But after the “crowning
mercy”
of Chrysopolis there was no more
fighting, except with the Goths.
fighting, except with the Goths.
Cambridge Medieval History - v1 - Christian Roman Empire and Teutonic Kingdoms
We cannot cut in two the
Gothic War and the reign of Justinian; and in any case we can draw no
sharp division after Constantine without ignoring the greatest power
of
the world—that Eastern Roman Empire which carried down the old
Graeco-Roman civilisation almost to the end of the Middle Ages. In
truth, the precise beginning of Medieval History is as indefinite as the
precise beginning of the fog. There is no point between Augustus and
Charlemagne where we can say, The old is finished, the new not yet
1
C. MED. H. VOL. I. CH. I.
## p. 2 (#32) ###############################################
2
Early life of Constantine
[274–317
begun. Choose where we will, medieval elements are traceable before it,
ancient elements after it. Thus Theodoric's government of Italy is on
the old lines, while the Frankish invasion of Gaul belongs to the new
order. If in the present work we begin with Constantine, we do not
mean that there is any break in history at this point, though we see
important changes in the adoption of Christianity and the fixing of the
government in the form it retained for centuries. The chief advantage
of choosing this epoch is that as the medieval elements were not strong
before the fourth century, we shall be able to trace nearly the whole of
their growth without encroaching too much on Ancient History. At
the same time, we shall hold ourselves free to trace them back as far as
may be needful, and to point out the ancient elements as late as they
may appear.
We begin with an outline of Constantine's life. Its significance we
can discuss later.
Flavius Valerius Constantinus was born at Naissus in Dacia, about
the year 274. His father Constantius was already a man of some mark,
though still in the lower stages of the career which brought him to the
purple. On his father's side Constantius belonged to the great families
of Dardania, the hilly province north of Macedonia, while his mother
was a niece of the emperor Claudius Gothicus. But Constantine's own
mother Helena was a woman of low rank from Drepanum in Bithynia,
though there is no reason to doubt that she held the legal (and quite
moral) position of concubina or morganatic wife to Constantius.
Of Constantine's early years we know only that he had no learned
education; and we may presume from his hesitating Greek that he was
brought up in Latin lands, perhaps partly in Dalmatia, where his father
was at one time governor. In 293 Constantius was made Caesar, and
practically master of Gaul, with the task assigned him of recovering
Britain from Carausius. But as a condition of his elevation he was
required to divorce Helena and marry Theodora, a stepdaughter of
Maximian. Constantine was taken to the court of Diocletian, partly as
a hostage for his father, and partly with a view to a future place for him
in the college of emperors. So he went with Diocletian to Egypt in
296, and made acquaintance on the way with Eusebius, the future
historian and bishop of Caesarea. Next year he seems to have seen
service with Galerius against the Persians. About this time he must
have taken Minervina (most likely as a concubina), for her son Crispus
was already a young man in 317. Early in 303 the Great Persecution
was begun with the demolition of the church at Nicomedia : and there
was a tall young officer looking on with thoughts of his own, like
Napoleon watching the riot of June 1792.
When Diocletian and Maximian abdicated (1 May 305) it was
generally believed that Constantine would be one of the new Caesars.
There was reason for this belief. He had been betrothed to Fausta the
## p. 3 (#33) ###############################################
254–312]
Constantine Caesar
3
a
daughter of Maximian as far back as 293, when she was a mere child;
and daughters of emperors were not common enough to be thrown away
on outsiders. Moreover, money had recently been coined at Alexandria
with the inscription CONSTANTINUS CAESAR.
But at the last moment
Diocletian passed him over. Perhaps he was over-persuaded by
Galerius: more likely he was reserving him to succeed his father in
Gaul. After this however the court of Galerius was no place for
Constantine. Presently he managed to escape, and joined his father
at Boulogne. After a short campaign in Caledonia, Constantius died
at York (25 July 306) and the army hailed Constantine Augustus. He
was a good officer, the sons of Theodora were only boys, and the army
of Britain (always the most mutinous in the Empire) had no mind to
wait for a new Caesar from the East. Its chief mover was Crocus the
Alemannic king: and this would seem to be the first case of a barbarian
king as a Roman general, and also the first case of barbarian action in
the election of an emperor. Willingly or unwillingly, Galerius recog-
nised Constantine, though only as Caesar. It mattered little: he had
the power, and the title came a couple of years later.
Thus Constantine succeeded his father in Gaul and Britain. We
hear little of his administration during the next six years (306–312)
but we get a general impression that he was a good ruler, and careful of
his people. Such fighting as he had to do was of the usual sort against
the Franks, mostly inside the Rhine, and against the Alemanni and the
Bructeri beyond it. The war however was merciless, for even heathen
feeling was shocked when he gave barbarian kings to the beasts, along with
their followers by thousands at a time. But Gaul had never recovered
from the great invasions (254–285) and his remissions of taxation gave
no permanent relief to the public misery. In religion he was of course
heathen ; but he grew more and more monotheistic, and the Christians
always counted him friendly like his father.
The last act of Galerius (Apr. 311) was an edict of toleration for the
Christians. It was not encumbered with any “hard conditions,” but it
was given on the heathen principle that every god is entitled to the
worship of his own people, whereas the persecution hindered the Chris-
tians from rendering that worship. A few days after this Galerius died.
There were now four emperors. Constantine held Gaul and Britain,
Maxentius Italy, Spain and Africa, while Licinius (more properly
Licinian) ruled Illyricum, Greece and Thrace, and Maximin Daza (or
Daia) held everything beyond the Bosphorus. Their political alliances
were partly determined by their geographical position, Constantine
reaching over Maxentius to Licinius, while Maximin reached over Licinius
to Maxentius; partly also by their relation to the Christians, for this
was now the immediate question of practical politics. Constantine was
1 One of the toleration laws alluded to by Licinius was so encumbered; but this
appears to have been the rescript of Maximin Daza a little later.
CH. I.
1-2
## p. 4 (#34) ###############################################
4
The War with Maxentius
[312–338
-
friendly to them, and Licinius had never been an active persecutor;
whereas Maximin was a cruel and malicious enemy, and Maxentius,
standing as he did for Rome, could not but be hostile to them. So
Maxentius was to crush Constantine, and Maximin to deal with Licinius.
Constantine did not wait to be crushed. Breaking up his camp at
Colmar, he pushed rapidly across the Alps. In a cavalry fight near
Turin, the Gauls overcame the formidable cataphracti—horse and rider
clad in mail—of Maxentius. Then straight to Verona, where in Ruricius
Pompeianus he found a foeman worthy of his steel. Right well did
Pompeianus defend Verona ; and if he escaped from the siege, it was
only to gather an army for its relief. Then another great battle.
Pompeianus was killed, Verona surrendered, and Constantine made
straight for Rome. Still Maxentius gave no sign. He had baffled
invasion twice before by sitting still in Rome, and Constantine could
not have besieged the city with far inferior forces. At the last moment
Maxentius came out a few miles, and offered battle (28 Oct. 312) at
Saxa Rubra. A skilful flank march of Constantine forced him to fight
with the Tiber behind him, and the Mulvian bridge for his retreat.
His Numidians fled before the Gaulish cavalry, the Praetorian Guard
fell fighting where it stood, and the rest of the army was driven head-
long into the river. Maxentius perished in the waters, and Constantine
was master of the West.
This short campaign-the most brilliant feat of arms since Aurelian's
time—was an epoch for Constantine himself. To it belongs the story
of the Shining Cross. Somewhere between Colmar and Saxa Rubra he
saw in the sky one afternoon a bright cross with the words Hoc vince,
and the army saw it too; and in a dream that night Christ bade him
take. it for his standard. So Constantine himself told Eusebius, and so
Eusebius recorded it in 338; and there is no reason to suspect either
the one or the other of deceit. The evidence of the
any case
not worth much; but that of Lactantius' in 314 and of the heathen
Nazarius in 321 puts it beyond reasonable doubt that something of the
sort did happen. But we need not therefore set it down for a miracle.
The cross observed may very well have been a halo, such as Whymper
saw when he came down after the accident on the Matterhorn in 1865—
three crosses for his three lost companions. The rest is no more than
can be accounted for by Constantine's imagination, inflamed as it must
have been by the intense anxiety of the unequal contest. Yet after all,
the cross was not an exclusively Christian symbol. The action was am-
biguous, like most of Constantine's actions at this period of his life. He
was quite clear about monotheism; but he was not equally clear about
the difference between Christ and the Unconquered Sun. The Gauls had
fought of old beneath the Sun-god's cross of light: so while the Christians
army
is in
1 Lactantius is not discredited by the similar vision he gives to Licinius. Why
should not Licinius take a hint from Constantine, and have a vision of his own?
## p. 5 (#35) ###############################################
311-315]
The Edict of Milan
5
saw in the labarum the cross of Christ, the heathens in the army
would
only be receiving an old standard back again. Such was the origin of
the Byzantine Labarum.
One enduring monument of the victory is the triumphal arch still
standing at Rome, dedicated to him by the Senate and People in 315.
Its inscription recites how INSTINCTU DIVINITATIS he inflicted just punish-
ment on the tyrant and all his party. The expression has been set down
as a later correction of some such heathen form as NUTU IOVIS O. M. : but
it is certainly original, and must express Constantine's declared belief-
for we may trust the Senate and the other panegyrists for knowing
what was likely to please him.
