The conversion of Constantine was of pivotal importance to the Christian faith, arguably Christianity’s position today would not have been solidified if not for the imperial support Constantine afforded it. However, the issue arises as to when Constantine developed his own Christian faith, as well as, the sincerity of his conviction. Contemporary Christian sources are inconsistent on the retelling of his alleged ‘conversion’. Furthermore, his actions are not wholly consistent with that of a devout Christian, be that the continuation of pagan iconography on coins, or the linguistic neutrality of his speeches until the later 320’s. Bearing this in mind an analysis of the conversion of Constantine will be undertaken, focusing on the appearance of a cross in the sky and the presence of Christ in a dream within in Lactantius, and later Eusebian writings. An explanation as to why these changes occurred will be given, mapping the propaganda behind the revision of key events during Constantine’s early reign. Finally, an exploration of the sincerity of Constantine’s faith will be undertaken. The opinion held throughout this essay is that Constantine undoubtedly was a Christian, instead the analysis will focus on what kind of Christian he was.
Conversion
Lactantius and Eusebius will inform the narrative for the conversion, seeing as they were the two contemporary sources to document this event. The Christian faith of these authors is, without having to say, an obvious bias, and one only has to recount the omission of Crispus’s death to illustrate this.[1] The analysis will not focus on this as it is apparent to any reader. Instead, the focus will be on the changing details of the conversion and the explanation as to why this occurred. However, before the conversion can be looked at a panegyric oration given in Gaul c.310 needs to be discussed. In this oration Constantine’s visit to the temple of Apollo facilitated a meeting between Constantine, Apollo and the Goddess of Victory.[2] What this story reveals is that Constantine was either fortuitous enough to meet three gods in a single lifetime, or that the conversion of Constantine was the adoption of this meeting by Christian writers to rewrite his pagan beliefs. This meeting, illustrates the developing Christianity of Constantine and the desire of either himself, or those documenting his life, to rectify any ‘mistakes’ that had occurred prior to Constantine’s changing faith and patronage of the Christians.[3]
Concerning Lactantius’s recount of the conversion, Constantine’s interaction with any divinity image is quick and succinctly phrased;
“Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of CHRIST.”[4]
What is of importance within this account is the potential for metaphorical understandings by Christian readers.[5] Within the Old Testament Yahweh is referred to as “a sun and shield”.[6] It, therefore, stands to reason that at this early stage, Lactantius, and perhaps Constantine, merely wanted to note the victory over Maxentius was spurred on by the protection God afforded him and his men upon sieging Rome. Lactantius’s Work ‘On the Death of Persecutors’ was written with the goal of discrediting those who attacked the Christian faith. The appearance of the Chi-Rho, therefore, allows for the revision and removal of the pagan solar encounter of Constantine’s earlier reign, facilitating both Lactantius’s desire to show the power of Christianity whilst simultaneously accounting for the faith of Constantine after the battle of Milvian Bridge.
Within Eusebius, the conversion takes on a more exaggerated and ambitious narrative consisting of two distinct encounters with the Christian deity. Initially Constantine;
“Saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight, he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition.”[7]
This encounter does not differ from Lactantius and indeed could have been taken from his work. Eusebius’s early work Ecclesiastical History makes no mention of the conversion, yet the Vita Constantine, of which the quotation is taken does. The only difference between these two events is the meeting of Eusebius and Constantine at Nicaea, which in turn facilitated Eusebius with various documentation hitherto retained in the western section of the empire.[8] Furthermore, when consideration is taken as to the aims of this meeting (retaining unity and suppression of the Arian controversy) the second Eusibain addition will become clear. The second encounter between Constantine and the divine is documented as follows;
“[T]hen in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies”[9]
By narrating the encounter between Constantine and Christ Eusebius has bolstered the position of the emperor, condemning those who fought against the orthodoxy he supported in life as well as attempting to build stability in the years of his successors. The alleged meeting was recounted to Eusebius form Constantine’s own words, illustrating a desire within the emperor to increase his connection to god and work as a propaganda campaign to illustrate the legitimacy with which he reigned. The exaggeration in the Vita exemplifies the reverence Constantine gathered throughout his reign. Having been written posthumously when Constantine had certainly ‘completed’ his transition into a Christian. Showing a situation and propaganda that would not have been as influential in the years proceeding his public endorsement of Christianity. In summary, the developing interactions between Constantine and the Christian god bolstered his claim to settle disputes on earth as well as create a distinct policy that, as shall be shown, allowed him to become the sole Augustus. The protector of the Christian faith, waging wars in a bid to ‘defend’ his fellow Christians.
