistance. The gates were thrown open (Lact.
c. 29), and Maximian was in the power of Constantine, who this time
spared his precious father-in-law. (4) Grateful for this mildness,
Maximian then plotted to murder him. The plan was for Fausta to leave
her husband's door open and for Maximian to enter and kill Constantine
with his own hands. Fausta pretended to agree, but told her husband
(Zos. 2. 11 ; Joh. Ant. p. 603; Oros. c. 28), who put a slave in his own
place (but apparently did not "put himself in the place of" the slave),
had the program been carried out, and catching Maximian in the act,
granted him that supreme ancient mercy, -- the right to choose how he
would die (Lact. c. 30). (5)
Though in the midst of wars and plots, and liable at
any time to have to run from one end of his province to the other to put
down some insurrection, Constantine kept steadily at the work of
internal improvement, organizing the interior, fortifying the
boundaries, building bridges, restor-
414
ing cities, building up educational institutions, &c. (1) At the
end of five years' reign (July 24, 311) he had reduced the turbulent
tribes, organized his affairs, and endeared himself to his people,
especially to the Christians, whom he had favored from the first (Lact.
c. 24), and who could hardly fail in those days of persecution to
rejoice in a policy such as is indicated in his letter to Maximinus Daza
in behalf of persecuted Christians (Lact, c. 37).
§ 3. State of Affairs in 311.
In the meantime, while the extreme west of the
empire was enjoying the mild rule of Constantine, the other corners of
the now quadrangular and now hexagonal world, over which during this
time Maximinus, Galerius, Licinius, Maximian, and Maxentius had tried to
reign, had had a much less comfortable time. Every emperor wanted a
corner to himself, and, having his corner, wanted that of some one else
or feared that some one else wanted his. In order clearly to understand
Constantine, a glimpse of the state of affairs in these other parts of
the empire, together with some idea of the kind of men with whom he had
to deal is essential, and may be gotten from
a brief view of (1) The rulers,
(2) Characters of the rulers, (3) Condition of the ruled. (1) The Rulers.
The intricate process of evolution and devolution of
emperors, mysterious to the uninitiated as a Chinese puzzle, is briefly
as follows: In 305 Diocletian and Maximian had abdicated (Lact. c. 18;
Eutrop. 9. 27; Vict. Caes.), Galerius and Constantius succeeding as
Augusti and Severus, Maximinus Daza succeeding them as Caesars (Lact. c.
19). In 306 Constantius died, Constantine was proclaimed Augustus by
his army, Maxentius by the Pretorian Guards (cf. above), and Severus by
Galerius (Lact. c. 25), while Maximian resumed the purple (see
above)--four emperors, Galerius, Severus, Maximian, and Maxentius, with
two Caesars, Constantine and Maximinus, one with a pretty definite claim
to the purple, and the other bound not to be left out in the cold. In
307 Licinius was appointed Augustus by Galerius (Lact. c. 29; Vict.
Caes.; Zos. 2. 11; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 4), who also threw a sop
to Cerberus by naming Constantine and Maximin "sons of emperors" (Lact.
c. 32; Coins in Eckhel 8 (1838) 52. 3). Constantine was given title of
Augustus by Maximianus (?), and Maximinus about this time was forced,
as he said, by his army to assume the title. Meantime the growing
procession of emperors was reduced by one. Severus, sent against
Maxentius, was deserted by his soldiers, captured, and slain in 307
(Lact. c. 26; Zos. 2. 10; Anon. Vales.; Eutrop. 10. 2; Vict. Caes.
&c. &c.), leaving still six emperors or claimants,-- Galerius,
Licinius, Maxentius, Maximian, Maximinus, and Constantine. In 308,
making the best of a bad matter, Galerius appointed Constantine and
Maximin Augusti (see above), leaving the situation unchanged, and so it
remained until the death of Maximian in 310 (see above), and of Galerius
in May, 311 (Lact. c. 33; Vict. Caes., Vict. Epit.;
Zos. 2. 11) reduced the number to
four. (2) Characters of the Rulers.
Constantine's own character has been hinted at and
will be studied later. Severus was the least significant of the others,
having a brief reign and being little mentioned by historians.
Diocletian's characterization of him was, according to Lactantius (c.
18), as ejaculated to Galerius, "That dancing, carousing drunkard who
turns night into day and day into night." The average character of the
other emperors was that of the prisoners for life in our modern state
prisons. Galerius, "that pernicious wild beast" (Lact. c. 25), was
uneducated, drunken (Anon. Vales. p. 472); fond of boasting himself to
be the illegitimate son of a dragon (Lact. 9; Vict. Epit. p. 49), and
sanguinary and ferocious to an extraordinary degree (Lact. c. 9. 21, 22,
&c.). Licinius, characterized by "ingratitude" and "cold-blooded
ferocity," was "not only totally
415
indifferent to human life and suffering, and regardless of any
principle of law or justice which might interfere with the gratification
of his passions, but he was systematically treacherous and cruel,
possessed of not one redeeming quality save physical courage and
military skill" (Ramsay, in Smith Dict. 2, p. 784; compare Euseb. H. E.
10. 8; V. C. 1. 49-56), and "in avaricious cupidity worst of all"
(Vict. Epit. p. 51). Maximinus' character "stands forth as pre-eminent
for brutal licentiousness and ferocious cruelty--'lust hard by hate' "
(Plumptre, in Smith & W. 3, p. 872), and according to Lactantius, c.
38, "that which distinguished his character and in which he transcended
all former emperors was his desire of debauching women," He was cruel,
superstitious, gluttonous, rapacious, and "so addicted to intoxication
that in his drunken frolics he was frequently deranged and deprived of
his reason like a madman" (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14). Maximianus has been
thought to be on the whole the least outrageous, and his somewhat
defective moral sense respecting treachery and murder has been noted
(cf. above). He has been described as "thoroughly unprincipled . . .
base and cruel" (Ramsay, in Smith Dict. 2, p. 981). He is described by
Victor, (Epit. p. 48) as "ferus natura, ardens libidine," being
addicted to extraordinary and unnatural lust (Lact. c. 8). Truly a
choice "best" in this rogues' gallery. Of Maxentius it is said
(Tyrwhitt, in Smith & W. 3, p. 865): "His wickedness seems to have
transcended description, and to have been absolutely unredeemed by any
saving feature." He "left no impurity or licentiousness untouched"
(Euseb. H. E. 8. 14; cf. Eutrop. 10. 4; Lact. 9). He was marked by
"impiety," "cruelty," "lust," and tyranny (Paneg. [313] c. 4). He was
the most disreputable of all,-- unmitigatedly disreputable. With all due
allowance for the prejudice of Christian historians, from whom such
strong statements are mainly drawn, yet enough of the details are
confirmed by Victor, .Epit., the Panegyrists, Eutropius, and other
non-Christian writers to verify the substantial facts of the ferocity,
drunkenness, lust, covetousness, and oppression of this precious galaxy
of rulers.
(3) Condition of the Ruled.
Under such rulers there was a reign of terror during
this period which contrasted strangely with the state of things under
Constantine. Galerius was "driving the empire wild with his taxations"
(cf. Lact. c. 23 and 26), affording in this also a marked contrast with
the course of Constantine in Gaul. Maxentius led in the unbridled
exercise of passion (Euseb. H. E. 8. 14; cf. Lact, c. 18), but in this
he differed from the others little except in degree (compare Euseb. V.
C. 1. 55 on Licinius), and according to Lactantius (c. 28) he was
surpassed by Maximin. In brief, all did according to their own sweet
wills, and the people had to stand it as best they could. The worst was
that the oppression did not end with the emperors nor the friends and
officials to whom they delegated power to satisfy their desires at the
expense of the helpless. Their armies were necessary to them. The
soldiers had to be conciliated and exactions made to meet their demands.
They followed the examples of their royal leaders in all manner of
excesses and oppressions. No property or life or honor was safe.
The persecution of the Christians reached a climax
of horror in this period. The beginning of the tenth persecution was, to
be sure, a little before this (303), but its main terror was in this
time. Galerius and Maximian are said indeed to have persecuted less
during this period, and Maxentius not at all; but Galerius was the real
author and sanguinary promoter of the persecution which is ascribed to
Diocletian (Lact. c. 11), while Maximian was, in 304, the author of the
celebrated "Fourth Edict" which made death the penalty of Christianity,
and Maxentius was only better because impartial--he persecuted both
Christian and heathen (Euseb. V. C. 1. 33-6; H. E. 8. 14; Eutrop. 10.
4). (1) The persecution under Maximin was of peculiar atrocity (Euseb.
H. E. 8. 17; 9. 6, &c.; Lact. c. 26-27), so that the whole of this
period in the East, excepting a slight breathing space in 308, was a
terror to Christians, and it is said that "these two years were the most
prolific of bloodshed of any in the whole history of Roman persecu-
416
tions" (Marriott, in Smith & W. 2, p. 594. It was not until the
very end of this period (1) that Galerius, in terror of death, issued
the famous first edict of toleration. (2) Such was the condition of
things in July, 311. The deaths of Severus in 307, Maximian in 310, and
Galerius in 311, had cleared the stage so far as to leave but four
Augusti, Licinius and Maximin in the East, Constantine and Maxentius in
the West. The only well-ordered and contented section of the world was
that of Constantine. In all the others there was oppression, excess, and
discontent, the state of things at Rome being on the whole the most
outrageous.
§ 4. Second Five Years.
This period was most momentous for the world's
history. Maxentius, seeking an excuse for war against Constantine, found
it in a pretended desire to avenge his father (Zos. 2. 14), and
prepared for war. (3) Like his father before him, however, he did not
know his man. Constantine's mind was prepared. He was alert and ready to
act. He gathered all the forces, German, Gallic, and British (Zos. 2.
15) that he could muster, left a portion for the protection of the
Rhine, entered Italy by way of the Alps (Paneg.), and marched to meet
the much more numerous forces of Maxentius,--Romans, Italians, Tuscans,
Carthagenians, and Sicilians (Zos. 2. 15). (4) First Sigusium was taken
by storm (Naz. Paneg. [321] C. 17 and 21; Paneg. [313] c. 5); then the
cavalry of Maxentius was defeated at Turin (Naz. Paneg. [321] c. 22;
Paneg. [313] c. 6). After a few days' rest in Milan Paneg. [313] c. 7)
he continued his triumphant march, defeating the enemy again in a
cavalry engagement at Brescia (Naz. Paneg. c. 25), and taking the
strongly fortified Verona after a hard-fought battle before the walls
(Anon. Vales. p. 473; Paneg. [313]; Naz. Paneg. c. 25-26). This had
taken him out of his way a little; but now there were no enemies in the
rear, and he was free to push on to Rome, on his way whither, if not
earlier, he had his famous vision of the cross. (5) He reached the Tiber
October 26. Maxentius, tempted by a dubious oracle (6) issued from
Rome, crossed the Tiber, and joined battle. His apparently unwise
action in staking so much on a pitched battle has its explanation, if we
could believe Zosimus
(2. 15), Eusebius ( V. C. 1. 38), Praxagoras, and others. His object
was, it is said, by a feigned retreat to tempt Constantine across the
bridge of boats which he had built in such a way that it could be
broken, and the enemy let into the river. (7) If it was a trick, he at
least fell into his own pit. The dissipated soldiers of Maxentius gave
way before the hardy followers of Constantine, fired by his own energy
and the sight of the cross. The defeat was a rout. The bridge broke.
Maxentius, caught in the jam, was cast headlong into the river (Anon.
Val. p. 473; Lact. c. 44; Chron. Pasch. p. 521, &c.); and after a
vain attempt to climb out on the steep bank opposite (Paneg. [313] c.
17), was swept away by the stream. The next day his body was found, the
head cut off (Praxag.; Anon. Vales. p. 473), and carried into the city
(Anon. Vales. p. 473) on the point of a spear (Paneg. [313] c. 18; Zos.