Constantine remained two months in Rome, leaving in the first days
of 313 for Milan, where he gave his sister Constantia in marriage to
Licinius, and conferred with him on policy generally, and on the
hostile attitude of Maximin in particular. That ruler had not published
the edict of Galerius, but merely sent a circular to the officials that
actual persecution was to be stopped for the present. A few months
later (about Nov. 311) he resumed it, with less bloodshed and more
statesmanship. It was far more skilfully planned than any that had
gone before. Maximin's endeavour was to stir up the municipalities
against the Christians, to organise a rival church of heathenism, and
to give a definitely antichristian bias to education. Even the fall of
Maxentius had drawn from him only a rescript so full of inconsistencies
that neither heathens nor Christians could make head or tail of it, except
that Maximin was a prodigious liar. He even denied that there had
been any persecution during his reign. At all events, this was not
the complete change of policy needed to save him. Constantine and
Licinius saw their advantage, and issued from Milan a new edict of
toleration. Its text is lost', but it went far beyond the edict of Galerius.
For the first time in history, the principle of universal toleration was
offi lly laid down—that every man has a right to choose his religion
and to practise it in his own way without any discouragement from the
State. No doubt it was laid down as a political move, for neither
Constantine nor Licinius kept to it. Constantine tried to crush
Donatists and Arians, and Licinius fell back even from toleration of
Christians. Still the old heathen principle, that no man may worship
gods who are not on the official list, was rejected for the present, and
toleration became the general law of the Empire till the time of
Theodosius.
The wedding festivities were rudely interrupted by the news that
Maximin had made a sudden attack without waiting for the end of the
1 The issue of the edict seems proved by Eus. H. E. x. 5 Tây Baoulik (incl.
Constantine) διατάξεων. Its purport is recited in the Litterae Licinii which is the
form in which it reached Maximin's dominions, and is therefore given in its place
by Eus. and Lact.
CH. 1.
## p. 6 (#36) ###############################################
6
The defeat of Maximin Daza
[313
!
1
winter, and met with brilliant success, capturing Byzantium and
pushing on towards Hadrianople. There, however, Licinius met him
with a very inferior force, and completely routed him (30 April 313).
Maximin fled to Nicomedia, and soon found that it would be as much
as he could do to hold the line of Mount Taurus. Now he had no
choice—the Christians were strong in Egypt and Syria, and must be
conciliated at any cost. So he issued a new edict, explaining that the
officials had committed many oppressions very painful to a benevolent
ruler like himself; and now, to make further mistakes impossible, he lets
all men know that everyone is free to practise whatever religion he
pleases. Maximin gives the same liberty as Constantine and Licinius
- he could not safely offer less—but he states no principle of toleration.
However, it was too late now. Maximin died in the summer, and
Licinius issued a rescript carrying out the decisions of Milan, and
restoring confiscated property to “the corporation of the Christians. ”
It was published at Nicomedia 13 June 313. Constantine sent out
similar letters in the West.
The defeat of Maximin ends the long contest of Church and State
begun by Nero. Former persecutions had died out of themselves, and
even Gallienus had only restored the confiscated property ; but now the
Christians had gained full legal recognition, of which they were never
again deprived. Licinius and Julian might devise annoyances and
connive at outrages, and work the administration in a hostile spirit;
but they never ventured to revoke the Edict of Milan. Heathenism
was still strong in its associations with Greek philosophy and culture,
with Roman law and social order, and its moral character stood higher
than it had done. It hardly looked like a beaten enemy: yet such it
Its last real hope was gone.
Religious peace was assured, but the unity of the Empire was not
yet restored. Constantine and Licinius were both ambitious, and war
between them was only a question of time. They were not unequally
matched. If Constantine had the victorious legions of Gaul, Licinius
ruled the East from the frontier of Armenia to that of Italy, so that
he was master of the Illyrian provinces, which furnished the best
soldiers of the Roman army. Every emperor from Claudius to Licinius
himself was an Illyrian, except Tacitus and Carus. And if Constantine
had done a splendid feat of arms, Licinius was a fine soldier too, and
(with all his personal vices) not less careful of his subjects.
Constantine was called away from Milan by some incursions of the
Franks, who kept him busy during the summer of 313. When things
were more settled, he proposed to institute a middle domain for his
other brother-in-law Bassianus. The plan seems to have been that while
Constantine gave him Italy, Licinius should give him Illyricum. Licinius
frustrated it by engaging Bassianus in a plot for which he was put to
death, and then refused to give up to Constantine his agent Senecio,
was.
## p. 7 (#37) ###############################################
314–323]
The Wars with Licinius
7
the brother of Bassianus. This meant war. Constantine took the
offensive as he had done before, pushing into Pannonia with no more
than 20,000 men, and attacking Licinius at Cibalae, where he was
endeavouring to cover Sirmium. He had 35,000 against him, but a
hard-fought battle (8 Oct. 314) ended in a complete victory, and the
capture of Sirmium. Licinius fled towards Hadrianople, deepening the
quarrel on the way by giving the rank of Caesar to his Illyrian general
Valens. A new army was collected; but another great battle on the
Mardian plain was indecisive. Constantine won the victory; but
Licinius and Valens were able to take up a threatening position in his
rear at Beroea. So peace had to be made. First Valens was sacrificed :
then Licinius gave up Illyricum from the Danube to the extremity of
Greece, retaining in Europe only Thrace, which however in those days
reached north to the Danube. So things settled down. Constantine
returned to Rome in the summer to celebrate his Decennalia (25 July
315), and in 317 the succession was secured by the nomination of
Caesars, Crispus and Constantine the sons of Constantine, and Li-
cinianus the son of Licinius. Crispus was grown up, but Constantine
was a baby
The treaty might be hollow, but it kept the peace for nearly eight
years. If Constantine was evidently the stronger, Licinius was still too
strong to be rashly attacked. So each went his own way. It soon
appeared which was the better statesman. Constantine drew nearer to
the Christians, while Licinius drifted into persecution, devising annoy-
ances enough to make them enemies but not enough to make them
harmless. Thus Constantine allows manumission in church, judges the
Donatists, closes the courts on Sundays, loads the churches with gifts,
and, at last (May 323)', frees Christians from all pagan ceremonies of
state. Licinius drove the Christians from his court, forbade meetings
.
of bishops, and meddled vexatiously with their worship. This gave the
war something of a religious character; but its occasion was not
religious. The Goths had been pretty quiet since Aurelian had settled
them in Dacia. It was not till 322 that Rausimod their king crossed
the Danube on a foray. Constantine drove them back, chased them
beyond the Danube, slew Rausimod, and settled thousands of Gothic
serts in the adjacent provinces. But in the pursuit he crossed the
territory of Licinius; and this led to war. Constantine's
army
130,000 strong, and his son Crispus had a fleet of 200 sail in the
Piraeus. Licinius awaited him with 160,000 men near Hadrianople,
while his admiral Amandus was to hold the Hellespont with 350 ships.
There was no idea of using the fleet to take Constantine in the rear.
was
1 Recent opinion (Jonquet, Pears) seems to place the campaign in 324. The
question is difficult: but the Council of Nicaea seems firmly fixed for 325, the
preparations for it cannot have begun till the war was ended, and no room seems
left for them if the battle of Chrysopolis is placed in Sept. 324.
CH. 1.
## p. 8 (#38) ###############################################
8
How Constantine became Christian
[ 323–337
After some difficult manoeuvres, Constantine won the first battle
(3 July 323), but was brought to a stop before the walls of Byzantium.
Licinius was safe there, so long as he held the sea ; so he chose Marti-
nianus his magister officiorum for the new Augustus of the West.
Meanwhile Constantine strengthened his fleet, and his son Crispus com-
pletely defeated Amandus in the Hellespont. Licinius left Byzantium to
defend itself—it had held out two years against Severus—and prepared
to maintain the Asiatic shore. Constantine left Byzantium on one side
and landed near Chrysopolis, where he found the whole army of Licinius
drawn up to meet him. The battle of Chrysopolis (18 or 20 Sept. 323)
was decisive. Licinius fled to Nicomedia, and presently Constantia
came out to ask for her husband's life. It was granted, and Constantine
confirmed his promise with an oath. Nevertheless Licinius was put to
death in October 325 on a charge of treasonable intrigue. The charge
is unlikely: but Licinius was quite capable of it, and his execution does
not seem to have estranged Constantia from her brother. But perhaps
the matter is best connected with the family tragedy which we shall
come to presently.
As a general, Constantine ranks high among the emperors. Good
soldiers as they mostly were, none but Severus and Aurelian could boast
of any such career of victory as had brought Constantine from the
shores of Britain to the banks of the Tiber and the walls of Byzantium.
But after the “crowning mercy” of Chrysopolis there was no more
fighting, except with the Goths. The last fourteen years of Constantine
(323–337) were years of peace : and the first question which then
confronted him was the question of religion. By what road did he
approach Christianity, and how far did he come on the journey ?
