His coins give his name as M., or more frequently as C., Flavius Valerius
Constantinus. He was born at Naissus, now Nisch in Servia, the son of a
Roman officer, Constantius, who later became Roman Emperor, and St. Helena,
a woman of humble extraction but remarkable character and unusual ability.
The date of his birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as
late as 288. After his father's elevation to the dignity of Caesar we find
him at the court of Diocletian and later (305) fighting under Galerius on
the Danube. When, on the resignation of his father Constantius was made
Augustus, the new Emperor of the West asked Galerius, the Eastern Emperor,
to let Constantine, whom he had not seen for a long time, return to his
father's court. This was reluctantly granted. Constantine joined his
father, under whom he had just time to distinguish himself in Britain
before death carried off Constantius (25 July, 306). Constantine was
immediately proclaimed Caesar by his troops, and his title was acknowledged
by Galerius somewhat hesitatingly. This event was the first break in
Diocletian's scheme of a four-headed empire (tetrarchy) and was soon
followed by the proclamation in Rome of Maxentius, the son of Maximian, a
tyrant and profligate, as Caesar, October, 306.
During the wars between Maxentius and the Emperors Severus and Galerius,
Constantine remained inactive in his provinces. The attempt which the old
Emperors Diocletian and Maximian made, at Carmentum in 307, to restore
order in the empire having failed, the promotion of Licinius to the
position of Augustus, the assumption of the imperial title by Maximinus
Daia, and Maxentius' claim to be sole emperor (April, 308), led to the
proclamation of Constantine as Augustus. Constantine, having the most
efficient army, was acknowledged as such by Galerius, who was fighting
against Maximinus in the East, as well as by Licinius.
So far Constantine, who was at this time defending his own frontier against
the Germans, had taken no part in the quarrels of the other claimants to
the throne. But when, in 311, Galerius, the eldest Augustus and the most
violent persecutor of the Christians, had died a miserable death, after
cancelling his edicts against the Christians, and when Maxentius, after
throwing down Constantine's statues, proclaimed him a tyrant, the latter
saw that war was inevitable. Though his army was far inferior to that of
Maxentius, numbering according to various statements from 25,000 to 100,000
men, while Maxentius disposed of fully 190,000, he did not hesitate to
march rapidly into Italy (spring of 312). After storming Susa and almost
annihilating a powerful army near Turin, he continued his march southward.
At Verona he met a hostile army under the prefect of Maxentius' guard,
Ruricius, who shut himself up in the fortress. While besieging the city
Constantine, with a detachment of his army, boldly assailed a fresh force
of the enemy coming to the relief of the besieged fortress and completely
defeated it. The surrender of Verona was the consequence. In spite of the
overwhelming numbers of his enemy (an estimated 100,000 in Maxentius' army
against 20,000 in Constantine's army) the emperor confidently marched
forward to Rome. A vision had assured him that he should conquer in the
sign of the Christ, and his warriors carried Christ's monogram on their
shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing forces met
near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here
Maxentius' troops suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his
life in the Tiber (28 October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the
Christians the victor immediately gave convincing proof; the Christian
worship was henceforth tolerated throughout the empire (Edict of Milan,
early in 313). His enemies he treated with the greatest magnanimity; no
bloody executions followed the victory of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine
stayed in Rome but a short time after his victory. Proceeding to Milan (end
of 312, or beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius,
married his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the
East, and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted
pagan and a cruel tyrant, who persecuted the Christians even after
Galerius' death, was now defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his
orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the battle-field (30
April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians,
but died of a painful disease in the following autumn.
Of all Diocletian's tetrarchs Licinius was now the only survivor. His
treachery soon compelled Constantine to make war on him. Pushing forward
with his wonted impetuosity, the emperor struck him a decisive blow at
Cibalae (8 October, 314). But Licinius was able to recover himself, and the
battle fought between the two rivals at Castra Jarba (November, 314) left
the two armies in such a position that both parties thought it best to make
peace. For ten years the peace lasted, but when, about 322, Licinius, not
content with openly professing paganism, began to persecute the Christians,
while at the same time he treated with contempt Constantine's undoubted
rights and privileges, the outbreak of war was certain, and Constantine
gathered an army of 125,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, besides a fleet of
200 vessels to gain control of the Bosporus. Licinius, on the other hand,
by leaving the eastern boundaries of the empire undefended succeeded in
collecting an even more numerous army, made up of 150,000 infantry and
15,000 cavalry, while his fleet consisted of no fewer than 350 ships. The
opposing armies met at Adrianople, 3 July, 324, and Constantine's well
disciplined troops defeated and put to flight the less disciplined forces
of Licinius. Licinius strengthened the garrison of Byzantium so that an
attack seemed likely to result in failure and the only hope of taking the
fortress lay in a blockade and famine. This required the assistance of
Constantine's fleet, but his opponent's ships barred the way. A sea fight
at the entrance to the Dardanelles was indecisive, and Constantine's
detachment retired to Elains, where it joined the bulk of his fleet. When
the fleet of the Licinian admiral Abantus pursued on the following day, it
was overtaken by a violent storm which destroyed 130 ships and 5000 men.