2. 17; Praxag. p. 1). Constantine entered the city
417
in triumph amid rejoicings of the people, (1) exacted penalties from a
few of those most intimate with Maxentius (Zos. 2. 17), (2) disbanded
the Praetorian Guards (Vict. Caes. p. 159; Zos. 2. 17), raised a statue
to himself, and did many other things which are recorded; and if he did
as many things which are not recorded as there are recorded things which
he did not do, he must have been very busy in the short time he
remained there. (3)
Constantine was now sole emperor in the West, and
the emperors were reduced to three. History was making fast. After a
very brief stay in Rome he returned to Milan (Lact. c. 45), where
Licinius met him (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Lact. c. 25; Vict. Epit. p. 50;
Zos. 2. 17, &c.). It had become of mutual advantage to these
emperors to join alliance. So a betrothal had been made, and now the
marriage of Licinius to the sister of Constantine was celebrated (cf.
refs. above Lact.; Vict.; Zos.; Anon. Vales.). At the same time the
famous Second Edict or Edict of Milan was drawn up by the two emperors
(Euseb. H. E. 10. 5; Lact. c. 48), and probably proclaimed. (4)
Constantine then returned to Gaul (Anon. Vales. p. 473; Zos. 11. 17),
where he was forced into another sort of strenuous warfare-- the
ecclesiastical, taking a hand somewhat against his will in trying to
settle the famous Donatist schism. (5)
Licinius had a more critical problem to meet.
Maximin thought it a good time to strike while Licinius was off in Milan
engaged in festivities (Lact. c. 45); but the latter, hastily gathering
his troops and pushing on by forced marches, met near Heraclea and
utterly defeated him (Lact. c. 46). Maximin fled precipitately,
escaping the sword only to die a more terrible death that same summer
(Lact. c. 49; Euseb. V. C. 1. 58; cf. Zos. 2. 17). (6) The death of
Maximin cleared the field still farther. Through progressive
subtractions the number of emperors had been reduced to two, -- one in
the East and one in the West.
They, too, promptly fell out. The next year they
were at war. Causes and pretexts were various; but the pretext, if not
the cause, was in general that Licinius proved an accomplice after the
fact, at least, to a plot against Constantine. (7) Whatever the
immediate cause, it was one of
418
the inevitabilities of fate. Another vigorous campaign followed,
characterized by the same decisive action and personal courage on the
part of Constantine which he had already shown, and which supplied his
lack of soldiers. (1) First at Cibalis in Pannonia (Oct. 8), (2)
then in a desperate battle at Mardia, Licinius was defeated and forced
to make peace (Anon. Vales. p. 474; Zos. a. 19-20). The world was
re-divided between the affectionate brothers-in-law, and Constantine
took Illyrium to his other possessions. (3) After this battle and the
re-division there was a truce between the emperors for some years,
during the early part of which (in 316 or 315) the Decennalia of
Constantine were celebrated (Euseb. V. C. 1. 48).
§ 5. Third Five Years.
About the time of his decennial celebration, (4) his
sons Crispus and Constantine, and Licinius, son of Licinius, were made
Caesars. The peace between the emperors continued during the whole of
this period. There was more or less fighting with the frontier tribes,
Crispus, e.g., defeating the Franks in 320 (Naz. Paneg. c. 3. 17?), but
the main interest of the period does not lie in its wars. It was a
period of legislation and internal improvement (cf. Laws of
319, 320, 321, collected in Clinton, 1, p. 9; also De Broglie, I. 1,
296-97). Early in the period he was at Milan, where the Donatist matter,
which had been dragging along since 311, came up for final settlement
(cf. note, above). He was also at one time or another at Aries and at
Rome, but the latter and greater part of the period was spent mainly in
Dacia and Pannonia (cf. Laws, as above). The close of his fifteen years
was celebrated somewhat prematurely at Rome, in the absence of
Constantine, by the oration of Nazarius (cf. Naz. Paneg.).
§ 6. Fourth Five Years.
If the third period was relatively quiet the fourth
was absolutely stirring. There had undoubtedly been more or less
fighting along the Danube frontier during the preceding years, but early
in this period there was a most important campaign against the
Sarmatians, in which they were defeated and their king taken prisoner.
(5) In honor of this victory coins were struck (Eckhel, Doct. Num. Vet.
8 (1827) 87). But this was only skirmishing; afterwards came the tug of
war. Nine years of peace proved the utmost limit of mutual patience, and
Constantine and Licinius came to words, and from words to blows. For a
long time Constantine had been vexed at the persecution of the
Christians by Licinius (cf. Euseb. H. E. 10. 8, 9), persecutions waged
perhaps with the express purpose of aggravating him. (6) Licinius, on
the other hand, naturally chagrined over the previous loss of territory,
knowing of Constantine's indignation over his persecutions, and perhaps
suspecting him of further designs, was naturally suspicious when
Constantine passed within his boundaries in pursuing the Sarmatians
(Anon. Vales. p. 474). Mutual recriminations and aggravations followed.
Licinius would not let the Sarmatian coins pass current and had them
melted down (Anon. Contin. Dio. Cass., in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr.
4 [1868] 199). Altogether they soon came to blows. The steps were
short, sharp, decisive. Constantine defeated Licinius by land (July 3,
323), and through Crispus, by sea (Soz. 1. 7; Anon. Vales. p. 474-5;
Zos. 2. 22-3). After the defeat at Adrianople, Licinius retreated to
Byzantium (Zos. 2. 23-5; Vict.
419
Epit. p. 50), and then to Chalcedon (Anon. Vales. p. 475, Zos. 2.
25-6). Two months after the first victory (Sept. 18) a final and
decisive battle was fought at Chrysopolis (1) (Anon. Vales.
p. 475; Socr. 1. 4). Licinius surrendered on condition that his life
should be spared (Zos.
28), or rather Constantia secured from her brother the promise that his
life should be spared (Anon. Vales. p. 475; Vict. Epit. p. 50;
Pseudo-Leo, p. 85, &c.). He retired to Nicomedia, residing at
Thessalonica (Soz. 1. 7; Pseudo-Leo, &c.), but was put to death the
following year. (2) Constantine was now sole emperor. His first act
(Soz. 1. 8) was to issue a proclamation-in favor of the Christians (Soz.
l.c.; F. C. 2. 24- , and 48- ). This was followed by many other acts in
their favor, --building of churches, &c. (cf. Euseb. V. C., and
notes). From this time on he was much identified with Christian
affairs, and the main events are given in extenso by Eusebius (see
various notes). In 325 (June 19-Aug. 25) the Council of Nicaea was held
(cf. Euseb. V. C. 3. 6, and notes), and Constantine took an active part
in its proceedings. The same year his Vicennalia were celebrated at
Nicomedia (Euseb. V. C. 1. 1; Hieron.; Cassiod.) and the following year
at Rome also (Hieron., Cassiod., Prosper, Idat.), Constantine being
present at both celebrations, (3) being thus at Rome in July, and
passing during the year as far as Arles, apparently spending some time
at Milan (cf. the various laws in Clinton, v.
§ 7. Fifth Five Years.
The beginning of this period was the beginning of
the series of acts which have taken most from the reputation of
Constantine. Sometime in 326, perhaps while at Rome, he ordered the
death of his son Crispus. (4) The same year (Hieron. Chron.) the Caesar
Licinius, his sister's son, was put to death (Eutrop. 10. 6; Hieron.;
Prosper.), and shortly after (5) his wife Fausta died or was put to
death. (6) But apart from this shadow, the period was hardly less
brilliant, in its way, than preceding ones. It was a time of gigantic
and, as some said, extravagant internal improvements. Among various
enterprises was the refounding, in 327, of Drepanum, his mother's city,
as Helenopolis (Hieron. An. 2343; Chron. Pasch. p. 283(?); Socr. H. E.
1. 18; Soz. 2. 2; Theoph. p. 41), and greatest of all, the
transformation of the insignificant Byzantium into the magnificent
Constantinople, (7) which was dedicated in 330 (Idatius; Chron. Pasch.
p. 285; Hesych. § 42; Hieron.; cf. Clinton). (8) It was probably
during this period, too, that the work of improvement in Jerusalem was
undertaken, and Helena made her famous visit thither (Euseb. V. C. 3.
42; Soz. 21; Socr. 1. 17; Ephraem. p. 24: Theoph. 37-8, &c.).
§ 8. Sixth Five Years.
The main event of the last full five-year period of
this reign was the Gothic war (Hieron. An. 2347; Idat.; Oros. c. 28;
Anon. Vales. p. 476; Eutrop. 10. 7; Vict. Caes. p. 352; cf. Soz. 1. 26),
undertaken in behalf of the Sarmatians (Anon. Vales. l.c.), carried on
by Constantine II., and brought to an end April 20, 332 (cf. Clinton).
The following year (333) Constans was
420
made consul (Idat.; Hieron.; Prosper has 332; cf. Zos. 2. 35; Vict.
Caes. p. 161, &c.), and in
334 the remarkable (Anon. Vales.) incorporation of 300,000 Sarmatians
into the empire (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Idat.; Hieron.; cf. Ammian. 17.
12, 18; 17. 13; 19. 12; V. C. 4. 6). This same year Calocaerus revolted
in Crete and was defeated (Anon. Vales. p. 476; Vict. Caes. p. 161;
Oros. c. 28; Hieron.). The following year (335) Constantine celebrated
his tricennalia, and Dalmatius was made Caesar (Idat.; Hieron. An. 340;
Vict. Caes. p. 161; Anon. Vales. p. 476; Chron. Pasch. p. 532; Vict.
Epit. p. 51; Oros. c. 28), making now four Caesars and a nondescript
(cf. Anon. Vales. p. 476),-- Constantine II., Constantius, Constans,
Dalmatius, and Hannibalianus, among whom the world was now partitioned
(Anon. Vales. p. 476; Zos. 2. 39; Vict. Epit. p. 52).
§ 9. Last Years.
Later in this year, Constantine is known to have
been at Jerusalem, where he dedicated a church (V. C. 4. 40; Chron.
Pasch., but wrong year). It was also the year of the Synods of Tyre
(Athanas. c. Ar. 1. p. 788; V. C. 4.41; Theod. 1. 28). The same year, or
early in the following one, Eusebius pronounced his tricennial oration
(see Special Prolegomena). In 337 the Great Emperor died at Ancyrona,
near Nicomedia, just as he was preparing for an expedition against the
Persians, and was buffed in the Church of the Apostles, at
Constantinople (cf. notes on Eusebius' Life of Constantine). (1)
CHAPTER II. CHARACTER. § 1. Introduction.
A man's character consists of an inherited
personality enlarged, modified, or disfigured by his own repeated
voluntary acts. A sufficiently exhaustive survey of such character may
be made under the rubrics of: 1. Inherited characteristics. 2. Physical
characteristics. 3. Mental characteristics. 4. Moral characteristics. 5.
Religious characteristics.
The character of Constantine has been so endlessly
treated, with such utter lack of agreement, that it seems hopeless to
try to reach any dear results in a study of it. "Who shall decide when
doctors disagree?" "How shall I go about it to find what sort of a man
Constantine really was ?" Certainly nothing can be gained by that method
which chooses a few acts or characteristics to which shifting tests of
various philosophies are applied. Nor can any haphazard selection and
stringing together of traits give what is by its nature a synthesis of
them all. Like any other scientific study, the first condition of
method is that it be systematic. Then, a character generalization is
worth just so much, no more, as the grounds on which it is based. To
get a man's character from secondary sources, from other men's
generalizations, is a hopelessly will-of-the-wisp effort. Again,
another vice of characterization as usually practised is the
interpretation of the whole by a part rather than the part by the whole.
The individual act is thus made the standard of character. To get at
what this personality called Constantine was therefore requires a
systematic survey of the primary sources with a view to getting the
ensemble that the eccentric may be judged by the normal. In such survey
the main thing is the body of analyzed and grouped facts. The editor's
summary, like any summary, is worth only what the facts are worth. This
method, however imperfectly carried out, is at least better than
rambling observations of incoherent phenomena; and has therefore been
adopted in this attempt to find out what sort of a man this Constantine
was; Physically, Mentally, Morally, Spiritually.
421
§ 2. Inherited Characteristics.
The fact of the inheritance of character, virtues or
vices as the case may be, curiously recognized in various nations and
ancient philosophies (cf. Ribot. Heredity, N.Y. 1875, p. 375-6), and
even in the ten commandments, has received the clearer exposition of
modern science. In view of it, a scientific study of character considers
antecedent generations. Biography rests properly on genealogy.