Two fables may be dismissed at once—the heathen fable told by
Zosimus in the fifth century, that the Christians were complaisant when
the philosophers refused to absolve him for the murder of his son
Crispus; and the papal fable of the eighth century, that he was healed
of leprosy by Pope Sylvester, and thereupon gave him dominion over
“ the palace, the city of Rome, and the entire West. ” These legends
are summarily refuted by the fact that he was baptised in 337, not as
they tell us in 326. Turning now to history, we have no reason to
suppose that he owed Christian impressions to his mother's teaching :
but Constantius was an eclectic of the better sort, and a man of some
culture ; and his memory contrasted well with that of his colleagues.
Constantine seems to have begun where his father left off, as more or
less monotheistic and averse to idols, and more or less friendly to the
Christians; and all these things grew upon him. The last of them may
not have meant much at first, for even hostile emperors like Severus and
Diocletian had sense enough to keep on good terms with the Christians
when they were not prepared to crush them. But Constantine was
drawn to them personally as well as politically; by his pure life and
## p. 9 (#39) ###############################################
323–337]
Policy of Constantine
9
genuine humanity as well as by his shrewd statesmanship. Their lofty
monotheism and austere morals attracted the man, their strong organi-
sation arrested the attention of the ruler. When Diocletian threw
down his challenge to the Church, he made religion the urgent question
of the time: and the persecution was a visible failure before Constantine
was well settled in Gaul. If Diocletian had failed to crush the Church,
others were not likely to succeed. Maximin or Licinius might hark
back to the past; but Constantine saw clearly that the Empire would
have to make some sort of terms with the Church, so that the only
question was how far it would be needful or safe to go. For the
moment, a little friendliness to the Gaulish bishops was enough to
secure the good will of the Christians all over the Empire. Then came
the wars of 312-3, which forced on Constantine and Licinius the
championship of the Christians, and made it plain good policy to give
them full legal toleration. Licinius stopped there, and Constantine did
not make up his mind without anxiety. The God of the Christians
had shown great power, and might be the best protector; and in any
case a firm alliance with their strong hierarchy would not only remove a
great danger, but give the very help which the Empire needed. On
the other hand, it was a serious thing to break with the past and brave
the terrors of heathen magic. Moreover, the Christians were a minority
even in the East, and he could not openly go over to them without risk
of a pagan reaction. So he moved cautiously. Christianity differed
forsooth very little from the better sort of heathenism. They could
both be brought under the broad shield of monotheism, if the heathens
would give up their idols and immoral worships, and the Christians
would not insist too rudely on that awkward doctrine of the deity of
Christ. On these terms the lion of Christianity might lie down with
the lamb of Eclecticism, and the guileless emperor would be the little
child to lead them both.
The problem of Church and State was new, for the old religion of
Rome was never more than a department of the State, and the worship-
pers of Isis and Mithras readily “conformed to the ceremonies of the
Roman people. ” But when Christianity made a practical distinction
between Caesar's things and God's, the relation of Church and State
became a difficult question. Constantine handled it with great skill
and much success. He not only made the Christians thoroughly loyal,
but won the active support of the churches, and obtained such influence
over the bishops that they seemed almost willing to sink into a depart-
ment of the State. But he forgot one thing. The surface thought of
his time, Christian as well as heathen, tended to a vague monotheism
which looked on Christ and the sun as almost equally good symbols of
the Supreme: and this obscured the deeper conviction of the Christians
that the deity of Christ is as essential as the unity of God. After all,
Christianity is not a monotheistic philosophy, but a life in Christ.
CH. I.
## p. 10 (#40) ##############################################
10
Religious Policy of Constantine
[315–337
When this conviction asserted itself with overwhelming power at the
Council of Nicaea, Constantine gave way with a good grace. As it had
been decided at Saxa Rubra that the Empire was to fight beneath the
cross of God, so now it was decided at Nicaea that the cross was to be
the cross of Christ, and not the Sun-god's cross of light.
We may doubt whether Constantine took in the full meaning of the
decision : but at any rate it meant that the Christians refused to be
included with others in a monotheistic state religion. If the Empire
was to have their full friendship, it must become definitely Christian :
and this is the goal to which Constantine seems to have looked forward
in his later years, though he can hardly have hoped himself to reach it.
Heathenism was still strong, and he continued to use vague monotheistic
language. Only in his last illness did he feel it safe to throw off the
mask and avow himself a Christian. “Let there be no ambiguity,"
,”
said he, as he asked for baptism ; and then he laid aside the purple, and
passed away in the white robe of a Christian neophyte (22 May 337).
This would seem to be the general outline of Constantine's religious
life and policy. We can now return to the morrow of Chrysopolis,
and take it more in detail. Now that he was master of the Empire, he
made his alliance with the Christians as close as he could without
abandoning the official neutrality of his monotheism. His attitude is
well shown by his coins. Mars and Genius P. R. disappear after Saxa
Rubra, or at latest by 317: Sol invictus by 315, or at any rate 323.
Coins of Iuppiter Aug. seem to have been struck only for Licinius.
Later on, the heathen inscriptions are replaced by phrases as neutral as
the cross itself, like Beata tranquillitas or Providentia Augg. , or Instinctu
Divinitatis on his triumphal arch at Rome. His laws keep pace with
the coins. In form they are mostly neutral; but they show an increasing
leaning to Christianity. Thus his edict for the observance of "the
venerable day of the Sun” only raised it to the rank of the heathen
feriae by closing the law-courts; and the Latin prayer he imposed on
the army (the first case known of prayer in an unknown tongue) is quite
indeterminate as between Christ and Jupiter. So too when before 316
he sanctioned manumissions in churches, he was only taking a hint from
the manumissions in certain temples. Yet again, when in 313 (and by
later law) he exempted the clergy of the Catholic Church—not those of
the sects—from the decurionate and other burdens, he gave them
only the privileges already enjoyed by some of the heathen priests and
teachers. But the relief was great enough to cause an ungodly rush for
holy Orders, and with it such a loss of taxpayers that in 320 he had to
forbid the ordination of anyone qualified for the curia of his city.
None but the poor (and an occasional official) could now be ordained,
and those only to fill vacancies caused by death. The second limitation
.
may not have been enforced, but the first remained. To save the
revenue, the Church was debased at a stroke.
## p. 11 (#41) ##############################################
319–337]
Religious Policy of Constantine
11
Other laws however lean more to a side, like the edict of 319 which
threatens to burn the Jews if they stone “a convert to the worship of
God. ” No doubt such converts needed protection ; and Roman law
was not squeamish about burning criminals, if they were of low rank.
Upon the whole, this policy of official neutrality and personal favour
powerfully stimulated the growth of the churches. The time-servers
were all Christians now, and Eusebius plainly denounces their “unspeak-
able hypocrisy. ” At least in later years, Constantine himself had to
rebuke bishops for flattery. The defeat of Licinius enabled him to
come forward more openly as the patron of the churches. His letter to
the provincials of the Empire (Eusebius naturally gives the copy which
went to Palestine) begins with high praise of the confessors and strong
denunciation of the persecutors, whose wickedness is shown by their
miserable ends. They would have destroyed the republic, if the Divinity
had not raised up me, Constantine, from the far West of Britain to
destroy them. He then restores rank and property to all the victims of
persecution in the islands, the mines, and the houses of forced labour,
and finishes with an earnest exhortation to the worship of the one true
God.
But after all, the Church was not quite what Constantine wanted it
to be. He was not more attracted to it by its lofty monotheism than
by the imposing unity which promised new life to the weary State. For
six hundred years the world had been in quest of a universal religion.
Stoicism was no more than a philosophy for the few, the worship of the
emperor was debased by officialism, and by this time quite outworn, and
even Mithraism had never shown such living power as Christianity.
Here then was something that could realise the religious side of the
Empire in a nobler form than Augustus or Hadrian had ever dreamed
of-a universal Church that could stand beside the universal Empire and
worthily support its labours for the peace and welfare of the world.
But for this purpose unity was essential. If the Church was divided
against itself, it could not help the Empire. Worse than this; it could
hardly be divided against itself without being also divided against the
Empire. One of the parties was likely to appeal to the emperor; and
then he would have to decide between them and make an enemy of the
defeated party; and if he tried to enforce his decision, they were likely
to resist him as stubbornly as the whole Church had resisted the heathen
emperors. This would bring back the whole difficulty of the perse-
cutions, though possibly on a smaller scale. To put it shortly, the
Christians had a conscience in matters of religion, and sometimes mis-
took self-will for conscience.
Constantine had experience of Christian self-will in Africa soon after
the defeat of Maxentius. When Diocletian commanded the Christians
to give up their sacred books, all parties agreed in refusing to obey.
Those who did obey were called traditores. But the officers did not
a
CH. I.
## p. 12 (#42) ##############################################
12
The Donatists
[311-321
66
always care what books they took: might apocryphal books be given
up? So thought Mensurius of Carthage, while others counted it
apostasy to give up any books at all. The controversy became acute at
the death of Mensurius in 311, when Felix of Aptunga consecrated his
successor Caecilian. But that right was claimed by Secundus of Tigisis,
the senior bishop of Numidia, who consecrated a rival bishop of Carthage.
It was some time before the Donatists (as they soon came to be called)
got their position clear. They held that Felix was a traditor, that the
ministrations of a traditor are null and void, and that a church which
has communion with a traditor is apostate.