The Need for a Conversion
Through analysis of the contemporary sources and a reassessment of the Apollo encounter, it appears that various discrepancies can lead to the utter expulsion of a conversion story. The Apollo encounter was recounted in a region where the god help particular reverence, from this it can be discerned that it was local propaganda, bolstering a young Constantine. The association with Apollo then can be subscribed to local beliefs not necessarily that of the emperor, leaving an ambiguity concerning Constantine’s faith. This coupled with Constantius’ reluctance to persecute shows a familial sympathy to the Christian cause.[10] Furthermore, Lactantius’s use of the phrase “Servavit” connotes that Constantius was viewed as a fellow Christian.[11] This taken with the praise awarded Constantius’ piety in Eusebius’s Vita, as well as Constantine’s own retelling of Constantius’ seeking the blessing of God, illustrates the Christian faith of Constantine was not brought on by any conversion but instead taught to him via his mother and father.[12] Moreover, analysing Eusebius further shows Constantine’s or Eusebian’s bid to remove responsibility for inaction during the persecution. Within the Vita Eusebius claims Constantine was “still just a boy” during the Diaclectian persecutions.[13] However, due to the correct dating of his death, as well as, secondary analysis discrediting this statement it illustrates an attempt by Constantine to disassociate himself from the event and excuse his non-intervention.[14] Whilst this is logical, it would have been more prudent to use the conversion to excuse any wrongdoings before 312, that is, of course, assuming any such event occurred.[15] Concerning the letter to Caecilian, this source’s survival is due to Hosius of Corduba, illuminating the presence of Christian bishops among Constantine’s court before his campaign in Rome.[16] What has been shown thus far is that regardless of the conversion stories details or even its existence Constantine was a Christian.[17] With the details changing as his Christianity developed. Initially working as a metaphorical device, before transforming into a more literal and weighty event that facilitated Constantine’s authority over the church and his attempts at unity. If the whole event was the reconstruction of the Apollo encounter it still does not mask familial sympathies towards the Christians, as well as, Constantine’s shame at not stopping the persecutions. Therefore, the conversion story is, potentially, a propaganda device, either a reworking of Constantine’s paganism or a further excuse for his cowardice before his rise to power.[18]
Constantine as a Genuine Christian
The remainder of this essay will focus on the primary documents and the actions of Constantine throughout his political career. Primarily his letters, coins, and patronage to churches will be examined with attempts to assess his commitment to the church occurring throughout. Whilst not always consistent, Constantine was always Christian. Before an examination of these factors can occur, it is important to note third-century concepts of Christian practice differs from the modern day. In the eyes of the Romans, gods interfered in temporal affairs and praise to the right god, they believed, could turn the tide of a battle.[19] Furthermore, it is evident Constantine’s Christianity was a developing aspect of his life, with further understanding of his faith came policy changes and revisions to his coinage and sacrificial policies.[20] It is with these factors in mind analysis will be taken to determine the sincerity of his Christian faith.
Letters and Synods
Various letters written by c have been preserved within the pages of Eusebius, whilst alterations and fabrications are potentially rife Baynes believe them to be genuine. Whilst sceptical as to the validity of this argument the limited space afforded has lead me to consolidate any qualms, believing they too are of Constantinian origin, whilst I do believe errors are potential in all.[21]
Constantine’s letter to Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage written 312-313 shows even from outset Constantine actively favoured the Christian church. Within the source, he gives the church three thousand follies, as well as the right to “demand whatever you discover, is needed”.[22] Facilitating the restoration of the church through imperial funding is evidence enough of his early Christianity, but to accommodate it at any cost is undeniably a genuine act of support. This theme only continues in the emperor’s two letters to Annullius, the first facilitated the restoration of church property.[23] The second is of far greater significance and will be discussed at greater length. In it, Constantine notes the “lawful revival and protection of the [Christian] worship has caused the greatest good fortune to the Roman name”.[24] He continues by excusing clerics from the burdens of civic duty to facilitate the “immeasurable benefit of the commonwealth”.[25] It is in this second letter a sense of Constantine’s aims as a Christian are evident. Fear undeniably ruled Constantine’s religious beliefs and policies, in the letter it is clear he ties the fate of Christianity to the fate of the empire. This is unsurprising, one only has to look at Lactantius’s own work to see the horrid fate of the persecutors, something that was undeniably present in the mind of Constantine. Regardless of when Constantine gained his faith, he believed God helped him at Milvian Bridge, and in this letter, Constantine hopes to return the favour. The final letter is to Shapur II, 324. Within this correspondence Constantine seeks the protection of Christian Persians, elevating himself to the protector of Christians not simply domestically, but worldwide.[26] The problem with this is whether it was an act of genuine concern or a device to trigger war and expansion. The ability to deduce the truth is difficult if not impossible, however, Constantine’s specification of “Christians” does generate a sense of real concern for his fellow believers. Additionally, his remarks concerning his loathing of sacrifice appear to be a prompt to guide Shapur to the ‘correct’ faith, that of Christianity.[27] Whilst also showing a triviality that would not have been needed, seeing as his mistreatment of Christian subjects would be cause enough to trigger conflict. Whilst brief this discussion has illustrated from the outset, at least privately, Constantine was a firm supporter of the Christian faith seeking a restoration and expansion of its influence. By doing this he hoped to retain power and stability in the empire, gaining the grace of God and liberating as many believers as he could.