Constantine's father, Constantius Chlorus, was a man of great mildness,
self-possession, and philosophic virtue, just, and a Neo-Platonist of
the best type, a monotheist and philanthropist (cf. Sinclair, in Smith
& W. 1. 661-2). Constantine is said to have inherited his father's
strength, courage, personal appearance (Eumen. Paneg. c. 4), piety
(Pseud.Leo, p. 83; cf. Const. and Euseb. in V. C. 2. 49), and general
virtues. The slur of Zosimus on the character of Constantine's mother
seems to have been quite gratuitous. Her relation to Constantius was in
nowise incompatible with virtue, and the honor afterwards paid her,
along with the indisputable good early training of Constantine which
was with her, indicate a woman of unusual character. The later
enterprise and activity with the honors and responsibilities given her
show her to have been of very considerable energy and ability.
§ 3. Physical Characteristics.
A graphic picture of his personal appearance is
drawn by Cedrenus (p. 472-3). "Constantinus Magnus was of medium height,
broad-shouldered, thick-necked, whence his epithet Bull-necked. His
complexion was ruddy, his hair neither thick nor crisp curling, his
beard scanty and not growing in many places, his nose slightly hooked,
and his eyes like the eyes of a lion. He was joyous of heart and most
cheery of countenance." (1) Many points in this description are
confirmed by others, some apparently contradicted. Taken in detail, his
Height was probably above medium. Over against this statement of
Cedrenus (p. 472) that he was of middle height is that of the earlier
Malalas (13. 1 ), who, while confirming the ruddiness of complexion,
characterizes him as tall, and the explicit testimony of Eusebius, that
among those with Diocletian "there was no one comparable with him for
height" (V. C. 1. 19), and likewise among those present at Nicaea ( V.
C. 3- 10). But a "thick-necked" form hardly belongs to the strictly
"tall" man, and a thick neck and broad shoulders would hardly belong to
a form of "distinguished comeliness," if it were short (Lact. c. 18). It
may be supposed therefore that he can be described as above medium
height. Moreover, there would naturally have been more mention of height
by Lactantius and Panegyrists if it had been very extraordinary. In
respect of Countenance he was undoubtedly handsome. The "majestic
beauty of his face" mentioned by Theophanes (p. 29; cf. V. C. 1. 19; 3.
10) is confirmed by suggestions in the Panegyrists (e.g. Eumen. c. 17;
Naz. c. 24), and all general testimony, and not belied by the coins. His
Complexion was ruddy; "reddish" in the expression of Cedrenus (p. 272),
"fiery" in that of Malalas (13. 1). His Hair, rather thin and straight,
scanty Beard, and "slightly hooked" Nose are shown also by the coins,
where the nose varies from a pronounced Roman or ungraceful eagle's
beak to a very proportionate, slightly aquiline member. His Eyes were
lion-like (Cedren.), piercingly bright (Paneg. 313, c. 19; also
Eumen.). His Expression was bright and joyous (Cedren.), characterized
by "noble gravity mingled with hilarity" (Naz. Paneg. c. 24), by
"serenity" and "cheerfulness" (cf. Euseb. V. C. 3. 11 ). In brief, he
seems to have been a type of the sanguine temperament.
Added to his beauty of face was an unquestioned
beauty of form. His distinguished comeliness of Figure (Lact. c. 18) is
a favorite theme with his enthusiastic friend Eusebius, who says, "No
one was comparable with him for grace and beauty of person" (cf. Eumen.
c. 17; V. C. 1.
422
19; 3. 10), and that his figure was "manly and vigorous" (1. 20). The
broad Shoulders and thick Neck prepare one for the testimony to his
great bodily Strength. The feats of personal valor in combat with the
Sarmatian champions and the wild beasts (cf. above), his personal energy
in battle (e.g. before Verona; cf. above), much special testimony (e.g.
Eumen. Paneg. c. 4) and all the general testimony, show that the
superlative language of Eusebius is well grounded, and interpreted with
conservative imagination is to be taken as fact. According to him, "he
so far surpassed his compeers in personal strength as to be a terror to
them" (V. C. 1. 19), and in respect of Vigor of body was such that at
the Council of Nicaea his very beating showed that he surpassed all
present in "invincible strength and vigor"; while at the age of sixty
or upwards, "he still possessed a sound and vigorous body, free from
all blemish and of more than youthful vivacity; a noble mien and
strength equal to any exertion, so that he was able to join in martial
exercises, to ride, endure the fatigues of travel, engage in battle,"
&c. (Vict. 4. 53). In Bearing he was "manly" (V. C. 1. 20),
self-possessed, calm (V. C. 3. 11), dignified ("noble gravity," Naz. c.
24; of. Eumen. &c.), with "majestic dignity of mien" ( V. C. 3. 10)
and serenity ( V. C.
3. 10). In Manners he was "suave" (<greek>epieikhd</greek>)
( V. C. 3. 10) and "affable to all" ( V. C. 3. 13). This singular
affability was such, according to Lactantius (c. 18), as to endear him
greatly to his soldiers. Over against this, however, must be set the
statement of Victor, Epit. that he was "a scoffer [irrisor] rather than
suave [blandus]" (Vict. Epit. 51). But this seems rounded on a false
exegesis (cf. above) and withal there is no absolute contradiction.
Moreover, all his intercourse with bishops, deputies, soldiers,
citizens, barbarians, seems to have generally made a favorable
impression, and such success without affability of manner would have
been marvelous. In Dress his taste, late in life at least, became
somewhat gorgeous. If he were reigning to-day, the comic papers would
undoubtedly represent him, like some other good and great men, with
exaggerated red neckties and figured waistcoats. He "always wore a
diadem," according to Victor, Epit. (p. 51), and according to many
(Malal. 13. 7-8; Cedren.; Pseudo-Leo, &c.) "none of the emperors
before him" wore the diadem at all. Eusebius' description of his
appearance at the Council of Nicaea would do credit to a Washington
reporter on wedding-toilets; he was "clothed in raiment which glittered,
as it were, with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a
purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and
precious stones" (V. C. 3. 10).
§ 4. Mental Characteristics.
According to his biographer-friend, Constantine was
even more conspicuous for the excellence of his psychical qualities than
his physical ( V. C. 1. 19). Among these qualities are natural
intelligence ( V. C. 1. 19), sound judgment ( V. C. 1. 19),
well-disciplined power of thought (Theoph. p. 29), and peculiarly, as
might be expected from his eye and general energy, penetration (Theoph.
p. 29). In respect of Education, it is said on the one hand that he
"reaped the advantages of a liberal education" (V. C. 1. 19), and
particularly that he was thoroughly trained in the art of reasoning (V.
C.); but according to Anonymous Vales. (p. 471), and also Cedrenus (p.
473), his literary education was scanty. If there was early lack, he
made up for it afterwards with characteristic energy, for he attained
very considerable erudition (of a sort) for an emperor, as is shown in
his Oration. According to Eutropius he was devoted to liberal studies.
According to Lydus he was skilled both in the science of letters and the
science of arms; for "if he had not excelled in both sciences, he would
not have been made emperor of the Romans" (Lydus, de Magist. 3.33), --a
somewhat subjective ground. Such was his devotion to study that,
according to Eusebius (V. C. 4. 20), "he sometimes passed sleepless
nights in furnishing his mind with divine knowledge." The measure of
his thoroughness may be gathered from the fact that his knowledge of
Greek even, does not seem to have been very extensive --" with which he
was not altogether unacquainted" ( V. C. 3. 13). His learning, as shown
in his orations, is the learning of a man of affairs, and has many
elements of crudity and
423
consequent pretentiousness; but he is no worse than many authors--much
better than most royal authors.
His learning had at least the excellent quality that
it was radiated with reference to expression, as all sound learning must
be. According to Eusebius, much of his time was spent in composing
discourses, many of which he delivered in public (K C. 4. 29), and he
continued to the last to compose discourses and to deliver frequent
orations in public.
The description by Eusebius of the character of his
orations (V. C. 4. 24) seems to forbid any assumption of pure vanity as
his motive. It is the most natural thing in the world that an emperor
should make speeches, and that he should speak on scholastic or
religious themes, and with the use of classical philosophy, mythology,
and literature, should be no surprise in the days of President Harrison,
Mr. Gladstone, and the Emperor William. There is no doubt he wrote and
spoke vigorously and effectively to hi soldiers, and on political and
judicial matters (witness his laws), and his learned literary
production is very fair amateur work, considering. In the Delivery of
his speeches he seems to have had self-possession and modesty of
manner, as e.g. at the Council of Nicaea, where "he looked serenely
around on the assembly with a cheerful aspect, and having collected his
thoughts in a calm and gentle tone . . . proceeded to speak" (V. C. 3.
11). His Literary style was somewhat inflated and verbose, but for
this, compare Special Prolegamena. His Patronage of learning showed his
interest in it. Following his father's example and continuing his work,
he encouraged the schools in Gaul (cf. above). Hosius and Eusebius were
his friends and counselors. He made Lactantius tutor to Crispus
(Hieron. Chron.). He had copies of the Scriptures made and distributed
(V. C. 3. 1). In short, he especially "encouraged the study of letters"
(Vict. Epit. 51) in every way.
§ 5. Moral Characteristics.
(a) In relations with events, things, or persons.
First of all, Constantine excelled in Energy, that fundamental of all
developed character. He was pre-eminent for masculine strength of
character (Theoph. p. 29), a man of energy (vir ingens, Eutrop. 10. 1).
This was manifested at every turn, in his successful military activity
under Diocletian, in the decisive acts at the time of leaving him, in
the prosecution of campaigns against Maximian, Maxentius, Licinius, in
the wholesale way in which he pushed internal improve merits, the
building of Constantinople, the multiplication of Christian houses of
worship, in his studies, in his law-making; in short, in everything he
touched there was the same teeming, resistless energy of the man. His
Determination was "bent on effecting whatever he had settled in his
mind" (Eutrop. 10. 5). His Rapidity of action when he rejoined his
father is described by Lactantius as incredible (Lact. c. 24). He showed
the same alacrity in his quick return and surprise of Maximian, in his
first entry into Italy, and in his campaign against Licinius. This
energy and activity rose to positive Impetuosity, which led him at
Verona, before Rome, and at Cibalis to plunge into the midst of battle,
communicating his own resistless, indomitable, alert will to do, to his
soldiers. Closely linked with these qualities was that personal Courage
and Valor, inherited from his father (Paneg. 307, c. 3), mentioned by
Eusebius ( K C. 1. 11), and explicitly or implicitly by almost every
one. This most indubitable of all his qualities was witnessed to even by
the scoffing Julian as "inexpressibly" great (Oral. p. 13), and
mentioned even in the work whose chief aim seems, almost, to detract
from Constantine (Caes. p. 23). United with all these characteristics of
greatness was a far-reaching Ambition. This on the one hand is
represented to be an ambition for power and glory. He was "exceedingly
ambitious of military glory" (Eutrop. 10. 7); "aspiring to the
sovereignty of the whole world" (Eutrop. 10. 5). According to Zosimus,
at the time of the appointment of Severus and Maximin, already having
his mind set on attaining royalty he was roused to a greater desire by
the honor conferred on Severus and Maximin, and this eager desire of
power was already well known to many. On the other hand, this ambition
is represented to be a burning zeal for righting wrongs; his
424
wars against Maxentius and Licinius real crusades, and his actual
objective in all things the reform to be effected. If the fruit proves
the motive, this was so; for he consistently used or tried to use his
power for what he thought public good. This he did in Gaul, after his
victories, in his legislation, and in his internal improvements.
