ELLIOTT constantine's conversion.pdf

Classical Association of Canada

Constantine's Conversion: Do We Really Need It?

Author(s): T. G. Elliott

Reviewed work(s):

Source: Phoenix, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Winter, 1987), pp. 420-438

Published by: Classical Association of Canada

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1088714 .

Accessed: 27/01/2012 11:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Phoenix.

http://www.jstor.org

CONSTANTINE'S CONVERSION:

DO WE REALLY NEED IT?

T. G. ELLIOTT

HE RECENT ADVANCES that have been made in the study of Constantine

havenot helped to produceagreement on the criticalmatterof the conver-

sion. Thosewho thought thatT. D. Barneshad improved matters by stress-

ing Constantine's early contact with Christianity have now seen R. Lane

Fox minimizethat contact and resumethe effort to reconcilethe famous

passages of Eusebiusand Lactantius.1

Early in 1985 I thought that I had found the solution to the problem of

these passages when I recognized the possibility that the miracledescribed

by Constantinehadresultedin the labarum, butnot in a conversion.2How-

ever, it became apparentimmediately that the removalof the conversionas

an historicalevent eliminatedsome difficultieswith the evidence only to

create others, and it seems to me even now that these may be of sufficient

importance to rule out the possibility of a conclusive proof. Whatfollows

hereis thereforean attempt to present a more probable interpretation of the

evidence.Examinationfrom a new point of view is bound to appear more

argumentative, and less judicious, than examinationfrom points of view

with which we are familiar. I have tried not to cause unnecessary dis-

comfort.

In support of my proposal, then, I offerfour arguments, whichI have put

in a chronological order.The firstof theseis the least conclusive, butit does

not haveto accomplish morethana modestre-distributionof the burdenof

The following arecited by author'snamealone:N. H. Baynes, Constantine

the Greatandthe

ChristianChurch2

(Oxford 1972); H. Dorries, Das Selbstzeugnis KaiserKonstantins

(G6ttingen

1954); H. Kraft, KaiserKonstantins religioseEntwicklung(Tibingen 1955); R. Lane Fox,

Pagans and Christians

(Harmondsworth1986).

The following are also referredto in abbreviatedform: T. D. Barnes, Constantineand

Eusebius

(Cambridge, Mass. 1981) = Barnes, CE;TheNew Empireof Diocletian andConstan-

tine (Cambridge, Mass. 1982) = Barnes, NE; "TheConversionof Constantine," EMC29 NS

4 (1985) 371-391 = Barnes, "Conversion;" F. Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen

zur Kirchenge-

schichtedesGelasios von Kaisareia,"SBBerl, KlfSprach 1965.3 = Winkelmann, "Untersuchun-

gen;" "Charakterund Bedeutung der Kirchengeschichte

des Gelasiosvon Kaisareia," Byzan-

tinische Forschungen 1 (1966) 346-385 = Winkelmann, "Charakter."

1Cf. Barnes, CE 43; Barnes,"Conversion;" LaneFox 609-635. Thelatter supplies an up-to-

date bibliography. The passages in question areEusebiusVC 1.28 andLactantius De mortibus

persecutorum 44.

2The argument of this paper was presented at a seminar of the Classics Department at the

University of Toronto in January 1986, and at the annual meeting of the American Philological

Association in December 1986. I am indebted to Timothy Barnes, John Rist, Barbara Rodgers,

Paul Fedwick, and Malcolm Wallace for their help on those and other occasions.

420

PHOENIX, VOL.41 (1987) 4.

421

CONSTANTINE'SCONVERSION

proof. The arguments are: (1) that the evidence that Constantius "Chlorus"

was a Christian is strong enough to have a serious effect on the theory that

Constantine was converted; (2) that Constantine himself dated the begin-

ning of his christianizing mission to his time in (or near) Britain; (3) that

Constantine's misrepresentations about his age during the years 303-305

indicate that he was a Christian at that time; (4) that the "Kreuzerscheinung"

described in Eusebius' Life resulted in the labarum, but not in a conversion

of Constantine.