Regarding Synods, Constantine chaired various debates concerning internal disputes. The first being the Council of Arles, 314. What this action means for us is the undeniability of Constantine’s Christianity.[28] The whole handling of the Donatist controversy shows Constantine felt a responsibility to retain church unity, which as mentioned, was crucial to the stability of the empire.[29] The sincerity of this intervention is strengthened when one considers the numerical minority of the Donatists, they posed a limited threat to orthodoxy, and instead what motivated Constantine was the need for unity. Allowing for the expansion of faith within the empire, and facilitate a greater connection with God, for whom he owes so much. This desire to appease God is further evident at Nicaea in 325, again it is Constantine attempting to remove the enemy from within, attempting unification once again under his supervision.[30] Furthermore, Constantine’s facilitation of travel, provisions, and accommodation exemplifies that no financial burdens would prevent the resolution of the church.[31]
From the analysis thus far, Constantine appears to have had a genuine belief in God and the need for unity in the church. Whilst this may have been dictated by self-interest, the fear of a displeased deity acting to remove him or destroy his empire was too real not to act. Regardless of the motivations, Constantine took great strides to solidify the churches position early in his reign, facilitating economic stability and making attempts to gain ideological stability as well. If one was to have only dealt with the written sources of Constantine a coherent and devout Christian would undeniably be seen. The rest of this analysis, however, will upset the idyllic picture painted thus far. Looking at imperial coinage and policies towards pagans will show a more incoherent approach to faith, working instead to undermine the devotion he shows in his own writings.
Coins and Sol Invictus
The retention of pagan gods and Sol, in particular, persisted until the years 324-325. At first glance, this seems to discredit the aforementioned genuine Christianity of Constantine, and perhaps it does. However, if one places the coins in their contextual setting it is only logical that a retention of pagan iconography should continue. Rome and the empire at large had a pagan majority, to avoid the alienation of the people Constantine would have to appease them. The use of Sol Invictus, if deliberate, is ingenious given the comparability of the Christian god to that of sol. The author of Revelations supposedly turned to the myth of Apollo’s victory over Python to describe the Lord’s victory over evil.[32] Given Constantine’s alleged vision being a solar phenomenon the case only becomes stronger that Constantine saw Sol as potentially making Christianity more palatable to the pagan majority. Constantine continues this solar imagery in his letter to the Council of Antioch, preserved in Optatus; “our great God, the saviour… has extended the light to all alike”.[33] Which appears to solidify the use of Sol with the sincerity of Constantine’s Christian faith, having been able to reconcile the two-deity’s imagery into a coherent and duplicitous icon.
However, before this argument can be accepted an examination of the significance of coins in Constantine’s policy needs to be undertaken. Elliot questions if the demise of sol was due to the increased understanding of Christianity by Constantine. Or rather, were the coins merely dead weight and iconographic tradition which cannot illustrate anything regarding his faith.[34] Bardill supports this sentiment by looking at the discrepancies of symbolism on the coins of Constantine leading to the hypothesis that the symbols were not officially sanctioned and instead at the whim of the minter.[35] The counter to this is Alfoldi, he points to the appearance of the cross in 314 along with Sol to illustrate the deliberate mixing of deities to facilitate and appease pagans and Christians. The hitherto unused symbol would not have been applicable to a none-Cristian minter, bringing into question its appearance at all. Furthermore, the use of both religious figures seems to have been an unlikely coincidence and would be a remarkable design if not imperial sanctioned.[36] When one also notes the loss of Sol coincides with the demise of Licinius it becomes clear that the pagan iconography was likely retained due to political astuteness on the part of Constantine. He retained the pagan majority’s loyalty by reforming slowly and choosing a deity with enough ambiguity that no fears or alienation could occur.