In view of all this powerfulness of personality, it
may be said of all successes of this "man of power" (Eutrop. 10. 5) what
Eutropius says of his success in war, that it was great, "but not more
than proportioned to his exertions" (Eutrop.). With all this energy of
personality, however, he was far from being headstrong. On the
contrary, he showed marked Prudence, resembling his father in this also
(Paneg. 307, c. 3). Sustaining so long the delicate position at the
court of Diocletian, all his provision for guarding the frontiers, his
long-suffering in waiting to be confirmed Caesar, in waiting his
opportunity to meet Maxentius, in waiting and getting everything in hand
before meeting Licinius, his wise moderation in demand on the
conquered, and the not pressing forward until he had everything well
arranged, show this, and a high degree of Patience withal. This latter
virtue was peculiarly characteristic whether exercised in respect of
things or plans or people, and his great patience in listening to
complaints (Naz. c. 24) is only a part of the whole. As he was patient,
so he was distinguished for Perseverance, and "firm and unshaken"
(Theoph. p. 29) Steadfastness. So great energy united with these other
qualities barely needs testimony to suggest great Faithfulness to his
tasks in hand, as in that "strict attention to his military duties"
which Lactantius says (c. 18) characterized him as a young man. In
brief, his whole personality was a marked example of that balance of
power and the measuring of remote ends which is included under the word
Self-control, in the use of the philosophy of which he, as well as his
father, was a disciple. In this exercise of his great energy towards
himself he was recognized to be remarkable. This self-control was
manifested especially in his unusual Chastity. As a young man he was
marked by correct moral habits (probis moribus, Lact. c. 18). The
specific testimony of Eusebius to this (V. C.) would have comparatively
little weight on a point like this, and the same might be said, in a
measure, of the testimony of the Panegyrists (Naz. c. 24; 207, c. 4;
313, c. 4), who mention this virtue. But panegyrical art would forbid
the laudation of what was conspicuously lacking; rather it would not be
mentioned, and the general testimony goes to show at least a
contemporary reputation for extraordinary continence, considering his
time and environment. His relationship with Minervina hardly touches
this reputation, whether she was wife or only legitimate concubine. The
accusations and innuendoes of Julian, Caesars, have, in any fairly
critical estimate, hardly more than the weight of some malignant gossip
whose backbiting is from his own heart. "Honi soit qui mat y pense."
Like Licinius, he seems to have been unable to understand that purity of
heart which permitted the free companionship of women in social or
religious life. Julian's general charge of luxuriousness and sensuousness
(P. 43, 306, 25, 38, 42, &c.) must be regarded largely in the same
light; for this delight in soft garments, precious gems, games, and
festivities was, if we can judge aright, in no sense "enervating
pleasure and voluptuous indulgence": for he was indefatigable in studies
and works of all sorts, although it is perhaps to be referred to the
vanity and love of display of which he is accused, and of which more
later.
(b) In relations with people. In general he was
Amiable,--popular with the soldiers, popular even with his subdued
enemies (Eutrop. 10. 7). Diocletian reminded Galerius (Lact. c. 18) that
he was "amiable," and he must have been so; for he was "loved by
soldiers" (Eumen. c. 16), and so "endeared to the troops" that in the
appointment of Caesar he was "the choice of every individual" (Lact. c.
18). This popularity he indeed "sought by every kind of liberality and
obligingness" (Eutr. 10. 7.), but what he sought he found.
A very large element in this popularity was the
universal Mildness, Mercifulness, and Forbear-once which he showed. In
these is found a class of characteristics which stand alongside his
energy of character as peculiarly characteristic and great. "He whose
familiar habit it was to save men's lives" (V. C. 4. 6), as a young man
promised, in the opinion of Diocletian
425
(Lact. c. 18), to be "milder and more merciful than his father." Even
in the opinion of Julian he was "far more humane
(<greek>praoUerou</greek>), and in very many other respects
superior to others, as I would demonstrate if there were opportunity"
(Julian, Orat. p. 15); and he again (p. 96) speaks of him in laudatory
terms as contrasted with the other emperors. Eusebius, as might be
expected, is still stronger in expression, and sets Constantine "in
contrast with tyrants who were stained with blood of countless numbers,"
saying that in Constantine's reign "the sword of justice lay idle," and
men were "rather constrained by a paternal authority than governed by
the stringent power of the laws" ( K C. 3. 1). This mercifulness he
manifested on every occasion. "When Sigusium was on fire," he directed
greater effort towards saving it than he had to capturing it (Naz.
Paneg. c. 21). At the taking of Rome he punished a certain few only of
those most intimate with Maxentius (Zos.), and even Zosimus notes the
great joy and relief of people at the exchange of Constantine for
Maxentius. It is noticeable that in the inscriptions the epithet
"clementissimus," most rare of other emperors, is found a considerable
number of times of him. So great was this mildness of conduct that he
was "generally blamed for his clemency" (V. C. 4. 31), on the ground
that crimes were not visited with their proper penalties. The testimony
to this humaneness of character is almost unlimited and conclusive, but
there is more or less evidence which is urged in qualification or
contradiction. It is rather a common thing to say that he was at first
mild, but later pride of prosperity caused him greatly to depart from
this former agreeable mildness of temper (Eutrop.). Then the execution
of the various members of his own family (cf. discussion below), the
exposure of prisoners to the wild beasts (Eumen. Paneg. c. 12), his
severe decree against those who should conceal copies of the works of
Arius (Socr. 1. 9), his treatment of the Jews (Greg. Niceph., or at
least his laws), and the severe penalties of some of his laws are among
the points brought against him. But the remark of Eutropius is to be
interpreted by the "former agreeable mildness of temper," to which he
himself witnesses, and the fact that this latter period was that where
the points of view of the two men had widely diverged. The exposure of
prisoners to wild beasts was no evidence of cruelty in itself; for
under the customs then prevailing it might have been cruelty to his
subjects not to have done this, and his treatment of the barbarian
enemies is rather to be interpreted in the light of the testimony of
Eutropius that he "left on the minds of the barbarians [Goths] a strong
remembrance of his kindness" (10. 7). His treatment of his family is
discussed elsewhere, but whatever its bearings may be, there is no just
historico-psychological ground whatever for the use of the word which
is so freely bandied,-cruelty. Cruel he was not in any sense. Even the
extreme of the Panegyrist who says to him, "you are such by inheritance
and destiny that you cannot be cruel" (Eumen. Paneg. c. 14), is nearer
the truth. The penalties of his laws lay him open in a degree to a
charge of growing severity; but it was great, if sometimes mistaken and
overzealous, regard for what he deemed the public welfare, and on quite
a different plane from anything which we express as cruelty. Though
with the growing conservatism of a man who finds his purposes of mercy
continually perverted and his indulgences abused, he yet remained to
the end of his life most merciful and mild compared with those who went
before and who followed.
This fact becomes more clear in seeing how he
excelled in kindred virtues. The Patience already mentioned,
distinguished forbearance, and undoubted benevolence, or at least
generosity, are traits which group with mercy and have no fellowship
with cruelty. And these he had. He showed distinguished Forbearance, and
that oftentimes, as in a disturbance at Antioch, where he "applied with
much forbearance the remedy of persuasion" (V. C. 3. 59). The
outrageous conduct of those who, in the Arian disturbances, dared "even
to insult the statues of the emperor . . . had little power to excite
his anger, but rather caused in him sorrow of spirit" (V. C.
3' 4), "and he endured with patience men who were exasperated against
himself." These words are by Eusebius, to be sure.; but his conduct with
Donatists, Arians, Maximinianus, and Licinius, in individual and on the
whole, show that in fact he did habitually exercise great forbearance.
'To this was added much activity of positive Kindness. On first
accession he "visited with much
426
considerate kindness all those provinces" (V. C. p. 23). This kindness
was shown throughout his reign, and brightly illustrated in his
treatment of the persecuted Christians from the beginning,--in his acts
in Gaul, in his famous toleration edict, in his letter to Maximin, and
in his acts throughout. After his victory over Maxentius came the edict
that those wrongfully deprived of their estates should be permitted to
enjoy them again, . . . unjustly exiled were recalled and freed from
imprisonment (Euseb. V. C. 1. 41). After the victory over Licinius he
recalled Christian exiles, ordered restitution of property, released
from labor in mines, from the solitude of islands, from toil in public
works, &c., those who had been oppressed in these ways (V. C. p.
70-71). There is strong concensus of testimony to a very lovable
habitual exercise of this trait in his "readiness to grant hearing,"
"patience in listening," and "kindness of response" to those whose
complaints he had patiently listened to (Naz. 24). He was most excellent
(commadissimus) to hear embassies and complaints of provinces (Vict.
Epit. p. 51),--a testimony which is borne out by the facts. His
Generosity is equally undoubted. His magnificent gifts and largesses to
the army were still remembered in the time of Julian (Oral. p. 13). His
constant and lavish giving to the Christians is Eusebius' unending
theme: but it was not to the churches alone; for we read of his
munificence to heathen tribes (V. C. 2. 22), his liberality to the poor
(V. C. 1. 43) in giving money for clothing, provision for orphans and
widows, marriage portions for virgins, compensation to losers in law
suits (V. C. 4. 4). It was "scarcely possible to be near him without
benefit" (V. C. I. 43; cf. V. C. 3. 16; 3. 22; 4. 44).
Though slow to serve some friends through suspicion
(i.e. dubius thus explained), he was" exceedingly generous towards
others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their riches and honors"
(Eutrop. 10. 7). "With royal magnificence he unlocked all his treasures
and distributed his gifts with rich and high-souled liberality" (V. C.
3. I). He seems to have carried it rather to excess, even on the showing
of Eusebius. "No one could request a favor of the emperor, and fail of
obtaining what he sought. . . . He devised new dignities, that he might
invest a larger number with the tokens of his favor" (V. C. 4. 2). It
is worth giving the account by Eusebius of this conduct in full here.
He says (V. C. 4. 54) that this "was a virtue, however, which subjected
him to censure from many, in consequence of the baseness of wicked men,
who ascribed their own crimes to the emperor's forbearance. In truth, I
can myself bear testimony to the grievous evils which prevailed during
those times: I mean the violence of rapacious and unprincipled men, who
preyed on all classes of society alike, and the scandalous hypocrisy of
those who crept into the church. . . . His own benevolence and goodness
of heart, the genuineness of his own faith, and his truthfulness of
character induced the emperor to credit the professions of those
reputed Christians who craftily preserved the semblance of sincere
affection for his person. The confidence he reposed in such men
sometimes forced him into conduct unworthy of himself, of which envy
took advantage to cloud in this respect the luster of his character."
There seems, therefore, some ground for the charge of prodigality, that
he "wasted public money in many useless buildings, some of which he
shortly after destroyed because they were not built to stand" (Zos.),
and (Zos. p. 104) "gave great largesses to ill-deserving persons,
mistaking profusion for munificence" (<greek>Uhu</greek>
<greek>gar</greek> <greek>aswtian</greek>
<greek>hUeito</greek>
<greek>filotimian</greek>). Zosimus adds that to do this, he
"imposed severe taxes on all, so severe that fathers were obliged to
prostitute their daughters to raise the money, that tortures were
employed, and in consequence whole villages depopulated." This testimony
is, however, by one bitterly prejudiced, who regarded money spent on
Christian houses of worship as worse than wasted, and indicates only
what appears from Eusebius as well, that expenditures for cities,
schools, and churches built, and for other matters, must have been
enormous. But so, too, they were enormous under other emperors, and
Constantine, at least, instead of spending on debauchery, seems to have
had something to show for it. As to taxes, Zosimus would undoubtedly
sympathize with the Kentucky moonshiners in their "oppression" by
revenue officers, if he were here now and Constantine were President,
and would fulminate in the dally papers against the wicked party which
by its wicked tariff compels men to marry
427
their daughters to rich husbands in order to get their taxes paid,--and
incidental luxuries supplied. But that does not say that an exorbitant
tariff, to supply "jobs" which shall furnish rich "spoils" for those who
have "pulls" out of the pockets of the many, is good; yet this, in
modern phrase, is about what Constantine did. Constantine's trust in his
friends and generosity to the unworthy, with its consequences on the
tax-payers, reminds strikingly of some of our own soldier-presidents,
whom we love and admire without approving all their acts. And yet, on
the other hand, much of the expenditure was for solid improvement, and
could only be criticised by those who now oppose expenditures for navy,
for improved postal service, public buildings, subsidies, &c.;
though yet, again, his wholesale way of doing things also reminds one
of the large generosity of some modern politicians in their race for
popularity, with their Pension, Education, River and Harbor, and what
not liberalities out of the pockets of the people. But whatever
unwisdom may have been mingled, all this profusion shows in him a
generosity of character which was at least amiable, and in the main
genuine. His generosity took also the form of Hospitality, as shown by
his entertainings at the Council of Nicaea (V. C. 4. 49). With all
these qualities of amiable popularity there seems to have been joined a
yet more fundamental element, of permanent influence among men, in a
spirit of Justice so marked that the claim of the Panegyrist is hardly
too sweeping when he says that "all who took/refuge with him for
whatever cause he treated justly and liberally" (Paneg. 307. 5)--if
there is added "up to his light and ability." Closely linked with this
again is that" Unbending righteousness" of which Theophanes (p. 29)
speaks. And to all these qualities was added that synthesis of
qualities,--a remarkable Tact in his intercourse with men, a trait
typically exemplified in his conduct at the Council of Nicaea, where
"the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and reviewed every
proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the
arguments of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most
vehement disputants to a reconciliation, . . . persuading some,
convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and
urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in
bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed
question" (V. C. 3. 13).