Constantine crossed the Bosporus, leaving a sufficient corps to maintain
the blockade of Byzantium, and overtook his opponent's main body at
Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon. Again he inflicted on him a crushing defeat,
killing 25,000 men and scattering the greater part of the remainder.
Licinius with 30,000 men escaped to Nicomedia. But he now saw that further
resistance was useless. He surrendered at discretion, and his noble-hearted
conqueror spared his life. But when, in the following year (325), Licinius
renewed his treacherous practices he was condemned to death by the Roman
Senate and executed.
Henceforth, Constantine was sole master of the Roman Empire. Shortly after
the defeat of Licinius, Constantine determined to make Constantinople the
future capital of the empire, and with his usual energy he took every
measure to enlarge, strengthen, and beautify it. For the next ten years of
his reign he devoted himself to promoting the moral, political, and
economical welfare of his possessions and made dispositions for the future
government of the empire. While he placed his nephews, Dalmatius and
Hannibalianus in charge of lesser provinces, he designated his sons
Constantius, Constantine, and Constans as the future rulers of the empire.
Not long before his end, the hostile movement of the Persian king, Sh�p�r,
again summoned him into the field. When he was about to march against the
enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after
receiving baptism.
Historical Appreciation
Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the
history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until
then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true
that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious
movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the
Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth
part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the
East. Constantine's decision depended less on general conditions than on a
personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.
Long before this, belief in the old polytheism had been shaken; in more
stolid natures, as Diocletian, it showed its strength only in the form of
superstition, magic, and divination. The world was fully ripe for
monotheism or its modified form, henotheism, but this monotheism offered
itself in varied guises, under the forms of various Oriental religions: in
the worship of the sun, in the veneration of Mithras, in Judaism, and in
Christianity. Whoever wished to avoid making a violent break with the past
and his surroundings sought out some Oriental form of worship which did not
demand from him too severe a sacrifice; in such cases Christianity
naturally came last. Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the
truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but believed that they could
appropriate it without being obliged on that account to renounce the beauty
of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus; another
thus minded was Aurelian, whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like
Paul of Samosata. Not only Gnostics and other heretics, but Christians who
considered themselves faithful, held in a measure to the worship of the
sun. Leo the Great in his day says that it was the custom of many
Christians to stand on the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay homage
to the sun by obeisance and prayers (cf. Euseb. Alexand. in Mai, "Nov.
Patr. Bibl.", 11, 523; Augustine, "Enarratio in Ps. x"; Leo I, Serm. xxvi).
When such conditions prevailed it is easy to understand that many of the
emperors yielded to the delusion that they could unite all their subjects
in the adoration of the one sun-god who combined in himself the Father-God
of the Christians and the much-worshipped Mithras; thus the empire could be
founded anew on unity of religion. Even Constantine, as will be shown
farther on, for a time cherished this mistaken belief. It looks almost as
though the last persecutions of the Christians were directed more against
all irreconcilables and extremists than against the great body of
Christians. The policy of the emperors was not a consistent one; Diocletian
was at first friendly towards Christianity; even its grimmest foe, Julian,
wavered. Caesar Constantius, Constantine's father, protected the Christians
during a most cruel persecution.