After the battle of Saxa Rubra Constantine sent money to Caecilian
for the clergy “of the catholic church”; and as he “had heard that
some evil-disposed persons were troubling them,” he directed Caecilian
to refer them to the civil authorities for punishment. Thereupon they
appealed to him. Constantine seems to have contemplated a small
court to try the case--Miltiades of Rome, three Gaulish bishops, and
apparently the archdeacon of Rome: but a small council met instead
(Oct. 313) at Rome, which pronounced for Caecilian. The Donatists
were furious, and appealed again. This time Constantine summoned as
many bishops as he could, directing each to bring so many clergy and
servants with him, and giving him power to use the state post (cursus
publicus) for the journey. So a large council of the Western churches
met at Arles in August 314 (possibly 315). Even Britain sent bishops
from London, York, and some other place. It destroyed the Donatist
contention by deciding that Felix was not a traditor. It also settled
some more outstanding controversies, in favour of the Roman date of
Easter, and the Roman custom of not repeating heretical baptism, if it
had been given in the name of the Trinity. The decisions were sent to
Sylvester of Rome for circulation-not for confirmation.
nise in Arles the pattern of the Nicene Council. Still the Donatists
were not satisfied. They asked the emperor to decide the matter
himself, and he unwillingly consented. He heard them at Milan
(Nov. 316) and once more decided against them. Then they turned
round and said, What business has the emperor to meddle with the
Church? A vigorous persecution was begun, but with small success.
A band of Donatist fanatics called Circumcelliones ranged the country,
committing disorders and defying the authorities to make martyrs of
them. Even in 317 Constantine ordered that their outrages were not
to be retaliated; and when they sent him a message in 321 that they
would in no way communicate with “ that scoundrel, his bishop," he
stopped the persecution as useless, and frankly gave them toleration.
Africa was fairly quiet for the rest of his reign.
After the defeat of Licinius, Constantine found several disputes in
the Eastern churches. The old Easter question was still unsettled, the
Meletian schism was dividing Egypt, and there was no knowing how far
We can recog-
## p. 13 (#43) ##############################################
325]
The Council of Nicaea
13
the Arian controversy would spread. Unity must be restored at once,
and that by the old plan of calling a council. The churches had long
been in the habit of conferring together when difficulties arose. They
could refuse to recognise an unsatisfactory bishop; and cir. 269 a council
ventured to depose Paul of Samosata, and Aurelian had enforced its
decision. The weak point of this method was that rival councils could
be got up, so that every local quarrel had an excellent chance of
becoming a general controversy. Arianism in particular was setting
council against council. Constantine determined to go a step beyond
these local meetings. As he had summoned the Western bishops to
Arles, so now he summoned all the bishops of Christendom. If he
could bring them to a decision, it was not likely to be disputed; and
in any case he could safely give it the force of law. An oecumenical
council would be a grand demonstration, not only of the unity of the
Church, but of its close alliance with the Empire. So he issued invita-
tions to all Christian bishops to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia in the
summer of 325, to make a final end of all the disputes which rent the
unity of Christendom. The programme was even wider than at Arles;
;
but the Donatists were not included in it. Constantine could let
sleeping dogs lie. We note here the choice of Nicaea for its auspicious
name—the city of victory—and convenience of access; and we see in it
one of many signs that the true centre of the Empire was settling down
somewhere near the Bosphorus.
We need not closely analyse the imposing list of bishops present
from almost every province of the Empire, with a few from beyond its
frontiers in the far East and North. Legend made them 318, the holy
number (Tin) of the cross of Jesus. We have lists in sundry languages,
none of them giving more than 221 names; but these are known to be
incomplete. The actual number may have been near 300. All the
thirteen great dioceses of the Empire were represented except Britain
and Illyricum, though only single bishops came from Africa, Spain,
Gaul and Dacia. Only one came in person from Italy, though two
presbyters appeared for the bishop of Rome. So the vast majority came
from the Eastern provinces of the Empire. The outsiders were four or
five-Theophilus bishop of the Goths beyond the Danube, Cathirius
(the name is corrupt) of the Crimean Bosporus, John the Persian,
and Restaces the Armenian, the son of Gregory the Illuminator, with
perhaps another Armenian bishop. Eusebius is full of enthusiasm over
his majestic roll of churches far and near, from the extremity of Europe
to the furthest ends of Asia. It was a day of victory for both the
Empire and the Church. The Empire had not only made peace with
the stubbornest of its enemies, but been accepted as its protector and
guide. The Church had won the greatest of all its victories when
Galerius issued his edict of toleration : but its mission to the whole
world has never been so vividly embodied as by that august assembly.
CB. I.
## p. 14 (#44) ##############################################
14
The Council of Nicaea
[325
а
We miss half the meaning of the Council if we overlook the tremulous
hope and joy of those first years of worldwide victory. Athanasius
shows it even more than Eusebius. One thing at least was clear. The
new world faced the old, and the spell of the Holy Roman Empire had
already begun to work.
Constantine took up at once the position of a moderator. He began
by burning unread the budget of complaints against each other which
the bishops had presented to him. He then preached them a sermon on
a
unity; and unity was his text all through. He was much more anxious
to make the decisions unanimous than to influence them one way or
another. His one object was to make an end of division in the churches.
So whatever pleased the bishops pleased the emperor too. Easter was
fixed according to the custom of Rome and Alexandria for the Sunday
after the full moon following the vernal equinox. It is the rule we
have now, and though it did not produce complete unity till the lunar
cycle was quite settled, it secured that Easter should come after the
Passover, for, said Constantine, How can we who are Christians keep the
same day as those ungodly Jews? The Meletian schism was peacefully
settled—to the disgust of Athanasius in later years—by giving the
Meletian clergy a status next to the orthodox, with a right of succession
if found worthy. So far well : but the condemnation of Arianism may
have been something of a trial to Constantine, who could not quite see
why they thought it worth while to be so hot on such a trifling question
as the deity of Christ. However that may be, Arianism was politically
impossible. He must have known already from Hosius that the West
would not accept it, and the first act of the Council meant its almost
unanimous rejection by the East. As soon as there was no doubt what
the decision would be, he did his best to make it quite unanimous. All
the arts of imperial persuasion were tried on the waverers, till in the
end only two stubborn recusants remained to be sent into exile.
To some wider aspects of the Council we shall return hereafter. For
the moment it may be enough to say that Constantine had won a great
He had not only got his questions settled, but had himself
taken a conspicuous part in settling them. More than this. He had
established formal relations, no longer with bishops or groups of bishops,
but with a great confederacy of churches. The churches had long been
tending to organise themselves on the lines of the Empire, as we see in
Cyprian's theories; and now Constantine made the Church an alter ego
of the State, and gave it a concrete unity of the political sort which it
never had before. Henceforth the holy Catholic Church of the creeds was
more and more limited to the confederation of churches recognised by
the State, so that it only remained to compel all men to come into these,
and prevent the formation of any other religious communities. In this
way
the Church became much more useful to the State, and also perhaps
fitter to resist the shock of the barbarian conquests which followed; but
success.
## p. 15 (#45) ##############################################
315–326]
Crispus and Fausta
15
surely something was lost in freedom and spirituality, and therefore also
in practical morality.
We
pass
from the Council of Nicaea to a family tragedy. So far
Constantine may pass as fairly merciful to the plotters of his own house.
Maximian, Bassianus and Licinius had all tried to assassinate him; and
if he put to death Bassianus (see p. 8), he had spared Maximian till he
plotted again, and so far he had spared Licinius also. But now in a few
months from Oct. 325 he puts to death not only Licinius but his own son
Crispus and the younger Licinius, then his own wife Fausta, and then a
number of his friends. The facts are certain, but their exact meaning is
obscure. It must however be noticed that the dynastic policy of Diocletian
had given a new political importance to members of an imperial family.
The widows of the third century emperors fall into obscurity ; but the
widow of Galerius is first sought in marriage by Maximin Daza, then
executed by Licinius, who also put to death the children of Severus,
Daza and Galerius. Now Constantine married twice; and there may
well have been a bitter division in his family. Minervina was the
mother of Crispus, whom we have seen greatly distinguishing himself
in the war with Licinius : and there seems no serious doubt that the
three younger sons were children of Fausta, though the eldest of them
was not born till 315-6, eight years after her marriage. So we come to
the questions we cannot answer. Was Constantine jealous of his eldest
son, or anxious to get him out of the way of the others ? Or was Crispus
a plotter justly put to death? And how came Fausta to share his fate
a little later? They are not likely to have been accomplices in a plot
or connected by a guilty passion, though the story of Zosimus is not
impossible, that she accused him falsely, and was herself put to death
for it when Helena convicted her. We have not material enough for
any decided opinion. The worst point, it may be, against Constantine
is that he did not spare the young Licinius. If he was the son of
Constantia, he cannot have been more than twelve years old. But the
allusions to him suggest that he was something more than a boy, and
we know that Constantia was on the best of terms with her brother
when she died a couple of years later. If Constantine suspected the
elder Licinius, the new sultanism would involve the younger in his fate ;
and if Crispus had married Helena his daughter, suspicion might attach
to him too. Fausta's fate is the inystery. Or was Constantine more or
less out of his mind that winter, as despots occasionally are? One or
two of his laws may point that way, and the possibility may help to
explain a good deal.