But success with men and popularity seem to have
opened that pitfall of success,--Vanity,-and it is charged that he fell
thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According
to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was "immeasurably greedy of praise." This
agrees with, and is at the same time modified by Eutropius' testimony to
his ambition for glory and for honorable popularity (10. 7), and his
apparently complacent reception of the outrageous flattery of Optatian
(cf. his letter), seems at least to show some weakness in this
direction. So again his tendency toward Magnificence, as shown in his
assuming the diadem and his dress in general (cf. above), in the
splendor of banquets as witnessed by his approving friend (V. C. 3. 15
), his desire to do on a large scale whatever he did, whether in the
building of cities or splendid houses of worship, or in book-binding
ornamentations of pearls and gems. And yet again it is shown in what
seems at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in
reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile
princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, "anticipating with
extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with
the apostles themselves. . . . He accordingly caused twelve coffins to
be set up in this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of
the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having
six of theirs on either side of it" (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read
in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that
Eunapius (Vic. aedes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in the
stimulant of "intoxicating flattery." Still it is not to be supposed
that this was a peculiarly weak vanity or an absorbing one. The
testimony to his Modesty (V. C. 3. 10), though by Eusebius, is too
circumstantial to be wholly unreal, and the testimony to his Humility in
his "indignation at excessive praise" (V. C. 4. 48), and the records of
Eusebius that he "was not rendered arrogant by these plaudits nor
uplifted by the praises" (Euseb. V. C. 1. 39), and of the Chronicon
Paschale (p. 521) that "he was not at all puffed up by the
acclamations," evidently represent a
428
genuine thing. This mixed character is too frequently met with to be
incomprehensible. Real power, recognizing its own success, glad of the
recognition of others, not at bottom because of cold vanity, but from
warm appreciation of human friendliness, became through success in
carrying out what seemed to him, and were, divine plans, fired with the
thought that he was the especial and necessary minister of God, that his
thoughts and will were directly touched by the Divine Will and thus
that whatever he thought or willed was infallible. He is not unlike some
modern rulers. The spirit, though one of real vanity, or egotism at
least, has an element of nobleness in it, and in most of its
manifestations commands respect along with the smile. The accusation of
Zosimus of Arrogance "when he had attained to the sole authority," and
that he "gave himself up to the unrestrained exercise of his power,"
must be interpreted like those of other un-Christian witnesses, in the
light of the fact that his actions worked relative hardships to the
non-Christians, and that very justice to the Christians would seem
injustice to them, and if Constantine was more than just, his generosity
was at some one's expense. His energy of execution and constant
success, with his dominating idea of a Divine mission, would naturally
engender this faith in his own infallibility; for what is arrogance but
this vanity joined with power? His action toward
schismatics--Donatists, Arians, or orthodox troublers of his peace--was
such as to suggest some degree of this vice. Yet his success in keeping
the followers of the old religion fairly mollified, and his generally
successful tact, showed that this was in no sense a dominating and
unrelieved characteristic. Two other weaknesses closely allied with
these are also imputed to Constantine: Jealousy, as illustrated by the
statement that "wishing to minimize the deeds of his predecessors, he
took pains to tarnish their virtues by giving them jocose epithets"
(Dion. Cont. 2 [Muller, p. 199]; cf. Vict. Epit. p. 51), and
Suspiciousness (Eutrop. 10. 7); for which latter, a man who had survived
as many plots as he had, might well be excused. Again and again and
again he trusted men, and they deceived him. His conduct with Maximian
shows that at least in the beginning, before he had had so much
experience of untrustworthiness, he was remarkably free from this. A
much more serious charge is that of Faithlessness preferred by Zosimus,
who says (2. 28), "in violation of his oaths (for this was customary
with him) "and twice repeats the charge. Eusebius, on the other hand,
tells what great pains Constantine took not to be the one to break
peace with Licinius (V. C.). One is worth as little as the other. The
charge seems to rest mainly or wholly on his conduct towards Licinius,
in beginning war and in putting him to death. A small boy once held a
smaller boy in a firm grip, but agreed to spare him the cuffing he
deserved because he was smaller. The smaller small boy promptly set his
teeth in the leg of the larger small boy, and was properly cuffed for
it. Thereupon the smaller small boy's big brother was filled with
indignation, which he manifested by seeking and finding the same fate.
The indignation in behalf of Licinius seems to be in large measure big
brother indignation--indignation with the wrong party. He appears to
have been one of those who held a compact to be binding on the other
party only. It wasn't in the bargain that he should persecute the
Christians, or in the other bargain that he should plot his
benefactor's overthrow. That king in Scripture who took back his
promise to forgive a debt of ten thousand talents was not faithless.
(c) In relations with his family. He was a filial
Son, having the confidence of his father, as shown in his wish of
succession, and showing his mother all honors when he came to power (cf.
coins showing her position as empress, and V.C.). "And well may his
character be styled blessed for his filial piety as well as on other
grounds" (V. C. 3. 47).
It is in this relation to his family, however, that
the most serious attacks on the character of Constantine have been made.
Eutropius says: "But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine greatly
to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first
upon his own relatives, he put to death his son, an excellent man; his
sister's son, a youth of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife;
and subsequently many of his friends." This has been a battle-ground of
accusation or excusation in all the centuries. The testimony is very
meagre and uncertain, but this much may be said: 1. That any jury would
regard the fact of deaths as evidenced. It is
429
witnessed by Eutrop. (10. 6), Zos., Vict., Hieron., &c. 2. That he
was unjustifiable is not proven. In respect to the death of Fausta, at
least, there was probably just cause; whether love intrigue or other
intrigue, there seems to have been some real occasion. The death of
Crispus, too, was from no mere suspicions, but on apparently definite
grounds of distrust. It is historical assumption to say that he had no
good grounds, whatever these may have been--illicit relationship with
Fausta or more probably political intrigue. At the worst, he was put to
death on false but, at the time, apparently true accusation: what has
been done by judges and juries of the best intention. (1) Of Licinius,
his sister's son, it can hardly be said that he had the same reason, as
he was still a boy. But remembering the inherited character of Licinius,
and noticing the curious fact that the cordiality between Constantia
and Constantine was peculiarly great to the end, it seems as if there
must have been some mitigating circumstance. (2) In all historical
candor it looks as if there had been some general intrigue against
Constantine which had been met in this way; but the fairest verdict to
enter is "causes unknown."
In estimating the characteristic value of the acts
it must be noted, (1). That it has in no sense the character of private
execution. The emperor was judge. Even if he mistook evidence and put to
death an innocent man, it was as when a judge does the same. 2. That
the relative moral character of punishments inflicted is conditioned by
the custom of punishment. An English judge of the past was not as cruel
in hanging a man for theft, as a modern one in applying the extreme
penalty of the law to an offense with mitigating circumstances, would
be. 3. That all law of evidence, all rhyme and reason, says that any
man's any act is to be interpreted in the light of his general
character. Where evidence is lacking or doubtful, such evidence of
general character has actual weight, and may be conclusive. In
application to these acts note (a) The peculiar forbearance which
Constantine exercised toward Maximian. (b) The conclusive universal
testimony to the general mildness of his character and his habitual
mercifulness. In view of this, it is to be judged that there was some
real, or appearing, great ground of judicial wrath. 4. That Constantine
had suffered from plots on the part of his own relatives over and over
again, and spared, and been plotted against again, as in the cases of
Maximian, Bassianus, and Licinius. 5. That they were not put to death
"in a gust of passion" at once, but in successive acts. In view of these
things it is fair and just to say that they were put to death on
grounds which seemed just and for the welfare of society, and their
deaths in no sense indicate cruelty or unnaturalness on the part of
Constantine. Even the death of Licinius must be interpreted by the
political ethics of the times and its circumstances. So long as
sentimentalists continue to send bouquets to murderers and erect
monuments to anarchists, they will regard execution, even legal
execution, as prima facie evidence of cruelty, and the killing of a
murderer in self-defense, or the hanging of a traitor, as crime.
Constantine's whole character ensures that if he thought he could have
spared them, or any one, with safety, he would have done so. (3)
In general he was a faithful husband as respects
marital virtue, and a good father. He took care that his children should
be well educated. Crispus was under Lactantius (Hieron.), and the
others perhaps under Arborius ("Auson. de Prof. Burdig. 16"); at all
events, he had the most accomplished teachers of secular learning to
instruct in the art of war, and in political and legal science (V. C.
4. 51), and both by his own instruction and that of men of approved
piety, took special pains with their religious training. He early
appointed them to offices of authority, and distributed the empire among
them.
430
(d) In relations with friends. His general conduct
toward his friends was marked by very great liberality (cf. above).
Eutropius speaks emphatically of this even while he uses the expression
which has been such a puzzle to all, that "toward some of his friends he
was double" (or dangerous), a phrase which is interpreted by Johannes
Ant. as meaning "to some of friends false (unsound,
<greek>upoulwd</greek>) and unsafe (unwholesome,
<greek>ouk</greek> <greek>uUipd</greek>)" (ed.
Muller 4. p. 602-3). His uniform effort to please his friends has been
discussed above.
(e) In relations with society. 1. As General he
seems to have been popular with his own soldiers (cf. above), inspiring
them with enthusiasm and energy. Toward hostile soldiers he was merciful
(cf. above), not following up an advantage further than was necessary,
and toward conquered enemies unusually forbearing; e.g. at Sigusium, at
Rome, with Maximian, with Licinius, and with the Goths (cf. above). His
generalship is characterized by careful provision for the guarding of
his rear, and by rapidity of movement and dash in actual conflict. 2.
As Legislator he "enacted many laws, some good, but most of them
superfluous, and some severe" (Eutrop. 10. 8). He seems to have had a
weakness for law-making which, at all events, shows a characteristic
respect for law little shared by his early contemporaries. Of course
Eutropius would consider all laws in favor of Christians superfluous.
Laws for the abolition of idolatrous practices, for the erection of
Christian houses of worship, observance of the Lord's Day (V. C. 4.
23), permitting cases to be tried before bishops (Soz. 1. 9; Euseb. H.
E. 10. 7; Cod. Theod. Tit. de episc. &c., would surely seem so. But
even in other laws Constantine seems to have had at times an abnormal
zeal for law-making, when his energies were not occupied in war or
church-building. The laws were generally wise and, at the least,
benevolently or righteously meant. Such were the abolition of
crucifixion (Vict. Caes.) and of gladiatorial shows ( V. C. 4. 25;
Socr. 1. 8; C. Theod. 15. 12. 1), the law that the families of slaves
were not to be separated (C. Theod. 2.25), that forbidding the
scourging of debtors (C. Theod. 7.3), and that repressing calumny
(Vict. Epit. 51). Among the "severe" laws were such as punished certain
forms of illicit intercourse with death.
3. As Statesman his policy was broad and far-reaching. He fully
organized and carefully established one section of his territory before
he enlarged. He changed the whole constitution of the empire, both civil
and military (cf. Wordsworth, in Smith & W.). He inaugurated
reforms in finance, and especially was most assiduous in the matter of
internal improvements, restoring and building from one end of the empire
to the other. The great characteristic consummation of his reign was
the union of Church and State, over which men are still divided as to
whether it was a tremendous blessing or a tremendous curse. Tremendous
it surely was in its shaping power on world history. (Compare numerous
titles under Literature.) The general statement of Eutropius that "in
the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best
princes, in the latter part only to those of a middling character,"
must be interpreted by the fact that during the latter part of his
reign he was so associated with Christianity, in itself a falling away
in the eyes of the old religionists. His reign was one of order and
justice such as few were, and an order out of chaos, a reign in which
it could be peculiarly said that "chastity was safe and marriage
protected" (Naz. c. 38), where a man's life and property were secure as
under few of the Roman emperors. It is idle to refuse the title of
Great to a man who, from the beginning, followed a consistent, though
developing policy, organized the interior, and securely guarded the
frontier of his empire at each enlargement, and finally unified the
whole on such a basis as to secure large internal prosperity and
development.
§ 6. Religious Characteristics.