Constantine grew up under the influence of his father's ideas. He was the
son of Constantius Chlorus by his first, informal marriage, called
concubinatus, with Helena, a woman of inferior birth. For a short time
Constantine had been compelled to stay at the court of Galerius, and had
evidently not received a good impression from his surroundings there. When
Diocletian retired, Constantius advanced from the position of Caesar to
that of Augustus, and the army, against the wishes of the other emperors,
raised the young Constantine to the vacant position. Right here was seen at
once how unsuccessful would be the artificial system of division of the
empire and succession to the throne by which Diocletian sought to frustrate
the overweening power of the Praetorian Guard. Diocletian's personality is
full of contradictions; he was just as crude in his religious feelings as
he was shrewd and far-seeing in state affairs; a man of autocratic nature,
but one who, under certain circumstances, voluntarily set bounds to
himself. He began a reconstruction of the empire, which Constantine
completed. The existence of the empire was threatened by many serious
evils, the lack of national and religious unity, its financial and military
weakness. Consequently the system of taxation had to be accommodated to the
revived economic barter system. The taxes bore most heavily on the
peasants, the peasant communities, and the landed proprietors; increasingly
heavy compulsory service was also laid on those engaged in industrial
pursuits, and they were therefore combined into state guilds. The army was
strengthened, the troops on the frontier being increased to 360,000 men. In
addition, the tribes living on the frontiers were taken into the pay of the
State as allies, many cities were fortified, and new fortresses and
garrisons were established, bringing soldiers and civilians more into
contact, contrary to the old Roman axiom. When a frontier was endangered
the household troops took the field. This body of soldiers, known as
palatini, comitatenses, which had taken the place of the Praetorian Guard,
numbered not quite 200,000 men (sometimes given as 194,500). A good postal
service maintained constant communication between the different parts of
the empire. The civil and military administration were, perhaps, somewhat
more sharply divided than before, but an equally increased importance was
laid on the military capacity of all state officials. Service at court was
termed militia, "military service". Over all, like to a god, was enthroned
the emperor, and the imperial dignity was surrounded by a halo, a
sacredness, a ceremonial, which was borrowed from the Oriental theocracies.
The East from the earliest times had been a favourable soil for theocratic
government; each ruler was believed by his people to be in direct
communication with the godhead, and the law of the State was regarded as
revealed law. In the same manner the emperors allowed themselves to be
venerated as holy oracles and deities, and everything connected with them
was called sacred. Instead of imperial, the word sacred had now always to
be used. A large court-retinue, elaborate court-ceremonials, and an
ostentatious court-costume made access to the emperor more difficult.
Whoever wished to approach the head of the State must first pass through
many ante-rooms and prostrate himself before the emperor as before a
divinity. As the old Roman population had no liking for such ceremonial,
the emperors showed a constantly increasing preference for the East, where
monotheism held almost undisputed sway, and where, besides, economic
conditions were better. Rome was no longer able to control the whole of the
great empire with its peculiar civilizations.
In all directions new and vigorous national forces began to show
themselves. Only two policies were possible: either to give way to the
various national movements, or to take a firm stand on the foundation of
antiquity, to revive old Roman principles, the ancient military severity,
and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors had tried to follow this
latter course, but in vain. It was just as impossible to bring men back to
the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to
the national form of worship. Consequently, the empire had to identify
itself with the progressive movement, employ as far as possible the
existing resources of national life, exercise tolerance, make concessions
to the new religious tendencies, and receive the Germanic tribes into the
empire. This conviction constantly spread, especially as Constantine's
father had obtained good results therefrom. In Gaul, Britain, and Spain,
where Constantius Chlorus ruled, peace and contentment prevailed, and the
prosperity of the provinces visibly increased, while in the East prosperity
was undermined by the existing confusion and instability. But it was
especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras
predominated. Would it not be possible to gather all the different
nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol Deus Invictus, to whom even
Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or Sol Mithras Deus
Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the supreme god of
the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he absolutely
rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had strongly influenced
him in favour of the God of the Christians.
In deciding for Christianity he was no doubt also influenced by reasons of
conscience--reasons resulting from the impression made on every
unprejudiced person both by the Christians and by the moral force of
Christianity, and from the practical knowledge which the emperors had of
the Christian military officers and state officials. These reasons are,
however, not mentioned in history, which gives the chief prominence to a
miraculous event. Before Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius,
according to ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied
disaster; so reports a pagan panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid
him, continues this writer, one particular god urged him on, for
Constantine had close relations with the divinity itself. Under what form
this connexion with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (De
mort. persec., ch. xliv) and Eusebius (Vita Const., I, xxvi-xxxi). He saw,
according to the one in a dream, according to the other in a vision, a
heavenly manifestation, a brilliant light in which he believed he descried
the cross or the monogram of Christ. Strengthened by this apparition, he
advanced courageously to battle, defeated his rival and won the supreme
power. It was the result that gave to this vision its full importance, for
when the emperor afterwards reflected on the event it was clear to him that
the cross bore the inscription: HOC VINCES (in this sign wilt thou
conquer). A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of
Christ (CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by
Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and placed
upon the Labarum (q. v.). In addition, this ensign was placed in the hand
of a statue of the emperor at Rome, the pedestal of which bore the
inscription: "By the aid of this salutary token of strength I have freed my
city from the yoke of tyranny and restored to the Roman Senate and People
the ancient splendour and glory." Directly after his victory Constantine
granted tolerance to the Christians and next year (313) took a further step
in their favour. In 313 Licinius and he issued at Milan the famous joint
edict of tolerance. This declared that the two emperors had deliberated as
to what would be advantageous for the security and welfare of the empire
and had, above all, taken into consideration the service which man owed to
the "deity". Therefore they had decided to grant Christians and all others
freedom in the exercise of religion. Everyone might follow that religion
which he considered the best. They hoped that "the deity enthroned in
heaven" would grant favour and protection to the emperors and their
subjects. This was in itself quite enough to throw the pagans into the
greatest astonishment. When the wording of the edict is carefully examined
there is clear evidence of an effort to express the new thought in a manner
too unmistakable to leave any doubt. The edict contains more than the
belief, to which Galerius at the end had given voice, that the persecutions
were useless, and it granted the Christians freedom of worship, while at
the same time it endeavoured not to affront the pagans. Without doubt the
term deity was deliberately chosen, for it does not exclude a heathen
interpretation. The cautious expression probably originated in the imperial
chancery, where pagan conceptions and pagan forms of expression still
lasted for a long time. Nevertheless the change from the bloody persecution
of Christianity to the toleration of it, a step which implied its
recognition, may have startled many heathens and may have excited in them
the same astonishment that a German would feel if an emperor who was a
Social Democrat were to seize the reins of government. The foundations of
the State would seem to such a one to rock. The Christians also may have
been taken aback. Before this, it is true, it had occurred to Melito of
Sardes (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxxiii) that the emperor might some day
become a Christian, but Tertullian had thought otherwise, and had written
(Apol., xxi) the memorable sentence: "Sed et Caesares credidissent super
Christo, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et
Christiani potuissent esse Caesares" (But the Caesars also would have
believed in Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary to the
world or if Christians too could have been Caesars). The same opinion was
held by St. Justin (I, xii, II, xv). That the empire should become
Christian seemed to Justin and many others an impossibility, and they were
just as little in the wrong as the optimists were in the right. At all
events, a happy day now dawned for the Christians. They must have felt as
did the persecuted in the time of the French Revolution when Robespierre
finally fell and the Reign of Terror was over. The feeling of emancipation
from danger is touchingly expressed in the treatise ascribed to Lactantius
(De mortibus persecut., in P. L., VII, 52), concerning the ways in which
death overtook the persecutors. It says: "We should now give thanks to the
Lord, Who has gathered together the flock that was devastated by ravening
wolves, Who has exterminated the wild beasts which drove it from the
pasture. Where is now the swarming multitude of our enemies, where the
hangmen of Diocletian and Maximian? God has swept them from the earth; let
us therefore celebrate His triumph with joy; let us observe the victory of
the Lord with songs of praise, and honour Him with prayer day and night, so
that the peace which we have received again after ten years of misery may
be preserved to us." The imprisoned Christians were released from the
prisons and mines, and were received by their brethren in the Faith with
acclamations of joy; the churches were again filled, and those who had
fallen away sought forgiveness.
For a time it seemed as if merely tolerance and equality were to prevail.
Constantine showed equal favour to both religious. As pontifex maximus he
watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights. The one thing he
did was to suppress divination and magic; this the heathen emperors had
also at times sought to do. Thus, in 320, the emperor forbade the diviners
or haruspices to enter a private house under pain of death. Whoever by
entreaty or promise of payment persuaded a haruspex to break this law, that
man's property should be confiscated and he himself should be burned to
death. Informers were to be rewarded. Whoever desired to practise heathen
usages must do so openly. He must go to the public altars and sacred
places, and there observe traditional forms of worship. "We do not forbid",
said the emperor, "the observance of the old usages in the light of day."