Constantine kept his Vicennalia at Rome in the summer of 326. It
was an unhappy visit, even if the domestic tragedy had already taken
place.
Gothic War and the reign of Justinian; and in any case we can draw no
sharp division after Constantine without ignoring the greatest power
of
the world—that Eastern Roman Empire which carried down the old
Graeco-Roman civilisation almost to the end of the Middle Ages. In
truth, the precise beginning of Medieval History is as indefinite as the
precise beginning of the fog. There is no point between Augustus and
Charlemagne where we can say, The old is finished, the new not yet
1
C. MED. H. VOL. I. CH. I.
## p. 2 (#32) ###############################################
2
Early life of Constantine
[274–317
begun. Choose where we will, medieval elements are traceable before it,
ancient elements after it. Thus Theodoric's government of Italy is on
the old lines, while the Frankish invasion of Gaul belongs to the new
order. If in the present work we begin with Constantine, we do not
mean that there is any break in history at this point, though we see
important changes in the adoption of Christianity and the fixing of the
government in the form it retained for centuries. The chief advantage
of choosing this epoch is that as the medieval elements were not strong
before the fourth century, we shall be able to trace nearly the whole of
their growth without encroaching too much on Ancient History. At
the same time, we shall hold ourselves free to trace them back as far as
may be needful, and to point out the ancient elements as late as they
may appear.
We begin with an outline of Constantine's life. Its significance we
can discuss later.
Flavius Valerius Constantinus was born at Naissus in Dacia, about
the year 274. His father Constantius was already a man of some mark,
though still in the lower stages of the career which brought him to the
purple. On his father's side Constantius belonged to the great families
of Dardania, the hilly province north of Macedonia, while his mother
was a niece of the emperor Claudius Gothicus. But Constantine's own
mother Helena was a woman of low rank from Drepanum in Bithynia,
though there is no reason to doubt that she held the legal (and quite
moral) position of concubina or morganatic wife to Constantius.
Of Constantine's early years we know only that he had no learned
education; and we may presume from his hesitating Greek that he was
brought up in Latin lands, perhaps partly in Dalmatia, where his father
was at one time governor. In 293 Constantius was made Caesar, and
practically master of Gaul, with the task assigned him of recovering
Britain from Carausius. But as a condition of his elevation he was
required to divorce Helena and marry Theodora, a stepdaughter of
Maximian. Constantine was taken to the court of Diocletian, partly as
a hostage for his father, and partly with a view to a future place for him
in the college of emperors. So he went with Diocletian to Egypt in
296, and made acquaintance on the way with Eusebius, the future
historian and bishop of Caesarea. Next year he seems to have seen
service with Galerius against the Persians. About this time he must
have taken Minervina (most likely as a concubina), for her son Crispus
was already a young man in 317. Early in 303 the Great Persecution
was begun with the demolition of the church at Nicomedia : and there
was a tall young officer looking on with thoughts of his own, like
Napoleon watching the riot of June 1792.
When Diocletian and Maximian abdicated (1 May 305) it was
generally believed that Constantine would be one of the new Caesars.
There was reason for this belief. He had been betrothed to Fausta the
## p. 3 (#33) ###############################################
254–312]
Constantine Caesar
3
a
daughter of Maximian as far back as 293, when she was a mere child;
and daughters of emperors were not common enough to be thrown away
on outsiders. Moreover, money had recently been coined at Alexandria
with the inscription CONSTANTINUS CAESAR.
But at the last moment
Diocletian passed him over. Perhaps he was over-persuaded by
Galerius: more likely he was reserving him to succeed his father in
Gaul. After this however the court of Galerius was no place for
Constantine. Presently he managed to escape, and joined his father
at Boulogne. After a short campaign in Caledonia, Constantius died
at York (25 July 306) and the army hailed Constantine Augustus. He
was a good officer, the sons of Theodora were only boys, and the army
of Britain (always the most mutinous in the Empire) had no mind to
wait for a new Caesar from the East. Its chief mover was Crocus the
Alemannic king: and this would seem to be the first case of a barbarian
king as a Roman general, and also the first case of barbarian action in
the election of an emperor. Willingly or unwillingly, Galerius recog-
nised Constantine, though only as Caesar. It mattered little: he had
the power, and the title came a couple of years later.
Thus Constantine succeeded his father in Gaul and Britain. We
hear little of his administration during the next six years (306–312)
but we get a general impression that he was a good ruler, and careful of
his people. Such fighting as he had to do was of the usual sort against
the Franks, mostly inside the Rhine, and against the Alemanni and the
Bructeri beyond it. The war however was merciless, for even heathen
feeling was shocked when he gave barbarian kings to the beasts, along with
their followers by thousands at a time. But Gaul had never recovered
from the great invasions (254–285) and his remissions of taxation gave
no permanent relief to the public misery. In religion he was of course
heathen ; but he grew more and more monotheistic, and the Christians
always counted him friendly like his father.
The last act of Galerius (Apr. 311) was an edict of toleration for the
Christians. It was not encumbered with any “hard conditions,” but it
was given on the heathen principle that every god is entitled to the
worship of his own people, whereas the persecution hindered the Chris-
tians from rendering that worship. A few days after this Galerius died.
There were now four emperors. Constantine held Gaul and Britain,
Maxentius Italy, Spain and Africa, while Licinius (more properly
Licinian) ruled Illyricum, Greece and Thrace, and Maximin Daza (or
Daia) held everything beyond the Bosphorus. Their political alliances
were partly determined by their geographical position, Constantine
reaching over Maxentius to Licinius, while Maximin reached over Licinius
to Maxentius; partly also by their relation to the Christians, for this
was now the immediate question of practical politics. Constantine was
1 One of the toleration laws alluded to by Licinius was so encumbered; but this
appears to have been the rescript of Maximin Daza a little later.
CH. I.
1-2
## p. 4 (#34) ###############################################
4
The War with Maxentius
[312–338
-
friendly to them, and Licinius had never been an active persecutor;
whereas Maximin was a cruel and malicious enemy, and Maxentius,
standing as he did for Rome, could not but be hostile to them. So
Maxentius was to crush Constantine, and Maximin to deal with Licinius.
Constantine did not wait to be crushed. Breaking up his camp at
Colmar, he pushed rapidly across the Alps. In a cavalry fight near
Turin, the Gauls overcame the formidable cataphracti—horse and rider
clad in mail—of Maxentius. Then straight to Verona, where in Ruricius
Pompeianus he found a foeman worthy of his steel. Right well did
Pompeianus defend Verona ; and if he escaped from the siege, it was
only to gather an army for its relief. Then another great battle.
Pompeianus was killed, Verona surrendered, and Constantine made
straight for Rome. Still Maxentius gave no sign. He had baffled
invasion twice before by sitting still in Rome, and Constantine could
not have besieged the city with far inferior forces. At the last moment
Maxentius came out a few miles, and offered battle (28 Oct. 312) at
Saxa Rubra. A skilful flank march of Constantine forced him to fight
with the Tiber behind him, and the Mulvian bridge for his retreat.
His Numidians fled before the Gaulish cavalry, the Praetorian Guard
fell fighting where it stood, and the rest of the army was driven head-
long into the river. Maxentius perished in the waters, and Constantine
was master of the West.
This short campaign-the most brilliant feat of arms since Aurelian's
time—was an epoch for Constantine himself. To it belongs the story
of the Shining Cross. Somewhere between Colmar and Saxa Rubra he
saw in the sky one afternoon a bright cross with the words Hoc vince,
and the army saw it too; and in a dream that night Christ bade him
take. it for his standard. So Constantine himself told Eusebius, and so
Eusebius recorded it in 338; and there is no reason to suspect either
the one or the other of deceit. The evidence of the
any case
not worth much; but that of Lactantius' in 314 and of the heathen
Nazarius in 321 puts it beyond reasonable doubt that something of the
sort did happen. But we need not therefore set it down for a miracle.
The cross observed may very well have been a halo, such as Whymper
saw when he came down after the accident on the Matterhorn in 1865—
three crosses for his three lost companions. The rest is no more than
can be accounted for by Constantine's imagination, inflamed as it must
have been by the intense anxiety of the unequal contest. Yet after all,
the cross was not an exclusively Christian symbol. The action was am-
biguous, like most of Constantine's actions at this period of his life. He
was quite clear about monotheism; but he was not equally clear about
the difference between Christ and the Unconquered Sun. The Gauls had
fought of old beneath the Sun-god's cross of light: so while the Christians
army
is in
1 Lactantius is not discredited by the similar vision he gives to Licinius. Why
should not Licinius take a hint from Constantine, and have a vision of his own?
## p. 5 (#35) ###############################################
311-315]
The Edict of Milan
5
saw in the labarum the cross of Christ, the heathens in the army
would
only be receiving an old standard back again. Such was the origin of
the Byzantine Labarum.
One enduring monument of the victory is the triumphal arch still
standing at Rome, dedicated to him by the Senate and People in 315.
Its inscription recites how INSTINCTU DIVINITATIS he inflicted just punish-
ment on the tyrant and all his party. The expression has been set down
as a later correction of some such heathen form as NUTU IOVIS O. M. : but
it is certainly original, and must express Constantine's declared belief-
for we may trust the Senate and the other panegyrists for knowing
what was likely to please him.
