Last updated 20/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
The study of church-state relations in the age of Constantine may be approached in many ways. Imperial church building is one of these avenues of study and interpretation. Lactantius long ago complained of the building mania of Diocletian and other members of the Tetrarchy. Eusebius lauded the churches of Constantine as signal proofs of his magnificence and as the discharge of a sacred debt. Procopius later condemned the extravagance of Justinian's building programs, although without specifically mentioning churches. And many modern writers have taken the churches of Constantine as evidence for both a personal and a public commitment to Christianity. Only a few historians, however, have asked whether there was an overriding plan or purpose to this activity, e.g., Glanville Downey has suggested the likelihood of a plan in the case of Justinian. Thus arises the question, was the construction of churches the instrument or at least the reflection of an imperial policy toward Christianity?
This study has its origins in a paper read in December 1965 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Church History. I am grateful to the libraries of Dumbarton Oaks and Princeton University for their hospitality, and to the American Council of Learned Societies for its support during the preparation of this material.
Since this article was completed, Deno J. Geanakoplos, who commented upon my original paper in December, 1965, has published a complementary study, “Church Building and ‘Caesaropapism,’ A.D. 312–565,” in Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies VII (1966), 167–186.
1. Lactantius, , De mortibus persecutorum, 7.Google Scholar
2. Eusebius, , Laus Constantini, ix. 12–19.Google Scholar
3. Procopius, , The Anecdota or Secret History, viii. 7–8Google Scholar; xi. 3; xix. 4–8 (esp. contrast with Emperor Anastasius I); xxvi. 23–24. He takes a different view, of course, in the treatise, Buildings, which was presented to Justinian.
4. E.g., Aland, Kurt,“Die religiöse Haltung Kaiser Konstantins,” Studia Patristica, I, ed. Aland, Kurt and Cross, F. L., TU, 63 (Berlin, 1957), 569, 570Google Scholar; Kraft, Heinz, Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklsng, Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 20 (Tübingeu, 1955), pp. 114, 119.Google Scholar
5. Downey, Glanville,“Justinian as a Builder,” The Art Bulletin, XXXII (1950), 262–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, iii. 48, 50.Google Scholar
7. Text in Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanum recensuit Theodorus Preger, II, Bibliotheca … Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1907).Google Scholar
8. The Book of the Popes, I (all published), trans. and ed. Louise Ropes Loomis (New York, 1916), xvii, xviiiGoogle Scholar. Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. with intro, and commentary by L[ouis] Duchesne (Paris, 1955), I, cxli–cliv, clxiGoogle Scholar. On the debate over Eusebius and the Vita Constantini as a trustworthy source, see Winkelmann, Friedheim,“Zur Geschichte des Authentizitätsproblems der Vita Constantini,” Klio: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte, XL (1962), 187–243.Google Scholar
9. Diehl, Ernestus, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veters, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1961), 1752, 1759, 1761, 1763, 1768, 1775, 1779, 1792.Google Scholar
10. For a recent survey see Duval, Noél,“Les origines de la basilique chrétienne: État de la question,“L'Information d'histoire de l'art, VII (1962), 1–19.Google Scholar
11. Ciampini, Joannes, De sacris aedificiis a Constantino magno constructis: Synopsis historica (Rome, 1693)Google Scholar, arrived at a total of 58 churches and baptistries and 2 monasteries. An important recent study is Voelkl, Ludwig, Die Kirchenstiftungen des Kaisers Konstantin im Lichte des römischen Sakralrechts, Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forsehung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschafien, Heft 117 (Cologne and Opladen, 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. “Constantine's Churches,” scheduled for publication in Gesta, VI (01, 1967)Google Scholar, which suggests 23 secure attributions to Constantine as patron and/or founder, 4 attributions to the Constantinian dynasty, 2 probable endowments by Constantine, 11 possible attributions, and 4 poorly attested ones. This catalog includes extensive bibliographical references for each building. See also Krautheimer, Richard, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, The Pelican History of Art (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, and Baltimore, 1965)Google Scholar, Part Two,“The Fourth Century.”