What can, therefore, be concluded from the coins is that, if deliberate, Constantine was astute and pragmatic enough to realise he could not alienate the people with what was the widest dispersed format of propaganda. Furthermore, I do not rule out Elliot’s thesis on Constantine’s growing knowledge of Christianity. This too could have been the case, however, the defeat of Licinius seemed to be the opportune moment for iconographical reform, be it with pre-existing knowledge or not. As for the significance of the coin, the mixing of solar and Christian iconography appears to be imperially sanctioned and it stands to reason that the significance of the imperial mint should be considered as a key aspect of Constantine’s propaganda, as well as his Christianity.
Church Building and Pagan Temples
Constantine built numerous churches during his reign, with many not being completed until his after his death. What this illustrates is a clear favouritism when it comes to the Christian faith. Furthermore, the choice of such significant places shows not only his own knowledge of the faith but his devotion to its proper worship. The shrine of St. Peter is of significant importance to this discussion as Constantine went against Roman law, disturbing a pagan cemetery to facilitate the Christian building.[37] Much like his coins, Constantine was astute when he erected Christian buildings, the use of imperial land cemented his support for them whilst also not gaining the disapproval of the pagan majority. Moreover, the decision to build a church on the barracks of the defeated Maxentius solidifies the belief that Constantine seen god as the decisive factor in his victory, something that would not be lost on his contemporaries acting as a solidification of his faith. The establishment of churches, much like the chairing or synods all act to show his devotion to god.[38] They acted as places of worship as well as propaganda centers, the magnificent decoration, and as aforementioned, strategic locations only further facilitates this assessment. Arguably his construction of Constantinople was the magnum opus of Constantine’s Christianity, by erecting a new city in the east he left Rome and it unyielding links to Olympus in the west. Allowing the establishment of a Christian capital for a Christian empire.[39]
Regarding pagan temples, Eusebius and Libanius give an exaggerated account as to the destruction of pagan temples under Constantine, materials were taken from temples, however, this seems to have either been either to adorn Constantinople or to alleviate a financial crisis. The severity of Constantine’s attack on paganism was not extensive, in fact, he allowed three temples to remain in Constantinople, only being removed under Theodosius I.[40] Furthermore, he allowed a temple in honour to the imperial cult be established, on the condition that no blood sacrifice would occur. Again, whilst not always consistent, Constantine appears to have taken strides to establish a formidable Christian presence in the empire. On occasion, this was flaunted directly in the face of the pagan majority (as with the shrine to St. Peter). Whilst on other occasions it was as tactful and calculated as every other policy during his reign. Ultimately, he has done more to establish a Christian presence that outweighed any other religion within the confines of the empire. Therefore, it can only logically be concluded that Constantine’s building of churches came from a genuine and educated desire to see Christianity thrive.
Concluding Analysis
Constantine’s Christianity, whilst never disingenuous, was an evolving feature of his reign. An oration from Eumenius, in 311, and his referral to “Our gods” shows that be he Christian or not, Constantine did not yet flaunt it. In comparison to the decidedly ambiguous “Divinity” on the Arch of Constantine in 315 it shows either the conversion of Constantine occurred, or he felt, by his victory over Maxentius, he had gained favour with his father’s Christian god. As his reign progress and the Edict of Milan proclaimed toleration, he placed Christ on equal footing with the Roman pantheon. As his career progressed he took actions that seemed to uphold Christian belief, be that the halting of facial branding, or the ambiguous creation of rest on “Sunday” (of which he again pragmatically established wording that benefited the entirety of the people). However, as he progressed and at the culmination of his reign, Constantine was, undoubtedly, a genuine Christian. Whether he converted or was informed at a young age of the Christian god Constantine undertook many policies that bolstered and established a church with immense influence in comparison to its role at the start of the century. While the conversion may have been propaganda, his actions, arguably, are utterly genuine.
Bibliography
Alfoldi, A. ‘The Helmet of Constantine with the Christian Monogram’, The Journal of Roman Studies, vol.1 (1931) pp.9-23.
Alfoldi, A. The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, Trans by Mattingly, H. (Oxford, 1994).
Armstrong, G. T. ‘Church and State Relations: The Changes Wrought by Constantine’, Journal of Bible and Religion, vol.32 (1964) pp.1-7.
Armstrong, G. T. ‘Imperial Church Building and Church-State Relation A.D 313-363’, Church History, vol.36 (1967) pp.3-17.
Bardill, J. Constantine Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age (Cambridge, 2012).
Barnes, T. D, ‘Constantine’s Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice’, The Journal of American Philology, vol.105 (1984) pp.69-72.
Barnes, T. D. ‘Lactantius and Constantine’, The journal of Roman Studies, vol.63 (1973) pp.29-46.
Baynes, N. H. Constantine and the Church (London, 1929).
Bowersock, G. W. ‘From Emperor to Bishop: The Self-Conscious Transformation of Political Power in the Fourth Century’, Classical Philology, vol.81 (1986) pp.298-307.
Bradbury, S. ‘Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century’, classical Philology, vol.89 (1994) pp.120-139
Bruun, P. ‘The Victorious Signs of Constantine: A Reappraisal’, Numismatic Chronicle, Vol.157 (1997) pp.41-59.
Cameron, A. The later Roman Empire A.D. 284-430, (London 1993).
Cameron, A. The later Roman Empire, (London 1997).
Curran, J. ‘Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome: The Legal Evidence’, Greece and Rome, vol.43 (1996) pp.68-80.
Drake, H. A. ‘The Impact of Constantine on Christianity’ in The Cambridge Companion to Constantine, Lenski, N. (Cambridge, 2012) pp.111-137.
Drake, H. A. ‘What Eusebian Knew: The Genesis of the “Vita Constantini”’, Classical Philology, vol.84 (1988) pp.20-38.
Elliot, T. G. ‘Constantine’s Conversion: Do We Really Need it?’, Phoenix, vol.41 (1987) pp.440-438.
Elliot, T. G. ‘Eusebian Frauds in “Vita Constantini”’, Phoenix, vol.45 (1991) pp.162-171. Elliot, T. G. ‘The Language of Constantine’s Propaganda’, Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol.120 (1990) pp.349-353..
Nicholson, O. ‘Constantine’s Vision of the Cross’, Vigiliae Christianae, vol54 (2000) pp.309-323.
Norris, F. W. ‘Greek Christianity’, in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to 600. Ed by Cassidy, A. and Norris, F. W. (Cambridge, 2007).
Odahl, C. ‘God and Constantine: divine Sanction for Imperial Rule in the First Christian Emperor’s Early Letters and Art’, The Catholic Historical Review, vol81 (1995) pp. 327-352.
Rudolph, H. The ‘Eusebian Constantine’, Church History, Vol40 (1971), pp. 145-155
Stephenson, F. Constantine Unconquered Emperor (London, 2011).
Storch, R. H. ‘The “Eusebian Constantine”’, Church History, (1971) pp.145-155.
Toynbee. ‘The shrine of St. Peter and its Setting’, The Journal Of Roman Studies, vol53 (1953) pp.1-26.
Primary sources
Lactantius, On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, chapter XLIV. Accessed at: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/lactant/lactpers.html
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, introduction, translation, and commentary by Cameron, A. and Hall, S.G (Oxford, 1999)
Eusebius, The history of the church from Christ to Constantine, translated by Williamson, G.A. revised and edited with a new introduction by Louth, A. (London, 1989)
[1] Elliot, 1991, p.164.
[2] Elliot, 1990, pp.349-353.
[3] Stephenson, 2011, p.129
[4] Lactantius, XLIV
[5] Bruun, 1997, p.50.
[6] Bardill, 2012, p.328.
[7] Eusebius in Cameron and Hall, I.28.
[8] Cameron, 1993, p.17.
[9] Eusebius in Cameron and Hall, I.29.
[10] Afoldi, 1994, p.120.
[11] Elliot, 1987, p.442.
[12] Eusebius in Cameron and Hall, II.49.
[13] Eusebius in Cameron and Hall, II.5.
[14] Bardill, 2012, 326.
[15] Elliot, 1987, p.436.
[16] Drake, 1988, pp.29-30.
[17] Afoldi, 1994, p.75.
[18] Barnes, 1973, p.31.
[19] Rudolph, 1971, p.147.
[20] Curran, 1996, pp.76-77.
[21] Baynes, 1929, p.6.
[22] Afoldi, 1994 pp.74-5.
[23] Ibid, p.75.
[24] Ibid, p.76.
[25] Ibid, p.76.
[26] Bardill, 2012, p.303.
[27] Bradbury, 1994, pp.129-130.
[28] Bardill, 2012, p.270.
[29] Drake, 2012, p.115.
[30] Armstrong, 1964, pp.1-7.
[31] Norris, 2007, p.73.
[32] Bardill, 2012, p.327.
[33] Ibid, p.330
[34] Elliot, 1990, p.350
[35] Bardill, 2012, p.221.
[36] Afoldi, 1931, pp.10-15.
[37] Toynbee, 1953, p.16.
[38] Armstrong, 1967, p,4,
[39] Ibid, p.7.
[40] Barnes, 1984, p.70.
write