Was Constantine a Christian? This vain question has to be considered,
hardly discussed. The interminable opinions, one way or the other, are
for the most part wise-seeming, meaningless generalizations. Like any
generalized statement, it is conditioned by the point of view of the
author. When ten men answered the question "What is a Christian?" in ten
different ways, who
431
shall say what any one is? This has been the difficulty. One does not
conceive of Christianity apart from baptismal regeneration. The question
has then narrowed to one of baptism. Constantine was not a Christian
until just before his death. Another has some other test. Another is
not a Christian himself, and so on. A good Biblical, Protestant
starting-point is to say he was a Christian as soon as he believed in
Christ, and that the evidence of faith is in confession and action.
Already, before his campaign into Italy, he seems to have been in
intimate contact with the Christians. Hosius was probably already one
of his advisers. The young emperor had inherited his father's piety
(Paneg. 307, c. 5), and was inclined to monotheism. The words of
advisers must have made him think at least, and he seems to have made a
sort of test of believing at the time of the famous "vision of the
cross," whatever that may have been. Judging from the way men think and
feel their way to faith, it seems psychologically probable that, feeling
his way along to that point, he tried faith and, having success, he
substantially believed from that time on. Certainly from a very early
period after this, the evidences begin to be clear and increasingly so
as presumably his faith itself became more clear and fixed. The account
in Eusebius of the process of thought by which he inclined toward
Christianity has the greatest plausibility. He says that "considering
the matter of Divine assistance, it occurred to him that those who had
relied on idols had been deceived and destroyed, while his father . . .
had honored the one Supreme God, had found him Saviour, &c . . . .
he judged it folly to join in the idle worship of those who were no
gods . . . and felt it incumbent on him to honor no other than the God
of his father." The nature of the vision of the cross, whether a
miracle, a natural phenomenon, or only a dream, does not affect the
probability of the account by Eusebius of what followed it (V. C. 1.
32). "At the time above specified, being struck with amazement at the
extraordinary
vision, and resolving 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 inquired also what God was. . . . They affirmed that he
was God, the only begotten Son of the one and only God," and he
thereupon "made the priests of God his counsellors and deemed it
incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him, with all
devotion." According to Sozomen, "it is universally admitted Constantine
embraced the religion of the Christians previous to his war with
Maxentius and prior to his return to Rome and Italy; and this is
evidenced by the dates of the laws which he enacted in favor of
religion" (Soz. 1. 5; cf. 1. 3). Philostorgius (1. 6), "in conformity
with all other writers," ascribes to the victory over Maxentius
(Photius. Epit.). This is confirmed, too, by the remark of the
Panegyrist (313, c. 4; cf. c. 2 and c. 11), that he conducted the war by
Divine instruction, and the famous inscription on the triumphal arch,
"instinctu Divinitatis." According to Augustine he was at the time of
the petition of the Donatists, "mindful of the hope which he maintained
in Christ" (August. contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. c. 92, p. 205).
The tales of his baptism at this time, or by
Sylvester at all, are pure fables (cf. under The Mythical Constantine),
but it appears from antecedent probability, from testimony, and from his
early subsequent identification with the Christians that he became
fairly convinced at this time. His letters concerning the council at
Aries, to be sure, have little direct evidence, but enough to show that
he regarded the Christian religion as the worship of that one supreme
God, and in them Hosius was already his trusted adviser. But in his
letters to Chrestus (314) he speaks of those who are "forgetful of their
own salvation and the reverence due to the most holy faith," and if his
letter to the bishops after the council at Aries--a letter full of
expressions like "Christ the Saviour," "brethren beloved," "I who
myself await the judgment of Christ," "our Saviour"1--be genuine,
Constantine was well advanced in his commitment in 314; but whether it
is or not,
432
the fact of his Christian advisers, of his laws in behalf of
Christians, and various substantial favors to them, his recognition of
their God as his one God, makes it almost idle to discuss the question.
Was Constantine a Christian in 314? What is a Christian? He seems to
have been. The type was that of many a business-man church-member of
to-day--Christians, but neither over-well-instructed, nor dangerously
zealous in the exercise of his faith. It must be remembered that during
these earlier years his confession of his faith and identification of
himself with the Christians was conditioned by his relation to the old
religion. Such a change was a radical novelty. His position was not yet
secure. He had to use his utmost tact to keep all elements in hand. He
was conditioned just as a modern Christian emperor or president, a
majority of whose political advisers and subjects or electors are
non-religious. He had great problems of political organization to
effect, and was immersed in these. The only matter of surprise is that
he grew so rapidly. There is no ground whatever for supposing that he
dissembled to the end, or even at all. To say that his retaining the
title of pontifex maximus, or making concessions respecting the old
worship, or allowing soothsayers to be consulted, or even the
postponement of his baptism, indicate this, is critical absurdity in the
face of evidence. (1) Testimony, both heathen and Christian, to the
openness of his action is complete, and the testimony of his acts--such,
e.g., as the law for the observance of Sunday--conclusive. Later, at
least, he "most openly destroyed temple worship and built Christian
houses of worship" (Eunap. Vita [?]des. 37, ed. Boiss. p. 20). From the
defeat of Licinius on, edicts, letters, speeches, acts of all sorts,
testify to a most unequivocal adoption of the Christian religion.
Eusebius hardly overstates in saying that "he maintained a continual
testimony to his Christianity, with all boldness and before all men,
and so far was he from shrinking from an open profession of the
Christian name, that he rather desired to make it manifest to all that
he regarded this as his highest honor" (V. C. 3. 2). Really the
question whether he considered himself, or was considered, a Christian
at and after the time of the Council of Nicaea is too idle even to
mention, if it had not been gravely discussed. In the opinion of the
bishops there he was "most pious" and "dear to God" (E.P. synod. in
Socr. 1. 9; Theodoret, 1. 8). On his part, letters are full of pious
expression and usually begin or end or both with "beloved brethren." To
the council itself he describes himself as "fellow-servant" of "Him who
is our common Lord and Saviour." Another more considerable position is
that all that indisputable external connection with Christianity was
pure political expediency, that he was a shrewd politician who saw which
way the wind was blowing, and had skill to take advantage of it. That
Constantine was not a Christian in the strict sense even to the end of
his life was the position of Keim. Burckhardt regards him as a pure
politician, without a touch of Christian life. Brieger (1880) says we
have not grounds to decide either way, whether he was "a godless
egoistic fatalist or had a more or less warm religious or even Christian
interest," but that the fixed fact is, that it was not because of his
inner belief in the Christian religion that he showed favor to the
Christians. In a brief attempt to get some basis in the sources, the
enthusiastic testimony of Eusebius and other writers, explicit as it
is, may be quite disregarded, even the testimony to facts, such as his
practice of giving thanks (V. C. 1. 39), of invoking Divine aid (Euseb.
V. C. 2, 4, 6, 13; Soz. 2. 34), of his erecting a place of prayer in
his palace (Soz. 1. 8), of his fasting (K C. 2.41), of his having a
stated hour of prayer (V. C. 4. 22), although all these are
interesting. The documents, however, unless by supremely uncritical
rejection, can be regarded as fundamental sources. A brief analysis of
these, even though imperfect, will furnish grounds on the basis of which
those who apply various tests may apply them. Starting from his faith
in Christ, surely the center of Christianity, he believed Christ to be
Son of God, "God and the Son of God the author of every blessing"
(S.C.), the revealer of the Father, who has "revealed a pure light in
the person of Thy Son . . . and hast thus given testimony concerning
Thyself" (S.C. 1), proceeding from the Father (S.C.), and incarnate, his
incarnation having been pre-
433
dicted also by the prophets. He believed this Son of God to be his
Saviour (Ad Tyr., Ad Ant., Ad Euseb., &c.) "our common Lord and
Saviour" (Ad Euseb.), "our Saviour, our hope, and our life" (Ad eccl.
Al.). He believed in his miraculous birth (S.C.) and in his death for
our deliverance (Ad Nic.; cf. Ad Mac. &c.), "the path which leads to
everlasting life" (S.C. 1), "a precious and toilsome" work (Ad Euseb.),
and in his ascension into heaven (S.C. 1). He believed in "God the
Father" (Ad Euseb. 2), "Almighty" (Ad Euseb.), Lord of all (Ad Euseb.
2), and the Holy Ghost (Ad eccl. Al.; cf. S. C.). He believed in
"Divine Providence" (Ad Eccl. Al.; Ad Alex. Ar.; Ad. Euseb. 1),
God the preserver of all men (Ad Alex. et Ar.), who sees all things (Ad
Syn. Nic.), who is near us and the observer of all our actions (S. C.),
and "under the guidance of whose Almighty hand" he is (Ad Prov. Pal.),
that all things are regulated by the determination of his will (Ad
Euseb.). He believed in the existence of a personal devil (Ad Eccl.
Al.). He believed in the future life (Ad Prov. Pal.), "the only true
life" (S.C. 12), the "strife for immortality" (Ad Euseb.), to which
those may aspire who know Him (S. C. 12). He believed in future rewards
and punishments (Ad Pray. Pal.; S. C. 23). He believed in the
inspiration of the Scriptures (Ad Eccl. Al.). He loved God (Ad Euseb. 2;
V. C. 2.55), and considered it his chief work in life to glorify Christ
(S. C.). He loved his fellow-men, being disposed "to love you with an
enduring affection" (Ad Ant.; V. C. 3.60, &c.), and recognized it
as virtue in others (8, c. 11). To him, God, in general, is the source
of all blessings (Ad Pray. Pal.; S.C., &c.). "I am most certainly
persuaded," he says, "that I myself owe my life, my every breath, in
short, my very inmost and secret thoughts to the favor of the Supreme
God" (Ad Pray. Pal.). He recognizes contrition as a requisite for
pardon (Ad. Pray. Pal), and that it is the power of God which removes
guilt (Ad Euseb.). In the conduct of life. "Our Saviour's words and
precepts are a model, as it were, of what our life should be" (Ad.
Ant.; V. C. 3. 60).
Expositions of his doctrinal and ethical positions
might be multiplied almost without end from the many and fruitful
sources, but a few specimens in his own expression will best show the
spirit of his religious life. A most suggestive and beautiful sketch of
Christ's ministry on earth too long to quote here may be found in his
Oration (ch. 15), but the following selections will give the idea:
A description of the inner Christian life. "For the
only power in man which can be elevated to a comparison with that of God
is sincere and guiltless service and devotion of heart to Himself, with
the contemplation and study of whatever pleases Him, the raising our
affections above the things of earth, and directing our thoughts, as
far as we may, to high and heavenly objects" (S.C. 14).
A description of the outer Christian
life. "Compare our religion with your own. Is there
not with us genuine concord, and unwearied love of others? If we reprove
a fault, is not our object to admonish, not to destroy; our correction
for safety, not for cruelty? Do we not exercise not only sincere faith
toward God, but fidelity in the relations of social life? Do we not
pity the unfortunate? Is not ours a life of simplicity which disdains
to cover evil beneath the mask of fraud and hypocrisy?" (S.C. 23).
A prayer. "Not without cause, O holy God, do I
prefer this prayer to Thee, the Lord of all. Under Thy guidance have I
devised and accomplished measures fraught with blessing: preceded by Thy
sacred sign, I have led Thy armies to victory: and still on each
occasion of public danger, I follow the same symbol of Thy perfections
while advancing to meet the foe. Therefore have I dedicated to Thy
service a soul duly attempered by love and fear. For Thy name I truly
love, while I regard with reverence that power of which Thou hast given
abundant proofs, to the confirmation and increase of my faith" (Ad prov.
Or.).
A confession of faith in God and in Christ. "This
God I confess that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I
delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in the height
of his glory." "His pleasure is in works of moderation and gentleness.
He loves the meek and hates the turbulent spirit, delighting in faith.
He chastises unbelief" (Ad Sap.).
434
"He is the supreme judge of all things, the prince of immortality, the
giver of everlasting life" (S.C. 36).
Was Constantine a Christian? Let each one apply his
own test.
§ 7. General Characterization.
Before trying to gather into continuous statement
the traits of character which have been examined, a few general
characterizations must be mentioned at least. Beginning at the bottom,
the unfriendly, or hostile, or at the least unsympathetic, heathen
testimonies generalize him as at least relatively and on the whole both
great and good. The general tendency of heathen testimony is to
represent him as admirable in the early part of his reign, but
execrable, or less admirable, in the latter part; that of Christian
writers is to represent a growth of excellence, which raises him to
saintship at the end. This is most natural. Favoring Christianity was
itself a moral fall to a heathen, and bestowing money on Christians
would be robbery. The turning of his character was with his changing
face towards Christianity, and culminated in the overthrow of Licinius.