The view that Constantius was not a Christian depends on the belief that

Constantine was converted from paganism to Christianity. That belief has

fostered arguments from the Sol Invictus coinage of Constantius, from the

pagan panegyrics, and from his failure to legislate an end to the Great

Persecution when he became senior Augustus in 305.3 Each of these argu-

ments is a non sequitur. The coinage indicates what he wanted to appear on

his coins, not his religious convictions. Baynes (Appendix) argued very

effectively against drawing extravagant conclusions from the coinage of

Constantine down to 324, but overlooked the fact that the same argument

could be applied to the coinage of Constantius.4 The fact that it is not until

313 that mention of the gods ceases in the pagan panegyrics to Constantius

and Constantine has been thought to prove a change in the imperial thinking

between 311 and 313. Such reasoning ignores both the official nature of the

panegyrics and the drastic change in Constantine's circumstances. In 313 he

was in a far stronger position than his father (or he himself) had ever en-

joyed, so that what appears as a change may have been simply a further

revelation. Even in the case of Constantine, the gods who disappear from

the panegyrics in 313 remain on the coins until 323. The fact that the coins

are unreliable as an indicator of religious belief diminishes the value of

arguments from the panegyrics, which share the propaganda purposes of the

coins.5 As for Constantius' failure to legislate against the persecution, he

knew that Galerius would have ignored such an edict. Constantius had

compelling reasons for not acting openly as a Christian. He would not have

wished to produce a combination of his colleagues against himself, nor to get

Constantine killed. Because his reasons for concealment are so good, the

arguments against the view that he was a Christian are inconclusive.

It is now convenient to set out other evidence regarding his religion. He

had a daughter whose name, Anastasia, indicates that he was a Christian (cf.

3Cf. Baynes 7-9; 56-58, nn. 23-25; Appendix at 95-103. The most careful discussion of the

subject, however, is that of Kraft (1-6). Kraft would not commit himself to the view that

Constantius was a pagan.

4For the argument regarding Constantine cf. Kraft 14; Barnes, CE 48; Lane Fox 658.

5Forthe language of the panegyrists concerning divine attributes of emperors and divinity of

emperors cf. B. Saylor Rodgers, "Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini," Historia 25

(1986) 69-99. See also below, n. 31.

422

PHOENIX

Kraft 5-6). Concerning his first wife, Helen, there was a tradition, reflected

in Theodoret,6 that she had raised Constantine as a Christian, and she re-

appears, as a Christian in Rome, by 316 (cf. Barnes, CE 49). In On the

Deaths of the Persecutors 15 Lactantius praises Constantius as follows: nam

Constantius, ne dissentire a maiorum praeceptis videretur, conventicula,

id est parietes, dirui passus est: verum autem Dei templum, quod est in

hominibus, incolume servavit. This statement clearly implies that Constan-

tius disagreed with the policy of persecution. Furthermore, the word ser-

vavit suggests that Constantius was a fellow Christian; for an outsider's

action reliquit was a more natural word. In the Divine Institutes 1.1 Lactan-

tius addresses Constantine as Imperator Maxime, qui primus Romanorum

principum, repudiatis erroribus, maiestatem Dei singularis ac veri et cogno-

visti et honorasti.7 Although the phrase repudiatis erroribus might be taken

to imply that Constantine had once lived in those errors, and the primus might

be taken to imply that Constantius was a pagan, neither inference is neces-

sary. As emperor, Constantine could be envisaged as repudiating on behalf

of the empire the errors of others, and Constantius could not be the first

emperor so described because he had not formally repudiated the errors and

had not published an allegiance to Christianity. It is possible that Lactantius'

emphasis on the fact that Constantine did two things (et cognovisti et

honorasti) results from a view that Constantius had done one of them, i.e.,

that he had been a Christian man, but not a Christian emperor. Constantine

himself, as quoted in Eusebius VC 2.49, said that Constantius, with won-

derful piety, asked for the blessing of the Saviour God upon all his actions.

If the quotation is correct, Constantine claimed in 324 that his father was a

Christian.

Next there is the abundant testimony of Eusebius in VC 1.12-27. Ac-

cording to Eusebius, Constantius was a Christian throughout his reign (17).