Constantine remained two months in Rome, leaving in the first days
of 313 for Milan, where he gave his sister Constantia in marriage to
Licinius, and conferred with him on policy generally, and on the
hostile attitude of Maximin in particular. That ruler had not published
the edict of Galerius, but merely sent a circular to the officials that
actual persecution was to be stopped for the present. A few months
later (about Nov. 311) he resumed it, with less bloodshed and more
statesmanship. It was far more skilfully planned than any that had
gone before. Maximin's endeavour was to stir up the municipalities
against the Christians, to organise a rival church of heathenism, and
to give a definitely antichristian bias to education. Even the fall of
Maxentius had drawn from him only a rescript so full of inconsistencies
that neither heathens nor Christians could make head or tail of it, except
that Maximin was a prodigious liar. He even denied that there had
been any persecution during his reign. At all events, this was not
the complete change of policy needed to save him. Constantine and
Licinius saw their advantage, and issued from Milan a new edict of
toleration. Its text is lost', but it went far beyond the edict of Galerius.
For the first time in history, the principle of universal toleration was
offi lly laid down—that every man has a right to choose his religion
and to practise it in his own way without any discouragement from the
State. No doubt it was laid down as a political move, for neither
Constantine nor Licinius kept to it. Constantine tried to crush
Donatists and Arians, and Licinius fell back even from toleration of
Christians. Still the old heathen principle, that no man may worship
gods who are not on the official list, was rejected for the present, and
toleration became the general law of the Empire till the time of
Theodosius.
The wedding festivities were rudely interrupted by the news that
Maximin had made a sudden attack without waiting for the end of the
1 The issue of the edict seems proved by Eus. H. E. x. 5 Tây Baoulik (incl.
Constantine) διατάξεων. Its purport is recited in the Litterae Licinii which is the
form in which it reached Maximin's dominions, and is therefore given in its place
by Eus. and Lact.
CH. 1.
## p. 6 (#36) ###############################################
6
The defeat of Maximin Daza
[313
!
1
winter, and met with brilliant success, capturing Byzantium and
pushing on towards Hadrianople. There, however, Licinius met him
with a very inferior force, and completely routed him (30 April 313).
Maximin fled to Nicomedia, and soon found that it would be as much
as he could do to hold the line of Mount Taurus. Now he had no
choice—the Christians were strong in Egypt and Syria, and must be
conciliated at any cost. So he issued a new edict, explaining that the
officials had committed many oppressions very painful to a benevolent
ruler like himself; and now, to make further mistakes impossible, he lets
all men know that everyone is free to practise whatever religion he
pleases. Maximin gives the same liberty as Constantine and Licinius
- he could not safely offer less—but he states no principle of toleration.
However, it was too late now. Maximin died in the summer, and
Licinius issued a rescript carrying out the decisions of Milan, and
restoring confiscated property to “the corporation of the Christians. ”
It was published at Nicomedia 13 June 313. Constantine sent out
similar letters in the West.
The defeat of Maximin ends the long contest of Church and State
begun by Nero. Former persecutions had died out of themselves, and
even Gallienus had only restored the confiscated property ; but now the
Christians had gained full legal recognition, of which they were never
again deprived. Licinius and Julian might devise annoyances and
connive at outrages, and work the administration in a hostile spirit;
but they never ventured to revoke the Edict of Milan. Heathenism
was still strong in its associations with Greek philosophy and culture,
with Roman law and social order, and its moral character stood higher
than it had done. It hardly looked like a beaten enemy: yet such it
Its last real hope was gone.
Religious peace was assured, but the unity of the Empire was not
yet restored. Constantine and Licinius were both ambitious, and war
between them was only a question of time. They were not unequally
matched. If Constantine had the victorious legions of Gaul, Licinius
ruled the East from the frontier of Armenia to that of Italy, so that
he was master of the Illyrian provinces, which furnished the best
soldiers of the Roman army. Every emperor from Claudius to Licinius
himself was an Illyrian, except Tacitus and Carus. And if Constantine
had done a splendid feat of arms, Licinius was a fine soldier too, and
(with all his personal vices) not less careful of his subjects.
Constantine was called away from Milan by some incursions of the
Franks, who kept him busy during the summer of 313. When things
were more settled, he proposed to institute a middle domain for his
other brother-in-law Bassianus. The plan seems to have been that while
Constantine gave him Italy, Licinius should give him Illyricum. Licinius
frustrated it by engaging Bassianus in a plot for which he was put to
death, and then refused to give up to Constantine his agent Senecio,
was.
## p. 7 (#37) ###############################################
314–323]
The Wars with Licinius
7
the brother of Bassianus. This meant war. Constantine took the
offensive as he had done before, pushing into Pannonia with no more
than 20,000 men, and attacking Licinius at Cibalae, where he was
endeavouring to cover Sirmium. He had 35,000 against him, but a
hard-fought battle (8 Oct. 314) ended in a complete victory, and the
capture of Sirmium. Licinius fled towards Hadrianople, deepening the
quarrel on the way by giving the rank of Caesar to his Illyrian general
Valens. A new army was collected; but another great battle on the
Mardian plain was indecisive. Constantine won the victory; but
Licinius and Valens were able to take up a threatening position in his
rear at Beroea. So peace had to be made. First Valens was sacrificed :
then Licinius gave up Illyricum from the Danube to the extremity of
Greece, retaining in Europe only Thrace, which however in those days
reached north to the Danube. So things settled down. Constantine
returned to Rome in the summer to celebrate his Decennalia (25 July
315), and in 317 the succession was secured by the nomination of
Caesars, Crispus and Constantine the sons of Constantine, and Li-
cinianus the son of Licinius. Crispus was grown up, but Constantine
was a baby
The treaty might be hollow, but it kept the peace for nearly eight
years. If Constantine was evidently the stronger, Licinius was still too
strong to be rashly attacked. So each went his own way. It soon
appeared which was the better statesman. Constantine drew nearer to
the Christians, while Licinius drifted into persecution, devising annoy-
ances enough to make them enemies but not enough to make them
harmless. Thus Constantine allows manumission in church, judges the
Donatists, closes the courts on Sundays, loads the churches with gifts,
and, at last (May 323)', frees Christians from all pagan ceremonies of
state. Licinius drove the Christians from his court, forbade meetings
.
of bishops, and meddled vexatiously with their worship. This gave the
war something of a religious character; but its occasion was not
religious. The Goths had been pretty quiet since Aurelian had settled
them in Dacia. It was not till 322 that Rausimod their king crossed
the Danube on a foray. Constantine drove them back, chased them
beyond the Danube, slew Rausimod, and settled thousands of Gothic
serts in the adjacent provinces. But in the pursuit he crossed the
territory of Licinius; and this led to war. Constantine's
army
130,000 strong, and his son Crispus had a fleet of 200 sail in the
Piraeus. Licinius awaited him with 160,000 men near Hadrianople,
while his admiral Amandus was to hold the Hellespont with 350 ships.
There was no idea of using the fleet to take Constantine in the rear.
was
1 Recent opinion (Jonquet, Pears) seems to place the campaign in 324. The
question is difficult: but the Council of Nicaea seems firmly fixed for 325, the
preparations for it cannot have begun till the war was ended, and no room seems
left for them if the battle of Chrysopolis is placed in Sept. 324.
CH. 1.
## p. 8 (#38) ###############################################
8
How Constantine became Christian
[ 323–337
After some difficult manoeuvres, Constantine won the first battle
(3 July 323), but was brought to a stop before the walls of Byzantium.
Licinius was safe there, so long as he held the sea ; so he chose Marti-
nianus his magister officiorum for the new Augustus of the West.
Meanwhile Constantine strengthened his fleet, and his son Crispus com-
pletely defeated Amandus in the Hellespont. Licinius left Byzantium to
defend itself—it had held out two years against Severus—and prepared
to maintain the Asiatic shore. Constantine left Byzantium on one side
and landed near Chrysopolis, where he found the whole army of Licinius
drawn up to meet him. The battle of Chrysopolis (18 or 20 Sept. 323)
was decisive. Licinius fled to Nicomedia, and presently Constantia
came out to ask for her husband's life. It was granted, and Constantine
confirmed his promise with an oath. Nevertheless Licinius was put to
death in October 325 on a charge of treasonable intrigue. The charge
is unlikely: but Licinius was quite capable of it, and his execution does
not seem to have estranged Constantia from her brother. But perhaps
the matter is best connected with the family tragedy which we shall
come to presently.
As a general, Constantine ranks high among the emperors. Good
soldiers as they mostly were, none but Severus and Aurelian could boast
of any such career of victory as had brought Constantine from the
shores of Britain to the banks of the Tiber and the walls of Byzantium.
But after the “crowning mercy” of Chrysopolis there was no more
fighting, except with the Goths. The last fourteen years of Constantine
(323–337) were years of peace : and the first question which then
confronted him was the question of religion. By what road did he
approach Christianity, and how far did he come on the journey ?
Two fables may be dismissed at once—the heathen fable told by
Zosimus in the fifth century, that the Christians were complaisant when
the philosophers refused to absolve him for the murder of his son
Crispus; and the papal fable of the eighth century, that he was healed
of leprosy by Pope Sylvester, and thereupon gave him dominion over
“ the palace, the city of Rome, and the entire West. ” These legends
are summarily refuted by the fact that he was baptised in 337, not as
they tell us in 326. Turning now to history, we have no reason to
suppose that he owed Christian impressions to his mother's teaching :
but Constantius was an eclectic of the better sort, and a man of some
culture ; and his memory contrasted well with that of his colleagues.
Constantine seems to have begun where his father left off, as more or
less monotheistic and averse to idols, and more or less friendly to the
Christians; and all these things grew upon him. The last of them may
not have meant much at first, for even hostile emperors like Severus and
Diocletian had sense enough to keep on good terms with the Christians
when they were not prepared to crush them. But Constantine was
drawn to them personally as well as politically; by his pure life and
## p. 9 (#39) ###############################################
323–337]
Policy of Constantine
9
genuine humanity as well as by his shrewd statesmanship. Their lofty
monotheism and austere morals attracted the man, their strong organi-
sation arrested the attention of the ruler. When Diocletian threw
down his challenge to the Church, he made religion the urgent question
of the time: and the persecution was a visible failure before Constantine
was well settled in Gaul. If Diocletian had failed to crush the Church,
others were not likely to succeed. Maximin or Licinius might hark
back to the past; but Constantine saw clearly that the Empire would
have to make some sort of terms with the Church, so that the only
question was how far it would be needful or safe to go. For the
moment, a little friendliness to the Gaulish bishops was enough to
secure the good will of the Christians all over the Empire. Then came
the wars of 312-3, which forced on Constantine and Licinius the
championship of the Christians, and made it plain good policy to give
them full legal toleration. Licinius stopped there, and Constantine did
not make up his mind without anxiety. The God of the Christians
had shown great power, and might be the best protector; and in any
case a firm alliance with their strong hierarchy would not only remove a
great danger, but give the very help which the Empire needed. On
the other hand, it was a serious thing to break with the past and brave
the terrors of heathen magic. Moreover, the Christians were a minority
even in the East, and he could not openly go over to them without risk
of a pagan reaction. So he moved cautiously. Christianity differed
forsooth very little from the better sort of heathenism. They could
both be brought under the broad shield of monotheism, if the heathens
would give up their idols and immoral worships, and the Christians
would not insist too rudely on that awkward doctrine of the deity of
Christ. On these terms the lion of Christianity might lie down with
the lamb of Eclecticism, and the guileless emperor would be the little
child to lead them both.
The problem of Church and State was new, for the old religion of
Rome was never more than a department of the State, and the worship-
pers of Isis and Mithras readily “conformed to the ceremonies of the
Roman people. ” But when Christianity made a practical distinction
between Caesar's things and God's, the relation of Church and State
became a difficult question. Constantine handled it with great skill
and much success. He not only made the Christians thoroughly loyal,
but won the active support of the churches, and obtained such influence
over the bishops that they seemed almost willing to sink into a depart-
ment of the State. But he forgot one thing. The surface thought of
his time, Christian as well as heathen, tended to a vague monotheism
which looked on Christ and the sun as almost equally good symbols of
the Supreme: and this obscured the deeper conviction of the Christians
that the deity of Christ is as essential as the unity of God. After all,
Christianity is not a monotheistic philosophy, but a life in Christ.
CH. I.
## p. 10 (#40) ##############################################
10
Religious Policy of Constantine
[315–337
When this conviction asserted itself with overwhelming power at the
Council of Nicaea, Constantine gave way with a good grace. As it had
been decided at Saxa Rubra that the Empire was to fight beneath the
cross of God, so now it was decided at Nicaea that the cross was to be
the cross of Christ, and not the Sun-god's cross of light.
We may doubt whether Constantine took in the full meaning of the
decision : but at any rate it meant that the Christians refused to be
included with others in a monotheistic state religion. If the Empire
was to have their full friendship, it must become definitely Christian :
and this is the goal to which Constantine seems to have looked forward
in his later years, though he can hardly have hoped himself to reach it.
Heathenism was still strong, and he continued to use vague monotheistic
language. Only in his last illness did he feel it safe to throw off the
mask and avow himself a Christian. “Let there be no ambiguity,"
,”
said he, as he asked for baptism ; and then he laid aside the purple, and
passed away in the white robe of a Christian neophyte (22 May 337).
This would seem to be the general outline of Constantine's religious
life and policy. We can now return to the morrow of Chrysopolis,
and take it more in detail. Now that he was master of the Empire, he
made his alliance with the Christians as close as he could without
abandoning the official neutrality of his monotheism. His attitude is
well shown by his coins. Mars and Genius P. R. disappear after Saxa
Rubra, or at latest by 317: Sol invictus by 315, or at any rate 323.
Coins of Iuppiter Aug. seem to have been struck only for Licinius.
Later on, the heathen inscriptions are replaced by phrases as neutral as
the cross itself, like Beata tranquillitas or Providentia Augg. , or Instinctu
Divinitatis on his triumphal arch at Rome. His laws keep pace with
the coins. In form they are mostly neutral; but they show an increasing
leaning to Christianity. Thus his edict for the observance of "the
venerable day of the Sun” only raised it to the rank of the heathen
feriae by closing the law-courts; and the Latin prayer he imposed on
the army (the first case known of prayer in an unknown tongue) is quite
indeterminate as between Christ and Jupiter. So too when before 316
he sanctioned manumissions in churches, he was only taking a hint from
the manumissions in certain temples. Yet again, when in 313 (and by
later law) he exempted the clergy of the Catholic Church—not those of
the sects—from the decurionate and other burdens, he gave them
only the privileges already enjoyed by some of the heathen priests and
teachers. But the relief was great enough to cause an ungodly rush for
holy Orders, and with it such a loss of taxpayers that in 320 he had to
forbid the ordination of anyone qualified for the curia of his city.
None but the poor (and an occasional official) could now be ordained,
and those only to fill vacancies caused by death. The second limitation
.
may not have been enforced, but the first remained. To save the
revenue, the Church was debased at a stroke.
## p. 11 (#41) ##############################################
319–337]
Religious Policy of Constantine
11
Other laws however lean more to a side, like the edict of 319 which
threatens to burn the Jews if they stone “a convert to the worship of
God. ” No doubt such converts needed protection ; and Roman law
was not squeamish about burning criminals, if they were of low rank.
Upon the whole, this policy of official neutrality and personal favour
powerfully stimulated the growth of the churches. The time-servers
were all Christians now, and Eusebius plainly denounces their “unspeak-
able hypocrisy. ” At least in later years, Constantine himself had to
rebuke bishops for flattery. The defeat of Licinius enabled him to
come forward more openly as the patron of the churches. His letter to
the provincials of the Empire (Eusebius naturally gives the copy which
went to Palestine) begins with high praise of the confessors and strong
denunciation of the persecutors, whose wickedness is shown by their
miserable ends. They would have destroyed the republic, if the Divinity
had not raised up me, Constantine, from the far West of Britain to
destroy them. He then restores rank and property to all the victims of
persecution in the islands, the mines, and the houses of forced labour,
and finishes with an earnest exhortation to the worship of the one true
God.
But after all, the Church was not quite what Constantine wanted it
to be. He was not more attracted to it by its lofty monotheism than
by the imposing unity which promised new life to the weary State. For
six hundred years the world had been in quest of a universal religion.
Stoicism was no more than a philosophy for the few, the worship of the
emperor was debased by officialism, and by this time quite outworn, and
even Mithraism had never shown such living power as Christianity.
Here then was something that could realise the religious side of the
Empire in a nobler form than Augustus or Hadrian had ever dreamed
of-a universal Church that could stand beside the universal Empire and
worthily support its labours for the peace and welfare of the world.
But for this purpose unity was essential. If the Church was divided
against itself, it could not help the Empire. Worse than this; it could
hardly be divided against itself without being also divided against the
Empire. One of the parties was likely to appeal to the emperor; and
then he would have to decide between them and make an enemy of the
defeated party; and if he tried to enforce his decision, they were likely
to resist him as stubbornly as the whole Church had resisted the heathen
emperors. This would bring back the whole difficulty of the perse-
cutions, though possibly on a smaller scale. To put it shortly, the
Christians had a conscience in matters of religion, and sometimes mis-
took self-will for conscience.
Constantine had experience of Christian self-will in Africa soon after
the defeat of Maxentius. When Diocletian commanded the Christians
to give up their sacred books, all parties agreed in refusing to obey.
Those who did obey were called traditores. But the officers did not
a
CH. I.
## p. 12 (#42) ##############################################
12
The Donatists
[311-321
66
always care what books they took: might apocryphal books be given
up? So thought Mensurius of Carthage, while others counted it
apostasy to give up any books at all. The controversy became acute at
the death of Mensurius in 311, when Felix of Aptunga consecrated his
successor Caecilian. But that right was claimed by Secundus of Tigisis,
the senior bishop of Numidia, who consecrated a rival bishop of Carthage.
It was some time before the Donatists (as they soon came to be called)
got their position clear. They held that Felix was a traditor, that the
ministrations of a traditor are null and void, and that a church which
has communion with a traditor is apostate.