Licinius fought really as the champion of heathenism. The adherents of a
lost cause are characterizing their victor. It is like an
ex-Confederate characterizing Lincoln or Grant. The point of view is
different. Honest and true men in the South thought Lincoln a curse, and
often in popular verdict his character was "black." The popular proverb
quoted by Victor (Epit. p. 51), "Bull-necked for ten years, for twelve
a freebooter, and for ten a spendthrift (immature child)," has just the
value of a Southern popular opinion of Lincoln, or a rural Northerner's
of "Jeff Davis." Indeed, the first might summarize at times the
Southern popular verdict of Grant; the second, a frequently expressed
estimate of Lincoln's conduct in the emancipation of slaves; and the
third, their view of the enormous expenditure for pensions of Union
soldiers, even as it was fifteen years ago. But even the rather severe
Victor, who reports this proverb, finds Constantine "most excellent
(commodissimus) in many respects,"--in respect of certain laws, in his
patronage of the arts, especially that of letters, as scholar, as
author, in the hearing of delegations and complaints (p. 51). Again,
"Praxagoras, though a heathen, says that in all sorts of virtue and
personal excellence and good fortune, Constantine outshone all the
emperors who preceded him" (Photius, Cad. 62, ed. Muller, p. 1). And
finally, the heathen Eutropius, who characterizes from his standpoint
so admirably, (1) though he naturally finds that "in the beginning of
his reign he might have been compared to the best princes; in the
latter part, only to those of middling character," nevertheless records
"that innumerable good qualities of mind and body were present in him,"
and that he was "deservedly enrolled among the gods,"-using the recruit
which he uses also of Aurelian, but not generally, and not even of
Constantius. On purely heathen testimony, therefore, Constantine, taken
by and large, was comparatively remarkable and admirable. A moderate
Christian characterization is that of Theophanes (p. 29): "Pre-eminent
for masculine strength of character, penetration of mind,
well-disciplined power of thought; for unbending righteousness, ready
benevolence, thorough majestic beauty of countenance, mighty and
successful in war, great in wars with the barbarians, invincible in
domestic wars, and so firm and unshaken in faith that through prayer he
obtained the victory in all his battles."
435
Remembering, therefore, that in order to understand a character in past
centuries one must project himself into his time; remembering again the
circumstances of his time and its practice, we shall, without forgetting
any of the acts on which he has been judged, find him on indisputable
testimony superior to most of the other emperors in character, and as
much above the circumstances of his times as would characterize a man
of to-day as of peculiarly high moral character. In view of this, it is
uncritical, and a violence to historical evidence, to approach one
whom, at death, the heathen thought worthy to be enrolled among the
gods, and the Christians canonized as saint (in the Greek calendar), as
other than one who, taken all in all, was of unusual excellence of
character. As in any synthesis, any organization, subordinate facts
must be viewed in their relation to their center and whole, as by any
law of criminal procedure acts must be judged in the light of general
character, so any rational, legal, scientific, historical estimate of
Constantine must be in view of this fact.
§ 8. Summary.
With this as center of perspective, we have a
picture of Constantine with lights and shadows, to be sure, but in the
main true in its drawing and coloring. He was a man of rather more than
medium height, strongly built, with broad shoulders, thick neck, and
generally athletic and well-formed figure. His piercing eye, slightly
aquiline nose, scanty reddish beard, and florid complexion, together
with his bright expression, made a countenance striking and even
handsome. Of great physical strength and vigor, he carried himself in a
manly, self-possessed, dignified, and serene manner, uniting a dignity
which might rise at times even to hauteur, or even incipient arrogance,
with a general and customary affability. His dress, like his complexion,
was somewhat florid. His mind was active, alert, intense without being
somber, penetrating, sound, fairly cultivated, and well exercised in
expression by pen or word. He was animated, habile, and attentive in
conversation, self-possessed, steady, and calm in formal address. He
was pre-eminently a man of energy, intense and resistless, with a
determination to accomplish whatever he attempted, which rose under
opposition to irresistible impetuosity, and wrought a courage which, in
action, was absolutely fearless. His ambition was limitless, but not
wholly or even mainly selfish.
With his energy and ambition were united the ballast
of marked prudence, patience, perseverance, faithfulness to details,
steadfastness, and supreme self-control. He was amiable and tactful,
popular with his soldiers, and careful to please. Toward those who came
into his power he showed habitual mildness and forbearance, -- a
mildness so great that he was generally blamed for it; and toward all he
showed great kindness, justice, and a generosity which verged on the
lavish. He was open to the charge of over-generosity, almost of
prodigality, a good measure of real vanity, some over-insistence on his
own will and thought as the final standard of right, and by no means
free from mistakes or human weaknesses. He was a good son, husband,
father, a remarkably successful general, a tolerable legislator, and a
clear-sighted, firm-willed statesman. In his religious life he abounded
in creed and confession- believing in the Trinity, the Divinity of
Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and Eternal Life, in Repentance
and Faith, in love to God, and love to man. He preached his faith on
all occasions; he practiced thanksgiving and prayer abundantly. He
regarded everything that he had or was as from God. The editor's brief
judgment is that Constantine, for his time, made an astonishingly
temperate, wise, and, on the whole, benevolent use of absolute power,
and in morality, kindly qualities, and, at last, in real Christian
character, greatly surpassed most nineteenth century politicians--
standing to modern statesmen as Athanasius to modern theologians.
436
CHAPTER III.
WRITINGS.
§ I. Introduction.
Quite a number of works by this emperor-author are
extant. (1) They may be grouped under, I. Oratorical writings; 2.
Letters and decrees; 3. Laws; 4. Various.
§ 2. Oratorical Writings.
According to Eusebius (V. C. 4. 29; cf. 4. 55) these
were very numerous, and it may well be believed. He seems to have done
much of everything he undertook at all--fighting, or learning, or
building temples, or making laws, he was nothing if not incessant. He
had a habit of inflicting his orations on his court, and undoubtedly had
plenty of enthusiastic hearers, as any emperor would, and as Eusebius
says he did. They seem to have been generally philosophical with as
much religion as possible worked in (V. C. 4. 9). Not many are extant,
but we have some account of the few following:
1. Oration to the saints (Oratio ad sanctum caetum,
S. C.). For this see the following translation and Special Prolegomena.
2. Address to the Council of Nicaea in praise of
peace (Ad Syn. Nic.), in Euseb. V. C. 3. 12. Address of
welcome. He rejoices in the assembly, and exhorts them to be united,
that they may thereby please God and do a favor to their emperor.
3. Oration to the Council of Nicaea, in Gelasius,
Hist. Coun. Nic. 1. 7. Begins with rhetorical comparison of the Church
to a temple, and ends with injunctions to observe peace and to search
the Scriptures as the authority in all points of doctrine. Appears
dubiously authentic.
4. Address to the bishops on their departure from
Nicaea. Abstract in Euseb. V. C. 32. 1. Exhorts them to keep peace,
cautions against jealousy, &c.
5. Funeral oration. A description in Euseb. V. C. 4.
55. Dwells on the immortality of the soul, the blessings laid up for
those who love God, and the ruin of the ungodly.
His method of composition is spoken of by Eusebius
(V. C. 4. 29), and his manner of delivery may be gathered from Eusebius'
description of his speech at the opening of the Council of Nicaeea (V.
C. 3. 11). For the style of his oratorical discourses, compare remarks
on the Oration to the Saints in the Special Prolegomena.
§ 3. Letters and Edicts.
It is hard to separate between letters, edicts, and
laws. A substantial autocrat, the form of address was much the same, and
the force. The extant letters are quite numerous, and those of which we
have definite or general mention, many. He seems to have been a most
industrious letter-writer. Of the extant letters a majority are
undoubtedly or probably genuine. Some, however, need more critical study
than seems to have been given to them. (2) Following is the roughly
chronological list, the works being grouped by years. The dating is
taken mainly from
437
the Migne edition, Ceillier, and Valesius with slight original study.
The descriptions are of course from the documents themselves.
1. (313 A,D.) Edict of Constantine and Licinius for the restoration of
the Church. In
Lact. De M. P. c. 48, and also in Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed.
Migne, 105-110). The second edict of toleration. The first edict (Euseb.
8. 17; Lact. De M. P. 34) can hardly be classed among the "writings" of
Constantine. This famous second edict grants full religious liberty to
the Christians and restoration of their property. Compare section on
Acts of Toleration in Wordworth's Constatinus.
2. (313.) First letter of Constantine and Licinius
to Anulinus. In Euseb. H.E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. ed. Migne, 479-480).
Restores goods to the Catholic Christians; written about the same time
as the edict of toleration, according to Ceillier.
3. (313.) Second Letter of Constantine to Anulinus.
In Euseb. H. E. 10. 7 (Op. Const. 481-2). Ordering that the Catholic
clergy be free from public service, that they might not be disturbed in
their worship of God.
4. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Caecilianus. In
Euseb. H. E. 10. 6 (Op. Const. 481-4). Presents money--three thousand
purses (folles) -- to be distributed according to direction of Hosius.
5. (313.) Letter of Constantine to Melchiades (or
Miltiades). In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const. 477- ). Having received
various letters from Anulinus regarding Caecilian and the Donatists, he
summons a council at Rome to consider the matter.
6. (314.) Letter of Constantine to Ablavius (or
AElafius). In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 283-4 (Op. Const. 483-6). The result
of the council at Rome not having proved final, he summons the Council
of Aries.
7. (314·) Letter of Constantine to Chrestus (
Crescentius), bishop of Syracuse. In Euseb. H. E. 10. 5 (Op. Const.
485-8). Invites to the Council of Arles.
8. (314.) Letter of Constantine to the Bishops after
the Council of Arles. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 287-8 (Op. Const. 487-90).
Contains gratulations, reprobations of obstinate schismatists, and
exhortations to patience with such obstinateness. It is full of
religious expressions, and if genuine, is a most interesting exhibition
of Constantine's religious position at this time, but it looks
suspicious, and probably is not genuine.
9- (314·) Letter of Constantine and Licinius
to Probianus, the Proconsul of Africa. In Augustine, Ep. 88 (ed. Migne
33 [1865] 3045), and also in Contr. Crest. (43 [1861] 540, also
in Op. Const. and tr. Engl. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
1, p. 370). Orders that the Donatist Ingentius be brought to his court.
One text adds Maximianus or Maximus in place of Maximus as epithet of
Constantine.
10. (314 or 315.) Letter of Constantine to the
Donatist Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 290 (Op. Const. ed. Migne
[1844] 490). As the Donatists were not yet satisfied, he summons them to
meet Caecilian, and promises if they convict him in one particular, it
shall be as if in all.
11. (315.) Letter of Constantine to Celsus. In
Optat. Mon. vet p. 291 (Op. Const. 489-90). In reply to letter
mentioning disturbances of the Donatists, he hints that he expects to go
shortly to Africa and settle things summarily.
12. (315.) Fragment of a Letter of Constantine to
Eumalius Vicarius. In Augustine's Contr. Crest. 3. 71 (ed. Migne 43
[1861] 541; also Op. Const. 491-2). An extract of six lines, in which he
says Caecilianus was entirely innocent.
13. ( 316 or 317. ) Letter of Constantine to the
bishops and people of Africa. Optat. Mon. vet. p. 294 (Op. Const.
491-2). He has tried every way to settle the Donatist disturbances in
vain, and now leaves them to God and advises patience.
14. (323.) First Letter of Constantine to Eusebius.
In Euseb. V. C. 2. 46; Theodoret, 1. 14; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 491-4).
Empowers the repairing, enlarging of old, and building of new churches.
438
15. (323 A.D.) Law of Constantine respecting piety
toward God and the Christian Religion (Ad prov. Pal.). In Euseb. V. C.
2. 24-42 ; abstr. in Soz. 1. 8 (Op. Const. 253-282). This long edict,
addressed to the inhabitants of Palestine, contains an exposition of the
prosperity which attends the righteous and the adversity which comes to
the wicked, followed by edict for the restitution of confiscated
property, the recall of exiles, and various other rectifications of
injustices. This is the copy, "or letter," sent to the heathen
population of the empire.
16. (324.) Constantine's edict to the people of the
eastern provinces concerning the error of polytheism, &c. (Ad. prov.
Or). In Euseb. V. C. 48-. This letter, written in Latin and translated
by Eusebius, begins with "some general remarks on virtue and vice,"
touches on the persecutions and the fate of the persecutors, expresses
the wish that all would become Christians, praises God, and exhorts
concord.
17. (323 or 324.) Letter of Constantine to Alexander
the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter. In Euseb. V. C. 2. 64-72; Gelas.
2.4; Socr. 1. 7 (Op. Const. 493-502). Expresses his desire for
peace, his hope that they might have helped him in the Donatist
troubles, his distress at finding that they, too, were in a broil, his
opinion that the matters under discussion are of little moment, and what
he thinks they are. He exhorts to unanimity, repeats his opinion that
the matters are of little moment, mentions his "copious and constant
tears," and finally gets through.
18. (324-5.) Letter to Porphyrius (Optatian). In
Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 [1846] 393-394 and in various editions of
Optatian. This letter to Porphyrius or Optatian was on the occasion of
the sending of a poem by the latter for his vicennalia. It expresses his
pleasure and his disposition to encourage the cultivation of belles
lettres. Compare note on Optatian under sources.
19. (325.) Letter of Constantine the King, summoning
the bishops to Nicaea. In Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1841, p. 5-6. This
is translated from a Syriac MS. in the British Museum, written in 501.
Gives as reason for the choice of Nicaea the convenience for the
European bishops and "the excellent temperature of the air." This, if
genuine, is the letter mentioned by Eusebius, V. C., but it looks
suspicious.
20. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the churches
after the Council of Vicaea. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 17-20; Socr. 1. 9 (Op.
Const. 501-506). Dwells on the harmonious result, especially respecting
the Easter controversy, and commends to the bishops to observe what the
Council has decreed.
21. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the church of
Alexandria. In Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 507-510). Expresses great horror
of the blasphemy of Arius, and admiration for the wisdom of the more
than three hundred bishops who condemned him.
22. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Arius and the
Arians. In "Conc. 2. 269." A long and rather railing address against
Arius.
23. (325.) Letter of Canstantine to the churches. In
Socr. H. E. 1. 9. A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written
in 501, in Cowper, Syriac Misc., Lond. 1861, p. 6-7. Against Arius and
the Porphyrians, and threatens that any one who conceals a work of
Arius shall be punished with death.
24. (325.) Letter of Constantine to the Nicomedians
against Eusebius and Theognis. In Gelas. 3. 2; Theodoret, 1. 20; Soz. 1.
21 (Op. Const. 519-524). A theological discussion partly of the
relation of Father and Son, and an attack on Eusebius of Nicomedia.
25. (325.) Letter to Theodotus. In Gelas. 3. 3 (Op.
Const. 523-524). Counsels him to take warning by what has happened to
Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and Theognis, i.e. banishment, and get rid of
such evil influence, if any, as they may have had on him.
26. (325.) Letter of Constantine to Macarius. In
Euseb. V. C. 3. 30-32; Theodoret, 1. 16. Directs the erection of a
peculiarly magnificent church at the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.
27. (330.) Letter of Constantine to the Numidian
Bishops. In Optat. Mon. vet. p. 295 (Op. Const. 531-532). Concerns a
church taken possession of by schismatists.
28. (332.) Letter of Canstantine to the Antiochians.
In Euseb. V. C. 3. 60 (Op. Const. 533-). Exhorts them not to persist in
their effort to call Eusebius from Caesarea to Antioch.
439
29. (332 A.D.) Letter of Constantine to the Synod of
Tyre deprecating the removal of Eusebius from Caesarea. In Euseb. V. C.
362; Theodoret, 1. 27 (Op. Const. 543-546).
30. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Eusebius. In Euseb. V. C. 3.
61 (Op. Const.
537-540). Commends Eusebius for having declined the call to Antioch.
31. (332.) Second Letter of Constantine to Macarius
and the rest of the Bishops in Palestine (to Eusebius). In Euseb. V. C.
3. 52-53 (Op. Const. 539-544). Directs the suppression of idolatrous
worship at Mature.
32. (332.?) Edict against the heretics. In Euseb. V.
C. 3. 64-5. Against Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians,
Cataphrygians who are forbidden to assemble and whose houses of worship
are to be given to the Catholic party.
33. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Sapor, King of
the Persians. In Euseb. 4. 9-13; Theodoret, 1. 24 (Op. Const. 545-552).
Is mainly a confession of faith commending the Persian Christians to the
special care of their king.
34. (333.) Letters of Constantine to Antonius, the
monk, and of Antonius to him are mentioned in Athanasius, 1. 855 (Op.
Const. 551-552). Constantine and his sons write as to a father. Antony
grudgingly replies with some good advice for them to remember the day of
judgment, regard Christ as the only emperor, and have a care for
justice and the poor.
35. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius in
praise of his discourse concerning Easter. Eusebius, V. C. 4. 35 (Op.
Const. 551-554) praises the discourse and asks for more.
36. (333.) Letter of Constantine to Eusebius on the
preparation of the copies of the Scriptures. In Euseb. V. C. 4. 36;
Theod. 1. 15; Socr. 1. 9 (Op. Const. 553-554). Orders fifty copies with
directions as to style.
37. (335.) Fragment of the first letter of
Constantine to Athanasius. In Athan. Apol.; Socr. 1. 27 (Op. Const.
553-556; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1843, p. 89). The letter
summoning to the Council of Tyre, but only a half-dozen lines remain.
This bids him admit all who wish to enter the church.
38. (335.) Letter of Constantine to the people of
the Alexandrian Church. In Athan. Apol. c. Ar. c. 61 (Op. Const.
559-562; abstract in Soz. 2. 31; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts,
Oxf. 1850, p. 90-92). Is a general lamentation over the dissensions of
the Church, with expression of confidence in Athanasius.
39. (335.) Second Letter of Constantine to
Athanasius. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 555-558). Expresses his reprobation
of the false accusations of the Meletians against Athanasius.
40. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Joannes the
Meletian. Athan. Apol. (Op. Const. 557-560). Congratulates on his
reconciliation with Athanasius.
41. (335.) Letter of Constantine to Arius. In Socr.
1. 25 (Op. Const. 561-562). Invites Arius to visit him-- the famous
visit where he presented a confession of faith claimed to be in
conformity with that of Nicaea.
42. (335.) A Letter to Dalmatius is mentioned by
Athanasius, Apol. 5. 13, but not preserved (Op. Const.
563-564; Tr. Engl. in Athan. Hist. Tracts, Oxf. 1850, p. 94). It
required him to make judicial enquiry respecting the charge against
Athanasius of the murder of Arsenius.
43. (335.) Celebrated Letter of Constantine
concerning the Synod of Tyre. In Euseb. V. C. 3. 42 (Op. Const.
561-564). Exhorts the bishops to give zeal to fulfilling the purpose of
the synod in the restitution of peace to the Church.
44. (335.) Letter to the Bishops assembled at Tyre.
In Socr. H. E. 1. 34, and in Soz. H. E. 2. 28. Summons them to come to
him at Constantinople and give account of their proceedings.
Besides these there are the clearly spurious:
1. Letter of Helena to Constantine (Op. Const.
529-530).
2. Letter of Constantine in response to Helena (Op.
Const. 529-532).
3. Treaty of peace between Constantine, Sylvester and Tiridates (Op.
Const. 579-582). On
440
Tiridates compare various sources in Langlois Col. des historiens de .
. . l'Arménie, and for literature respecting their authenticity,
his note on p. 103.
4. Edict of Constantine to Pope Silvester (Op. Const. 567-578). The
famous Donation which first appeared in Pseudo-Isidore, and for which
see under The Mythical Constantine, p. 442-3.
There are also quite a large number of letters
mentioned with more or less description, and a "multitude of letters" (
V. C. 3. 24) of which there is no specific knowledge. Of the former may
be mentioned that to the inhabitants of Heliopolis, one to Valerius (or
Valerianus or Verinus) (Augustine, Ad Donat. p.c. c. 33); one to the
Council of Tyre, asking them to hasten to Jerusalem ( V. C. 4. 43; Soz.
2. 26); and one acknowledging the copies of the Scriptures prepared at
his order, through Eusebius ( V. C. 4. 37).
§ 4. Laws.
The numerous laws are collected in the edition of
Migne (Patrol. Lat. 8. p. 93-400), mainly from the Theodosian code. They
are in the opinion of Eutropius (10. 8) "many," "some good and
equitable, but most of them superfluous, and some severe" (cf. under
Character). Many of them show the author's tendency to declamation, but
taken all in all they are businesslike and do credit, in the main, to
their author's heart, and even, though less conspicuously, to his head.
For more specific account, compare the laws themselves as collected in
Migne, the relating passages in Wordsworth and Ceillier, standard and
annotated editions of the codes, and special treatises, such as Balduin,
De leg. eccl. et civ. 1737.
§ 5. Various.
Besides the more formal works mentioned above,
various conversations, sayings, bon mots, prayers, &c., are
preserved, among which may be mentioned:
1. Memoirs of himself, of which no portion is
extant. Writings of Constantine are mentioned by Lydus (p. 194, 226),
but whether the writings referred to deserve the title given by
Burckhardt it is hard to say.
2. A form of prayer given by Constantine to his
soldiers (V. C. 4. 20).
3. His address when the memorials of contendents, at
Council of Nicaea, were brought to him (Soz. 1. 17).
4. The conversation with Acesius, for which Socrates
vouches, closing, "0 Acesius, set up a ladder, and do you alone climb up
to heaven."
5. His rebuke to the courtier concerning
covetousness ( V. C. 4. 30).
6. His answer when told his statues had been stoned,
"Strange, but I feel no wound" (" Chrysost. Ad Pop. Ant.").
7. His appeal to the bishops, requesting them to confer upon him the
rite of baptism (V. C.
4. 62).
8. His Thanksgiving after baptism and testimony (V.
C. 4. 63).
In general, his writings were composed in Latin, and
translated into Greek by those appointed for this special purpose ( V.
C. 4. 32). His general style is rhetorical, rather profuse, and
declamatory, abounding in pious allusion and exhortation, as well as
philosophical quotation and reflection. His works are interesting to
study and not without a touch here and there of genuine literary
interest. A remark on friendship, for example, unless it be a product of
his habit of borrowing the thoughts of other men more or less directly,
is delightful and most quotable. "For it often happens," he says, "that
when a reconciliation is effected by the removal of the causes of
enmity, friendship becomes even sweeter than it was before" (Const. to
Alex. and At. in V. C. 2. 71).
441
CHAPTER IV.
THE MYTHICAL CONSTANTINE.
The many legends which have attached themselves to
the name of Constantine are valuable chiefly as curiosities, and can be
treated here only in specimens. A few of the more interesting and
important are the following:
1. Constantine and his Mother Helena.
A little anonymous work of some thirty pages, edited
by Heydenreich from a fourteenth-century manuscript, was published under
this title in 1879, and has drawn forth an astonishing amount of
literature for so slight a thing. It has little value except as an
illustration of mediaeval romance, though Coen seems to think the honor
of having introduced it into literature enough to warrant the
expenditure of a good deal of pains in vindicating his claim to it. The
story is written with tolerable art, and runs, abbreviated, something as
follows:
Helena, daughter of a noble family of Treves, came
on a pious journey to Rome. The Emperor Constantius, crossing a bridge
of the Tiber, saw Helena among other pilgrims. Struck with her beauty,
he arranged that she should be detained by force at the inn where she
stayed, when her fellow-pilgrims returned to Gaul. The emperor then
constrained her by force, but, seeing the great grief which his act had
caused, gave her a certain ornament of precious stones and his ring, as
a sort of pledge, and went away. She did not venture to return to her
country, but remained at Rome with the son who was born to her,
representing that her Gallic husband was dead. This son, Constantine,
grew up pleasing, handsome, and versatile. Certain merchants, seeing his
excellent quality, formed a scheme of making money by palming him off
on the emperor of the Greeks as a son-in-law, representing him to be a
son of the Roman emperor.
The scheme was carried out, and the merchants after
some time embarked again for Rome, · with the Constantine and the
princess, and much treasure. Toward th