During the Great Persecution he showed himself the friend of the Church

(13, 15) and cleverly got rid of those Christians at his court who were willing

to offer pagan sacrifice (16). His palace was like a church (17). God rewarded

6The contrary tradition is that represented by the plain statement of Eusebius (in VC 3.47)

that Constantine converted her to Christianity. Since Eusebius represents Constantius as a

Christian he should not have represented Helen as having been converted by her son unless he

believed that it was true. Theodoret, in his HE 1.18, describes Helena as "she who brought

forth this great luminary for the world and nurtured him in piety from his childhood." While

copying several chapters of Theodoret into his own HE Gelasius of Cyzicus added at this point

(3.6.1) a single parenthetical sentence: "For she no less than the child's father, her husband

Constantius, brought him up by God's laws to worship Christ." This sentence, like that of

Theodoret, may go back to Gelasius of Caesarea, for whom see below (423). If Eusebius'

statement had been made early in his account of Helen's work in Jerusalem, it would be more

persuasiveagainst the other tradition. In fact it is made in passing, in his account of her funeral,

and I am doubtful about it.

7Cf. T. D. Barnes, "Lactantius and Constantine," JRS 63 (1973) 29-46, at 43. See below,

n. 22.

423

CONSTANTINE'SCONVERSION

him for his devotion with a happy life (18) and a happy death as he was

rejoicing in being able to bequeath his empire to his son (19, 21). Constan-

tine had spent his youth at the court of the oppressors of the Church, but

God had inclined him to piety, and he wished to imitate the more virtuous

conduct of his father (12). Having pacified his own realm he decided to

liberateRome from tyranny (26) with the help of his father's god (27).

Finally, we may consider the statements of Gelasius of Caesarea who,

fairly late in the fourth century, wrote an Ecclesiastical History, now lost,

starting with Constantius Chlorus and continuing to the period after the

Council of Nicaea.8 This author had both Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History

and his Life of Constantine.9 He was a nephew of Cyril of Jerusalem, who

was bishop there from about 350 until his death in 386.10 Through Cyril's

infuence he was made bishop of Caesarea in 366, and he seems to have been

dead in 400 (Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen" 71). Quotations from Gela-

sius' work survive in the Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Cyzicus, which

was written by about 475, and in Byzantine Lives. Gelasius of Caesarea

described Constantius as a Christian and a protector of Christians during the

Great Persecution, and said that he bequeathed his empire to Constantine

because he was convinced that Constantine would end the persecution of

Christians (op. cit. 18-22). If there were no story of Constantine's conver-

sion to Christianity, this evidence would surely be accepted as showing that

his father had been a Christian. Indeed, to the present writer it appears far

more likely that Constantius was a Christian of a special sort-probably

unbaptized, certainly concealing the fact much of the time, and perhaps

offering pagan sacrifice sometimes-than that he was not a Christian at all,

or that he was merely sympathetic to Christianity. 1 For the purposes of the

present argument, however, it is sufficient to note two things. First, Con-

stantine's claim about his father's religion has some support. Second, that

claim works against any theory that Constantine himself was a convert to

Christianity.

My second argument arises from Constantine's statements about his

christianizing mission. In VC 2.24-42 Eusebius quotes Constantine's letter

8Cf. Gelasius of Cyzicus HE 1.1-4, edited by G. Loeschke (and M. Heinemann) in GCS

(Leipzig 1918). The subject of Gelasius of Caesarea was controversial until the publication of

Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen," "Charakter," and "Die Quellen der Historia Ecclesiastica

des Gelasios von Cyzicus .... ," Byzantinoslavica 27 (1966) 104-130.

9For Gelasius' use of the VC cf. Winkelmann, "Untersuchungen" 38-43; "Charakter" 375,

378-380.

'?For Cyril cf. W. Smith and H. Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography 1 (London 1887)

760-763.

"Some mightsimplyregard himasan apostate. I thinkthata chronicallyrepeatingapostate is

not very well described as an apostate, and that his beliefs are not to be discovered by simple

tests. In the case of Constantius "apostate," without qualification, would be a very misleading

description.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: