STUDIES

s was not characteristic y. It already possessed ms of government peran extensive body of een assimilated by the fourth century into a ontradiction with the as bound to lead the risis. Apparently the ligion, no longer satires appeared, which complex and varied

is associated with y a leading part in about this person, - given period and ns of his spiritual . sonage was Conbout him has inwith the sixteention of the Edict

us, Constantine

nia was a provMorava River). sh at present). me St. Helena. ding to tradia which Christ Maximian had blished agreecame the AuConstantine, llowing year -de topographie,

HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE

57

57

Constantius died in Britain, and his legions proclaimed his son Constantine Augustus. At this time a revolt broke out against Galerius in Rome, where the mutinous population and army proclaimed as their emperor, instead of Galerius, Maxentius, the son of Maximian, who, as we have mentioned previously, had resigned his imperial power. The aged Maximian joined his son and again assumed the imperial title. A period of civil war followed, during which both Maximian and Galerius died. Constantine then formed an alliance with one of the new Augusti, Licinius, and defeated Maxentius in a decisive battle near Rome. Maxentius was drowned in the Tiber while trying to flee from the enemy (at Saxa Rubra near the Mulvian bridge across the Tiber). The two victorius emperors, Constantine and Licinius, met at Milan and proclaimed the famous Edict of Milan. The peaceful relations between the two emperors did not last very long. Soon a struggle broke out between them and it ended in the full victory of Constantine. Licinius was killed in 324 A. D., and Constantine became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

The two main events of Constantine's reign, which were of paramount significance for the subsequent course of history, were the official recognition of Christianity and the transfer of the capital from the shores of the Tiber to the shores of the Bosphorus, from ancient Rome to Constantinople, the "New Rome." In studying the position of Christianity in Constantine's time scholars have considered two problems in particular: the "conversion" of Constantine and the Edict of Milan.

The Conversion of Constantine.-Historians and theologians have been primarily interested in the causes of Constantine's "conversion." Why did Constantine favor Christianity? Should his attitude be viewed only as an effect of the political wisdom of Constantine, who saw in Christianity one of the means of gaining his political aims, which in reality had nothing to do with Christianity? Or did Constantine side with Christianity because of his own inner conviction? Or, finally, was this "conversion" influenced by both political motives and a spiritual leaning toward Christianity?

The main difficulty in solving this problem lies in the contra

dictory information found in our sources relative to this problem. Constantine, as depicted by the Christian bishop, Eusebius, does not in the least resemble Constantine created by the pen of the pagan writer, Zosimus. Historians, in their study of Constantine, have found ample opportunity for answering this entangled question according to their own preconceived opinions. The French historian Boissier writes in his Fall of Paganism (La fin du paganisme):

Unfortunately, when we deal with great people who play a leading part in history and try to study their lives and account for their actions, we are seldom satisfied with the most natural explanations. Since these men have the reputation of unusual people, we never want to believe that they acted just like other ordinary people. We search for hidden reasons behind their simplest actions; we attribute to them subtle considerations, depth of thought and perfidies of which they never dreamed. All this is true in the case of Constantine. A preconceived conviction became current that this skilful politician wanted to fool us, that the more fervently he devoted himself to religious affairs and declared himself a true believer, the more definite were our attempts to prove that he was indifferent to these matters, that he was a skeptic, who in reality was not concerned about any religion and preferred that religion which could benefit him most.1

For a long time much influence upon historical opinion as to Constantine was exerted by the skeptical judgment of the wellknown German historian, Jacob Burckhardt, expressed in his brilliant work, The Time of Constantine the Great (1st ed., 1853). He represents Constantine as a statesman of genius, seized by high ambitions and a strong desire for power, a man who sacrificed everything to the fulfilment of his worldly aims. "Attempts are often made," writes Burckhardt, "to penetrate into the religious conscience of Constantine and then draw a picture of the changes which presumably took place in his religious beliefs. All this is done in vain. For in the case of this man of genius, whose ambitions and thirst for power troubled every hour of his life, there could be no question of Christianity and paganism, of a conscious religiousness or non-religiousness; such a man is essentially unreligious (unreligiös). . . . . If he had stopped even for a moment to consider his real religious consciousness it would

1a G. Boissier, La fin du paganisme (Paris, 1891), I, 24-25.

have been a fatalism." This "deadly egotist," having recognized that Christianity was bound to become a world-force, made use of it precisely from that point of view. In this recognition lies Constantine's great merit. Yet Constantine gave very definite privileges to paganism as well as to Christianity. To look for any system in the actions of this inconsistent man would be all in vain; there was just chance. Constantine, "an egotist in a purple mantle, does and permits all that will increase his personal power." Burckhardt used as his main source Eusebius' Life of Constantine, disregarding the fact that this work is not at all authentic. This judgment of Burckhardt, given here in very brief form, leaves apparently no place for the religious conversion of the Emperor.

Basing his arguments on different grounds, the German theologian Adolph Harnack in The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (1st ed., 1892), arrives at similar conclusions. After a study of the status of Christianity in individual provinces of the empire he admits the impossibility of determining the exact number of Christians, and concludes that though toward the fourth century they were quite numerous and influential in the empire, they did not yet constitute the majority of the population. But he remarks further:

Numerical strength and real influence need not coincide in every case; a small circle may exercise very powerful influence if its members are largely drawn from the leading classes, whilst a large number may represent quite an inferior amount of influence if it is recruited from the lower classes, or in the main from country districts. Christianity was a religion of towns and cities; the larger the town or city, the larger (even relatively) was the number of Christians. This lent it an extraordinary advantage. But alongside of this, Christianity had already penetrated deep into the country districts, throughout a large number of provinces, as we know definitely with regard to the majority of provinces in Asia Minor, and no less so as regards Armenia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, and Northern Africa (with its country towns).

Dividing all the provinces of the empire into four categories according to the wider or narrower spread of Christianity, Harnack analyzes the position of Christianity in each category and Burckhardt, Die Zeit Constantin's des Grossen (Leipzig, 1898), 3. Auflage, pp. 326, 369-70, 387, 407.

Translated into English by J. Moffatt, London, 1904. The fourth edition, enlarged and revised, came out in the original German in 1925.

comes to the conclusion that headquarters of the Christian church at the opening of the fourth century lay in Asia Minor. It is well known that for a number of years previous to his famous "flight" to Gaul, Constantine stayed at the court of Diocletian in Nicomedia. His Asiatic impressions accompanied him to Gaul, where they reappeared in the form of political considerations which led him to make his decisive resolve, namely, that he could benefit by the support of the firm and powerful church and episcopate. It is idle to ask whether the church would have gained her victory even apart from Constantine. Some Constantine or other would have had to come upon the scene. Only as one decade succeeded to another it would be all the easier for anyone to be that Constantine. In any event, the victory of Christianity all over Asia Minor was achieved before ever Constantine came on the scene at all, whilst it was assured in other provinces. It required no special illumination and no celestial army chaplain to have this brought to light or to bring about what was already in existence. All that was needed was an acute and forceful statesman and one who at the same time had a vital interest in the religious situation. Such a man was Constantine. He was gifted, inasmuch as he clearly recognized and firmly grasped what was inevitable.*

It is quite apparent that Harnack views Constantine as a gifted statesman only. Naturally, even an approximate statistical estimate of the number of Christians at that period is out of the question. It is admitted, however, by many of the best modern scholars that paganism was still the dominant element in the state and society, while the Christians were decidedly in the minority. According to the calculations of Professor V. Bolotov, which coincide with estimates of several other scholars, "it is probable that toward the time of Constantine the Christians constituted onetenth of the entire population; perhaps even this figure needs to be reduced. Any claim that the number of Christians exceeded one-tenth is a precarious statement." At present there seems to

A. Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, II (Leipzig, 1906), 2. Auflage, 276-85; English translation, p. 452-66.

V. Bolotov, Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church (St. Petersburg, 1913), III, 29 (in Russian).

be uniform agreement upon the fact that the Christians were in the minority during the time of Constantine. If that is true, then the purely political theory in regard to Constantine's attitude to Christianity must be dropped. A great statesman would not have allowed his wide political schemes to depend upon that one-tenth of the population which at that time, as is well known, took no part in political affairs.

Duruy, the author of the History of Rome and of the Roman People, in evaluating Constantine's activities, speaks, somewhat under the influence of Burckhardt, of the religious element as an "honest and calm deism, which was shaping Constantine's religion." According to Duruy, Constantine "very early became aware of the fact that Christianity in its fundamental dogmas corresponds with his own belief in one God." But in spite of this, political considerations were of primary importance to Constantine.

As Bonaparte sought to conciliate the Church and the Revolution, so Constantine proposed to have the old and the new religions live peaceably side by side, at the same time favoring the latter. He understood which way the world was moving, and aided its movement without precipitating it. It is to the honor of this Emperor that he made good his claim to the title assumed by him on his triumphal arch, quietis custos (custodian of peace). .... We have sought to penetrate the deepest recesses of Constantine's mind, and have found there a policy of government rather than a religious conviction.'

Elsewhere in his work Duruy remarks that "The Constantine pictured by Eusebius often saw between earth and heaven things which no one else ever noticed."

At this point we might mention two out of the large number of publications which appeared in 1913 in connection with the celebration of the sixteenth centennium of the Edict of Milan: one by E. Schwartz and the other, the Collected Papers (Gesammelte Studien), edited by F. Dölger. Schwartz states that Constantine, "with the diabolical perspicacity of a world-master, realized the importance which the alliance with the church had for

V. Duruy, Histoire des Romains (Paris, 1885), VII, 102. Translated into English by M. M. Ripley, VII, Part II, 517.

Ibid., pp. 86, 88, 519-20.

* Duruy, VI (1883), 602.