And in an ordinance of the same year, intended for the Roman city prefects,
Constantine directed that if lightning struck an imperial palace, or a
public building, the haruspices were to seek out according to ancient
custom what the sign might signify, and their interpretation was to be
written down and reported to the emperor. It was also permitted to private
individuals to make use of this old custom, but in following this
observance they must abstain from the forbidden sacrificia domestica. A
general prohibition of the family sacrifice cannot be deduced from this,
although in 341 Constantine's son Constantius refers to such an interdict
by his father (Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 2). A prohibition of this kind would
have had the most severe and far-reaching results, for most sacrifices were
private ones. And how could it have been carried out while public
sacrifices were still customary? In the dedication of Constantinople in 330
a ceremonial half pagan, half Christian was used. The chariot of the
sun-god was set in the market-place, and over its head was placed the Cross
of Christ, while the Kyrie Eleison was sung. Shortly before his death
Constantine confirmed the privileges of the priests of the ancient gods.
Many other actions of his have also the appearance of half-measures, as if
he himself had wavered and had always held in reality to some form of
syncretistic religion. Thus he commanded the heathen troops to make use of
a prayer in which any monotheist could join, and which ran thus: "We
acknowledge thee alone as god and king, we call upon thee as our helper.
From thee have we received the victory, by thee have we overcome the foe.
To thee we owe that good which we have received up to now, from thee do we
hope for it in the future. To thee we offer our entreaties and implore thee
that thou wilt preserve to us our emperor Constantine and his god-fearing
sons for many years uninjured and victorious." The emperor went at least
one step further when he withdrew his statue from the pagan temples,
forbade the repair of temples that had fallen into decay, and suppressed
offensive forms of worship. But these measures did not go beyond the
syncretistic tendency which Constantine had shown for a long time. Yet he
must have perceived more and more clearly that syncretism was impossible.
In the same way religious freedom and tolerance could not continue as a
form of equality, the age was not ready for such a conception. It is true
that Christian writers defended religious liberty; thus Tertullian said
that religion forbids religious compulsion (Non est religionis cogere
religionem quae sponte suscipi debet non vi.--"Ad Scapulam", near the
close); and Lactantius, moreover, declared: "In order to defend religion
man must be willing to die, but not to kill." Origen also took up the cause
of freedom. Most probably oppression and persecution had made men realize
that to have one's way of thinking, one's conception of the world and of
life, dictated to him was a mischief-working compulsion. In contrast to the
smothering violence of the ancient State, and to the power and custom of
public opinion, the Christians were the defenders of freedom, but not of
individual subjective freedom, nor of freedom of conscience as understood
to-day. And even if the Church had recognized this form of freedom, the
State could not have remained tolerant. Without realizing the full import
of his actions, Constantine granted the Church one privilege after another.
As early as 313 the Church obtained immunity for its ecclesiastics,
including freedom from taxation and compulsory service, and from obligatory
state offices--such for example as the curial dignity, which was a heavy
burden. The Church further obtained the right to inherit property, and
Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is
true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as
Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but
of the everlasting day of the sun. According to Eusebius, the heathen also
were obliged on this day to go out into the open country and together raise
their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned, a prayer without any
marked Christian character (Vita Const., IV, xx). The emperor granted many
privileges to the Church for the reason that it took care of the poor and
was active in benevolence. Perhaps he showed his Christian tendencies most
pronouncedly in removing the legal disabilities which, since the time of
Augustus, had rested on celibacy, leaving in existence only the leges
decimarioe, and in recognizing an extensive ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
But it should not be forgotten that the Jewish communities had also their
own jurisdiction, exemptions, and immunities, even if in a more limited
degree. A law of 318 denied the competence of civil courts if in a suit an
appeal was made to the court of a Christian bishop. Even after a suit had
begun before the civil court, it would still be permissible for one of the
parties to transfer it to the bishop's court. If both parties had been
granted a legal hearing, the decision of the bishop was to be binding. A
law of 333 commanded the state officials to enforce the decisions of the
bishops, a bishop's testimony should be considered sufficient by all judges
and no witness was to be summoned after a bishop had testified. These
concessions were so far-reaching that the Church itself felt the great
increase of its jurisdiction as a constraint. Later emperors limited this
jurisdiction to cases of voluntary submission by both parties to the
episcopal court.
Constantine did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker members
of society whom the old Roman law had treated harshly. But in this he only
continued what earlier emperors, under the influence of Stoicism, had begun
before him, and he left to his successors the actual work of their
emancipation. Thus some emperors who reigned before Constantine had
forbidden the exposure of children, although without success, as exposed
children or foundlings were readily adopted, because they could be used for
many purposes. The Christians especially exerted themselves to get
possession of such foundlings, and consequently Constantine issued no
direct prohibition of exposure, although the Christians regarded exposure
as equal to murder; he commanded, instead, that foundlings should belong to
the finder, and did not permit the parents to claim the children they had
exposed. Those who took such children obtained a property right in them and
could make quite an extensive use of this; they were allowed to sell and
enslave foundlings, until Justinian prohibited such enslaving under any
guise. Even in the time of St. Chrysostom parents mutilated their children
for the sake of gain. When suffering from famine or debt, many parents
could only obtain relief by selling their children if they did not wish to
sell themselves. All later laws against such practices availed as little as
those against emasculation and pandering. St. Ambrose vividly depicts the
sad spectacle of children being sold by their fathers, under pressure of
creditors, or by the creditors themselves. All the many forms of
institutions for feeding and supporting children and the poor were of
little avail. Constantine himself established asylums for foundlings; yet
he recognized the right of parents to sell their children, and only
excepted older children. He ruled that children who had been sold could be
bought back in contradistinction to children who had been exposed; but this
ruling was of no avail if the children were taken into a foreign country.
Valentinian, therefore, prohibited the traffic in human beings with foreign
lands. The laws forbidding such practices continually multiplied, but the
greater part of the burden of saving the children fell on the Church.
Constantine was the first to prohibit the abduction of girls. The abductor
and those who aided him by influencing the girl were threatened with severe
punishment. In harmony with the views of the Church, Constantine rendered
divorce more difficult, he made no changes where the divorce was agreed to
by both parties, but imposed severe conditions when the demand for
separation came from one side only. A man could put away his wife for
adultery, poisoning, and pandering, and retain her dowry, but if he
discarded her for any other cause, he was to return the dowry and was
forbidden to marry again. If, nevertheless, he remarried, the discarded
wife had the right to enter his house and take everything which the new
wife had brought him. Constantine increased the severity of the earlier law
forbidding the concubinage of a free woman with a slave, and the Church did
not regard this measure with disfavour. On the other hand, his retention of
the distinctions of rank in the marriage law was clearly contrary to the
views of the Church. The Church rejected all class distinctions in
marriage, and regarded informal marriages (the so-called concubinatus) as
true marriages, in so far as they were lasting and monogamous. Constantine,
however, increased the difficulties of the concubinatus, and forbade
senators and the higher officials in the State and in the pagan priesthoods
to contract such unions with women of lower rank (feminoe humiles), thus
making it impossible for them to marry women belonging to the lower
classes, although his own mother was of inferior rank. But in other
respects the emperor showed his mother, Helena, the greatest deference.
Other concubinatus besides those mentioned were placed at a disadvantage in
regard to property, and the rights of inheritance of the children and the
concubines were restricted. Constantine, however, encouraged the
emancipation of slaves and enacted that manumission in the church should
have the same force as the public manumission before State officials and by
will (321). Neither the Christian nor the heathen emperors permitted slaves
to seek their freedom without authorization of law, the Christian rulers
sought to ameliorate slavery by limiting the power of corporal punishment;
the master was allowed only to use a rod or to send a slave to prison, and
the owner was not liable to punishment even if the slave died under these
circumstances. But if death resulted from the use of clubs, stones, weapons
or instruments of torture, the person who caused the death was to be
treated as a murderer. As will be seen below, Constantine was himself
obliged to observe this law when he sought to get rid of Licinianus. A
criminal was no longer to be branded in the face, but only on the feet, as
the human face was fashioned in the likeness of God.
When these laws are compared with the ordinances of those earlier emperors
who were of humane disposition, they do not go far beyond the older
regulations. In everything not referring to religion Constantine followed
in the footsteps of Diocletian. In spite of all unfortunate experiences, he
adhered to the artificial division of the empire, tried for a long time to
avoid a breach with Licinius, and divided the empire among his sons. On the
other hand, the imperial power was increased by receiving a religious
consecration. The Church tolerated the cult of the emperor under many
forms. It was permitted to speak of the divinity of the emperor, of the
sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor, without
being considered on this account an idolater. From this point of view
Constantine's religious change was relatively trifling; it consisted of
little more than the renunciation of a formality. For what his predecessors
had aimed to attain by the use of all their authority and at the cost of
incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the recognition of their own
divinity; Constantine gained this end, though he renounced the offering of
sacrifices to himself. Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court,
even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred
being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven.
It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity
merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened
despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly
cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition. Where the policy of the State
required, he could be cruel. Even after his conversion he caused the
execution of his brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter's son, as well
as of Crispus his own son by his first marriage, and of his wife Fausta. He
quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious policy, and in
323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the promise of
personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was strangled
by order of Constantine. During the joint reign Licinianus, the son of
Licinius, and Crispus, the son of Constantine, had been the two Caesars.
Both were gradually set aside; Crispus was executed on the charge of
immorality made against him by Constantine's second wife, Fausta. The
charge was false, as Constantine learned from his mother, Helena, after the
deed was done. In punishment Fausta was suffocated in a superheated bath.
The young Licinianus was flogged to death. Because Licinianus was not the
son of his sister, but of a slave-woman, Constantine treated him as a
slave. In this way Constantine evaded his own law regarding the mutilation
of slaves After reading these cruelties it is hard to believe that the same
emperor could at times have mild and tender impulses; but human nature is
full of contradictions.
Constantine was liberal to prodigality, was generous in almsgiving, and
adorned the Christian churches magnificently. He paid more attention to
literature and art than we might expect from an emperor of this period,
although this was partly due to vanity, as is proved by his appreciation of
the dedication of literary works to him. It is likely that he practiced the
fine arts himself, and he frequently preached to those around him. No doubt
he was endowed with a strong religious sense, was sincerely pious, and
delighted to be represented in an attitude of prayer, with his eyes raised
to heaven. In his palace he had a chapel to which he was fond of retiring,
and where he read the Bible and prayed. "Every day", Eusebius tells us, "at
a fixed hour he shut himself up in the most secluded part of the palace, as
if to assist at the Sacred Mysteries, and there commune with God alone
ardently beseeching Him, on bended knees, for his necessities". As a
catechumen he was not permitted to assist at the sacred Eucharistic
mysteries. He remained a catechumen to the end of his life, but not because
he lacked conviction nor because, owing to his passionate disposition, he
desired to lead a pagan life. He obeyed as strictly as possible the
precepts of Christianity, observing especially the virtue of chastity,
which his parents had impressed upon him; he respected celibacy, freed it
from legal disadvantages, sought to elevate morality, and punished with
great severity the offenses against morals which the pagan worship bad
encouraged. He brought up his children as Christians. Thus his life became
more and more Christian, and thus gradually turned away from the feeble
syncretism which at times he seemed to favour. The God of the Christians
was indeed a jealous God who tolerated no other gods beside him. The Church
could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other
religious bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another.
Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of
pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave
them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table,
called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed
their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other
hand, often requested his intervention-- e. g. shortly after 313, in the
Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble,
and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable,
for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church
and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with
dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities--the
synods--decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so
much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong
interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid
strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius
because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the
corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine's alarm can
be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually
became. When at last he felt the approach of death he received baptism,
declaring to the bishops who had assembled around him that, after the
example of Christ, he had desired to receive the saving seal in the Jordan,
but that God had ordained otherwise, and he would no longer delay baptism.
Laying aside the purple, the emperor, in the white robe of a neophyte,
peacefully and almost joyfully awaited the end.
Of Constantine's sons the eldest, Constantine II, showed decided leanings
to heathenism, and his coins bear many pagan emblems; the second and
favourite son, Constantius, was a more pronounced Christian, but it was
Arian Christianity to which he adhered. Constantius was an unwavering
opponent of paganism; he closed all the temples and forbade sacrifices
under pain of death. His maxim was: "Cesset superstitio; sacrificiorum
aboleatur insania" (Let superstition cease; let the folly of sacrifices be
abolished). Their successors had recourse to religious persecution against
heretics and pagans. Their laws (Cod. Theod., XVI, v) had an unfavourable
influence on the Middle Ages and were the basis of the much-abused
Inquisition. (See PERSECUTIONS; CONSTANTINOPLE; ROMAN EMPIRE.)
CHARLES G. HERBERMANN & GEORG GRUPP
Transcribed by Rick McCarty
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913 edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight, editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download the file cathen.txt/.zip.