After the battle of Saxa Rubra Constantine sent money to Caecilian
for the clergy “of the catholic church”; and as he “had heard that
some evil-disposed persons were troubling them,” he directed Caecilian
to refer them to the civil authorities for punishment. Thereupon they
appealed to him. Constantine seems to have contemplated a small
court to try the case--Miltiades of Rome, three Gaulish bishops, and
apparently the archdeacon of Rome: but a small council met instead
(Oct. 313) at Rome, which pronounced for Caecilian. The Donatists
were furious, and appealed again. This time Constantine summoned as
many bishops as he could, directing each to bring so many clergy and
servants with him, and giving him power to use the state post (cursus
publicus) for the journey. So a large council of the Western churches
met at Arles in August 314 (possibly 315). Even Britain sent bishops
from London, York, and some other place. It destroyed the Donatist
contention by deciding that Felix was not a traditor. It also settled
some more outstanding controversies, in favour of the Roman date of
Easter, and the Roman custom of not repeating heretical baptism, if it
had been given in the name of the Trinity. The decisions were sent to
Sylvester of Rome for circulation-not for confirmation.
nise in Arles the pattern of the Nicene Council. Still the Donatists
were not satisfied. They asked the emperor to decide the matter
himself, and he unwillingly consented. He heard them at Milan
(Nov. 316) and once more decided against them. Then they turned
round and said, What business has the emperor to meddle with the
Church? A vigorous persecution was begun, but with small success.
A band of Donatist fanatics called Circumcelliones ranged the country,
committing disorders and defying the authorities to make martyrs of
them. Even in 317 Constantine ordered that their outrages were not
to be retaliated; and when they sent him a message in 321 that they
would in no way communicate with “ that scoundrel, his bishop," he
stopped the persecution as useless, and frankly gave them toleration.
Africa was fairly quiet for the rest of his reign.
After the defeat of Licinius, Constantine found several disputes in
the Eastern churches. The old Easter question was still unsettled, the
Meletian schism was dividing Egypt, and there was no knowing how far
We can recog-
## p. 13 (#43) ##############################################
325]
The Council of Nicaea
13
the Arian controversy would spread. Unity must be restored at once,
and that by the old plan of calling a council. The churches had long
been in the habit of conferring together when difficulties arose. They
could refuse to recognise an unsatisfactory bishop; and cir. 269 a council
ventured to depose Paul of Samosata, and Aurelian had enforced its
decision. The weak point of this method was that rival councils could
be got up, so that every local quarrel had an excellent chance of
becoming a general controversy. Arianism in particular was setting
council against council. Constantine determined to go a step beyond
these local meetings. As he had summoned the Western bishops to
Arles, so now he summoned all the bishops of Christendom. If he
could bring them to a decision, it was not likely to be disputed; and
in any case he could safely give it the force of law. An oecumenical
council would be a grand demonstration, not only of the unity of the
Church, but of its close alliance with the Empire. So he issued invita-
tions to all Christian bishops to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia in the
summer of 325, to make a final end of all the disputes which rent the
unity of Christendom. The programme was even wider than at Arles;
;
but the Donatists were not included in it. Constantine could let
sleeping dogs lie. We note here the choice of Nicaea for its auspicious
name—the city of victory—and convenience of access; and we see in it
one of many signs that the true centre of the Empire was settling down
somewhere near the Bosphorus.
We need not closely analyse the imposing list of bishops present
from almost every province of the Empire, with a few from beyond its
frontiers in the far East and North. Legend made them 318, the holy
number (Tin) of the cross of Jesus. We have lists in sundry languages,
none of them giving more than 221 names; but these are known to be
incomplete. The actual number may have been near 300. All the
thirteen great dioceses of the Empire were represented except Britain
and Illyricum, though only single bishops came from Africa, Spain,
Gaul and Dacia. Only one came in person from Italy, though two
presbyters appeared for the bishop of Rome. So the vast majority came
from the Eastern provinces of the Empire. The outsiders were four or
five-Theophilus bishop of the Goths beyond the Danube, Cathirius
(the name is corrupt) of the Crimean Bosporus, John the Persian,
and Restaces the Armenian, the son of Gregory the Illuminator, with
perhaps another Armenian bishop. Eusebius is full of enthusiasm over
his majestic roll of churches far and near, from the extremity of Europe
to the furthest ends of Asia. It was a day of victory for both the
Empire and the Church. The Empire had not only made peace with
the stubbornest of its enemies, but been accepted as its protector and
guide. The Church had won the greatest of all its victories when
Galerius issued his edict of toleration : but its mission to the whole
world has never been so vividly embodied as by that august assembly.
CB. I.
## p. 14 (#44) ##############################################
14
The Council of Nicaea
[325
а
We miss half the meaning of the Council if we overlook the tremulous
hope and joy of those first years of worldwide victory. Athanasius
shows it even more than Eusebius. One thing at least was clear. The
new world faced the old, and the spell of the Holy Roman Empire had
already begun to work.
Constantine took up at once the position of a moderator. He began
by burning unread the budget of complaints against each other which
the bishops had presented to him. He then preached them a sermon on
a
unity; and unity was his text all through. He was much more anxious
to make the decisions unanimous than to influence them one way or
another. His one object was to make an end of division in the churches.
So whatever pleased the bishops pleased the emperor too. Easter was
fixed according to the custom of Rome and Alexandria for the Sunday
after the full moon following the vernal equinox. It is the rule we
have now, and though it did not produce complete unity till the lunar
cycle was quite settled, it secured that Easter should come after the
Passover, for, said Constantine, How can we who are Christians keep the
same day as those ungodly Jews? The Meletian schism was peacefully
settled—to the disgust of Athanasius in later years—by giving the
Meletian clergy a status next to the orthodox, with a right of succession
if found worthy. So far well : but the condemnation of Arianism may
have been something of a trial to Constantine, who could not quite see
why they thought it worth while to be so hot on such a trifling question
as the deity of Christ. However that may be, Arianism was politically
impossible. He must have known already from Hosius that the West
would not accept it, and the first act of the Council meant its almost
unanimous rejection by the East. As soon as there was no doubt what
the decision would be, he did his best to make it quite unanimous. All
the arts of imperial persuasion were tried on the waverers, till in the
end only two stubborn recusants remained to be sent into exile.
To some wider aspects of the Council we shall return hereafter. For
the moment it may be enough to say that Constantine had won a great
He had not only got his questions settled, but had himself
taken a conspicuous part in settling them. More than this. He had
established formal relations, no longer with bishops or groups of bishops,
but with a great confederacy of churches. The churches had long been
tending to organise themselves on the lines of the Empire, as we see in
Cyprian's theories; and now Constantine made the Church an alter ego
of the State, and gave it a concrete unity of the political sort which it
never had before. Henceforth the holy Catholic Church of the creeds was
more and more limited to the confederation of churches recognised by
the State, so that it only remained to compel all men to come into these,
and prevent the formation of any other religious communities. In this
way
the Church became much more useful to the State, and also perhaps
fitter to resist the shock of the barbarian conquests which followed; but
success.
## p. 15 (#45) ##############################################
315–326]
Crispus and Fausta
15
surely something was lost in freedom and spirituality, and therefore also
in practical morality.
We
pass
from the Council of Nicaea to a family tragedy. So far
Constantine may pass as fairly merciful to the plotters of his own house.
Maximian, Bassianus and Licinius had all tried to assassinate him; and
if he put to death Bassianus (see p. 8), he had spared Maximian till he
plotted again, and so far he had spared Licinius also. But now in a few
months from Oct. 325 he puts to death not only Licinius but his own son
Crispus and the younger Licinius, then his own wife Fausta, and then a
number of his friends. The facts are certain, but their exact meaning is
obscure. It must however be noticed that the dynastic policy of Diocletian
had given a new political importance to members of an imperial family.
The widows of the third century emperors fall into obscurity ; but the
widow of Galerius is first sought in marriage by Maximin Daza, then
executed by Licinius, who also put to death the children of Severus,
Daza and Galerius. Now Constantine married twice; and there may
well have been a bitter division in his family. Minervina was the
mother of Crispus, whom we have seen greatly distinguishing himself
in the war with Licinius : and there seems no serious doubt that the
three younger sons were children of Fausta, though the eldest of them
was not born till 315-6, eight years after her marriage. So we come to
the questions we cannot answer. Was Constantine jealous of his eldest
son, or anxious to get him out of the way of the others ? Or was Crispus
a plotter justly put to death? And how came Fausta to share his fate
a little later? They are not likely to have been accomplices in a plot
or connected by a guilty passion, though the story of Zosimus is not
impossible, that she accused him falsely, and was herself put to death
for it when Helena convicted her. We have not material enough for
any decided opinion. The worst point, it may be, against Constantine
is that he did not spare the young Licinius. If he was the son of
Constantia, he cannot have been more than twelve years old. But the
allusions to him suggest that he was something more than a boy, and
we know that Constantia was on the best of terms with her brother
when she died a couple of years later. If Constantine suspected the
elder Licinius, the new sultanism would involve the younger in his fate ;
and if Crispus had married Helena his daughter, suspicion might attach
to him too. Fausta's fate is the inystery. Or was Constantine more or
less out of his mind that winter, as despots occasionally are? One or
two of his laws may point that way, and the possibility may help to
explain a good deal.
Constantine kept his Vicennalia at Rome in the summer of 326. It
was an unhappy visit, even if the domestic tragedy had already taken
place.