13. Alföldi, A[ndrás],“On the Foundation of Constantinople: A Few Notes,” The Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII (1947), 15. Similarly, Kraft, pp. 115–118.Google Scholar
14. MacMullen, Ramsey,“Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, LXIV (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), 209Google Scholar. Lot, Ferdinand, The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnings of the Middle Ages, trans. Philip, and Leon, Mariette (New York and Evanston, 1961), p. 95Google Scholar, cautions that Constantine did not actually surpass his predecessors of the first and second centuries in expenditures on buildings. Cf. Robertson, D. S., A Handbook of Greek and Roman Architecture, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Eng., 1964), pp. 213–230, 267–296.Google Scholar
15. Rodenwaldt, G[erhart],“The Transition to Late-Classical Art,” ch. 16 in The Cambridge Ancient History, XII: The Imperial Crisis and Recovery, A.D. 193–324 (Cambridge, Eng., 1939), 567.Google Scholar
16. Ibid., 569. Note also the comment of E[arl] Smith, Baidwin, Architectural Symbolism of Imperial Rome and the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1956), p. 4Google Scholar: “Because it is assumed that the Romans, as we know them in their literature, were too practical a people to be influenced by architectural symbolism, it is not commonly understood how much the Christian desire to make the church an apparent ‘Gate of Heaven’ and impregnable ‘Stronghold,’ a ‘City of God,’ and a replica of God's cosmic dwelling was inspired by the ideas and ceremonies which had long been associated with the towered gateways, triumphal arches, and sacred palaces of the Roman emperors.”
17. See Alföldi; Kraft, pp. 115–118; Toynbee, J. M. C., “Roma and Constantinopolis in Late-Antique Art from 312 to 365,” The Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII (1947), 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Telfer, W[illiam], “Constantine's Holy Land Plan,” Studia Patristica, I (Berlin, 1957), 696–700Google Scholar, and the enumeration in Armstrong, “Constantine's Churches.”
19. Alföldi, , The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome, trans. Mattingly, Harold (Oxford, 1948), pp. 50–52Google Scholar: Vielliard, René, Recherches sur les origines de Ia Rome chrétienne (Macon, 1941), pp. 47–49Google Scholar; von Schoenebeck, Hans, Beitröge zur Religionspolitik des Maxentius and Constantin, Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte, new series, Betheft 30 (Leipzig, 1939), pp. 87, 88 (esp. a. 2).Google Scholar
20. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, xxxiiii (Silvester); I, 170–187. Codex Theodosianus, XVI. ii. 4Google Scholar. See Jones, A[rnold] H[ugh] M[artin], The Later Rornan Empire, 284–6O2: A Sooial Economic and Administrative Survey, 2 vols. (Norman, Okla., 1964), pp. 90, 96, 109, 894–900.Google Scholar
21. On the Edict of Milan and Constantine's religious legislation in general see Armstrong, Gregory T., “Church and State Relations: The Changes Wrought by Constantine,” The Journal of Bible and Religion, XXXII (1964), 3–5Google Scholar. For the significance of the directions to “heighten, enlarge and embellish the houses of prayer” (Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, i.42.23–26Google Scholar) see Voelkl, Ludwig, “Die konstantinisehen Kirchenbauten nach Eusebius,” Rivista di Archeoloqia Cristiana, XXIX (1953), 60–64.Google Scholar
22. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, xxiiii (Silvester). 9–12; I, 172–174. The Lateran basilica is the“Constantiaian” basilica. Cf. Alföldi, , Conversion, pp. 51, 52Google Scholar. “a worthy rival by the side of the Capitol;” Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann, Frühchristliche Kirchen in Rom (Band, 1948), pp. 13–17Google Scholar, who cites the famous inscription: “Cunctarum caput et mater ecclesiarum;” André Piganiol, L'Empereur Constantin (Paris, 1932), pp. 112–114Google Scholar; and Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, pp. 50–52.Google Scholar
23. Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, pp. 31–33Google Scholar; Grabar, André, Martyrium; Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l'art chrétien antique, I: Architecture (Paris, 1946), 210Google Scholar: “C'est la puissance de Dieu que Constantin célébre dans les sanctuaires qu'il fixe sur des lieux saints.” The same observation applies to St. Peter's and other churches. The inscription on the triumphal arch of the original St. Peter's confirms this fact. “Quod duce te mundus surrexit in astra triumphans,/hanc Constantinus victor tibi condidit aulam.” Diehl, , ILCV, 1752Google Scholar. Cf. Burch, Vacher, Myth and Constantine the Great (London, 1927), p. 150.Google Scholar
24. Constantine did not endow the Titulus Equitii The reference to it in the Liber Pontificalis, xxxiiii.3Google Scholar; I, 170, 171, was not in the first edition but was added later. See Vielliard, , Les origines du litre de Saint-Martin aux Monts à Rome, Studi di Antichitè Cristiuna, IV (Rome and Paris, 1931), 14–24, 117–120.Google Scholar
25. Toynbee, , “The Shrine of St. Peter and Its Setting,” The Journal of Roman Studies, XLIII (1953), 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the bibliography on St. Peter's in Armstrong, “Constantine's Churches.” Roman law contained provisions against disturbing the graves of anyone, pagan, Jew or Christian, although other instances of appropriating cemeteries for public buildings are not unknown.
26. See the references in note 19.
27. On this important class of churches, see especially: Deichmann, and Tschira, Arnold, “Das Mausoleum der Kaiserin Helena und die Basilika der Heiligen Marcellinus mid Petrus an der Via Labicana vor Rom.” Jahrbuch des deutsehen archdologischen Instituts, LXXII (1957), 44–110Google Scholar; and Krautheisner, , “Mensa-Coemeterium-Martyrium,” Cahiers Arohéotogiques, XI (1960), 15–40.Google Scholar
28. Gregorovius, Ferdinand, Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, I, 6th ed. (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1922), 24.Google Scholar
29. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, iii.25–43, 51–53Google Scholar. See also Crowfoot, J[ohn] W[inter], Early Churches in Palestine, The Schweich Lectures on Biblical Archaeology of the British Academy, 1937 (London, 1941).Google Scholar
30. Ibid., iii.58.
31. Itinerarium Burdigalense in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Xxxix, ed. P. Geyer (Vienna, 1898), 1–33.Google Scholar
32. E.g., St. Acacius in Heptascalon and perhaps the church of the same name in Karya as well as one of the churches dedicated to the Archangel Michael. The problems of fourth- century churches in Constantinople are especially difficult, and the evidence defies treatment in the space available here. Especially to be considered is the testimony of Eusebius, Socrates and Sozomen, all of whom would support a fourth century date for the churches named. A useful guide to the subject is Janin, R[aymond], La Géographic ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin, 1st part: Le siège de Constantinople et patriarcat oeeumenique, III: Les églises et les monastéres (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar. Hagia Sophia seems to have been planned and started by Constantine but was completed by Constantius and dedicated in A.D. 360. Cf. Schneider, A. M., “Die vorjustinianische Sophienkirche,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXXVI (1936), 77–85Google Scholar; and the references in Armstrong, “Constantine's Churches.”
33. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, iii.50Google Scholar; Socrates, , Historia Ecclesiastica, i.16Google Scholar; ii.8, 16. On the pattern, see Burch, pp. 135–137; Grabar, I, 222–228; Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, p. 32Google Scholar: “Die mit heidnischen Sakralbauten kombinierten Motive der Pietas, Concordia, Pax und Victoria, um nur einige anzufführen, erleben eine Christianisierung dureh ihre Verbindung mit den konstantinischen Kirchenbauten.” The parallel to the Ara Pacis of Augustus has been frequently noted, e.g., Alföidi, , Conversion, p. 114Google Scholar. The church of the Holy Dynamis is poorly attested, but Piganiol, p. 162, and others attribute it to Constantine.
34. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, iii.64, 65.Google Scholar
35. The letter of Constantine to the African bishops, preserved by Optatus, is found in Kraft, pp. 198–200.
36. For a review of this policy with a collection of documents see Kraft, pp. 28–60, 160–201.
37. Frend, W. H. C., The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1952), pp. 145–165, esp. 162.Google Scholar
38. Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, pp. 28–31Google Scholar, with references to the Liber Pontificalis, the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and the letters of Constantine in Eusebius' Vita. The term “basilica” is also discussed in two articles by Voelkl, , “Die konstantinischen Kirchenbauten nach den literarischen Quellen des Okzidents,” and “Die konstantinisehen Kirchenbauten nach Eusebius,” Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, XXX (1954), 99–136, and XXIX (1953), 49–66, 187–206.Google Scholar
39. Codex Theodosianus, I.xxvii.1Google Scholar; IV.vii.1; XVI.ii,1, 2, 5, 7. See also Dörries, Hermann, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 3rd series, 34 (Gottingen, 1954)Google Scholar; Armstrong, , JBR, XXXII, 4, 5Google Scholar; and Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, pp. 29, 30.Google Scholar
40. Eusebius, , Laus Constantini, i.6Google Scholar; ii; xviii. Baynes, Norman H. “Eusebius and the Christian Empire,” Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955), pp. 168–172.Google Scholar
41. Voelkl, , Der Kaiser Konstantin: Annalen einer Zeitwende (Munich, 1957), 90Google Scholar; idem, RAC, XXX, 136, conclusions 5 and 6; J[ohn] Perkins, B. Ward, “Constantine and the Origins of the Christian Basilica,” Papers of the British School at Rome, XXII (1954), 77, 78Google Scholar: “The problem that confronted the Christians after the conversion of Constantine was nothing less than the creation of a new monumental architecture to serve the requirements of what, from a banned or barely tolerated cult, suddenly, in the course of a very few years, found itself an official state religion.”
42. On the symbolism and propaganda function of ecclesiastical architecture: Smith; Kraft, pp. 114, 119 (“Symbole für das Zunkunftsreieh, this von Konstantin herbeigeführt wird”); von Sehoenebeck, p. v; Aland, p. 569.
43. Grabar, I, 212, 235–239, deals at length with this idea. The church was the hérōon to the founder of the city, Christ, the king of the New Jerusalem. There is a striking parallel to the Church of the Apostles near the geographical center of Constantinople. See n. 46.
44. Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, 40–43Google Scholar; Dörries; Armstrong, , JBR, XXXII, 3–5.Google Scholar
45. Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, 39, 40Google Scholar, although the archaeological evidence suggests an attribution to Constans. Cf. Ferrua, Antonio, “Lavori a S. Sebastiano,” Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, XXXVII (1961), 203–236.Google Scholar
46. On the Apostles' Church there is a large body of literature; see the references in Downey, , “The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople: a Contribution to the Criticism of the Vita Constantini Attributed to Eusebius,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, VI (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), 53–80Google Scholar, and Krautheimer, ,“Zu Konstantins Apostelkirche in Konstantinopel,” Mullus: Festsehrift Theodor Klauser, Jahrbuch für Antike and Christentum, suppl. vol. I, ed. Stuiber, Alfred and Hermann, Alfred (Münster in Westphalia, 1964), pp. 224–229.Google Scholar
47. I follow the conclusions of Krautheimer and others who seem to be in general agreement against those such as Downey who deny the church's Constantinian origin or such as August Heisenberg who affirm a motive of self-deification. Cf. Aland, , “Der Abbau des Herrscherkultes im Zeitalter Konstantins,” Kirchengeschichtliehe Entwürfe (Gütersloh, 1960), p. 256Google Scholar, who observes that the church conducts a Christian funeral for Constantine without the participation of the army and Constantius. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, iv. 71.Google Scholar
48. Voelkl, , Die Kirchenstiftungen, pp. 47, 48Google Scholar, for conclusions
49. Ward Perkins, p. 88; Finegan, Jack, Light from the Ancient Past: The Archaeological Background of Judaism and Christianity, 2nd ed. (Princeton, 1959), pp. 506–508.Google Scholar
50. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, iii.25–40Google Scholar; Ward Perkins, p. 85, 87; Krautheimer, , Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, pp. 42, 43, 45, 46Google Scholar; Grabar I, 24. Krautheimer in a paper given at the Seventh International Congress for Christian Archaeology in September, 1965,“Die Kirchengründungen Konstantins,” has suggested that the emperor was responsible for the foundation, financing, and endowment of new churches but not directly for design. Local traditions are evident in the variety of architectural forms.
51. There is a parallel here to the buildings of Diocletian and Galerius. Grabar, I, 219–228.
52. Eusebius, , Vita Constantini, ii.56, 60Google Scholar; iii.1, 54–56, 58; Laus Constantini, viii.4–9Google Scholar. Sozomen, , Historia Ecolesiastica, ii.5Google Scholar. The sons of Constantine went much farther.
53. As Eusebius in fact recognized, Laus Constantini, ix.17, 19Google Scholar; xviii.
54. Eusebius, , Laus Constantini, iii and xGoogle Scholar. On church and state in this whole period see Berkhof, , Kirche und Kaiser: Eine Untersuchung der byzantinischen und der theokratischen Staatsauffasung im vierten Jahrhundert, trans. Locher, Gottfried W. (Zollikon-Zürich, 1947)Google Scholar; esp. the do ut des concept.
55. Especially relevant here is the concept of the episcopos tōn ektos which should include a responsibility for building churches. On this term, see Seston, W[illiam], “Constantine as a ‘Bishop’,” The Journal of Roman Studies, XXXVII (1947), 125–131Google Scholar; Vittinghoff, Friedrieh,“Eusebius als Verfasser der ‘Vita Constantini’,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, new series, XCVI (1953), 365–370Google Scholar; Straub, J[ohannes],“Kaiser Konstantin als epiScpos tōn ektos,” Studia Patristica, I (Berlin, 1957), 678–695Google Scholar; Winke]mann, 236–239.
56. See the discussion of church finances in Jones, pp. 894–905.
57. See the relevant chapters of Dix, Gregory, The Shape of the Liturgy (London, 1960), pp. 303–433.Google Scholar
58. Moreau, Jean,“Constantius II, Constans,” Jahrbuch für Antke und Christentum, II (1959), 167, 168, 180, 181Google Scholar; more generally Lietzmann, Hans, A History of the Early Church, Vol. III: From Constantine to Julian, trans. Woolf, Bertram Lee (London, 1953), pp. 181–235.Google Scholar
59. Hagia Sophia was dedicated on February 15, 360, although Millet has suggested that part of the original building collapsed and was rebuilt on two occasions in the fourth century. Socrates, ii.6, 16, 43; Sozomen, iv.26; Moreau, 176; Millet, Gabriel, “Sainte Sophie avant Justinien,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XIII (1947), 599–602Google Scholar. Constantius had a role in the church of the Holy Apostles although its exact nature is debated. See the referencs in note 46 and Socrates, ii.38; Sozomen, iv.21; Procopius, , Buildings, i.4.19Google Scholar. The Great or Octagon Church of Concord in Antioch was completed and dedicated in 341. Socrates, ii.8; Moreau, 176; Downey, , A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleuces to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, 1961), pp. 342. 343Google Scholar. Modifications or additions were made on the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Conant, Kenneth John and Downey, , “The Original Buildings at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem,” Speculum, XXXI (1956), 1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dyggve, Ejnar, “La question du Saint-Sépulere á l'époquc constantinienne,” Actes du VIe Congrés international d'études byzantines, II (Paris, 1951). 111–123Google Scholar; Vincent, Hughes and Abel, F. -M., Jérusalcm: Recherches de topographic, d'archéoiogie et d'histoire, Vol. II: Jérusalcm nouvelle (Paris, 1914–1926), pp. 89–217.Google Scholar
60. Possibly Constantius too may have been involved. Deichmann, , Frühchristliche Kirchen, p. 21Google Scholar; Moreau, 176.
61. E.g., the Church of the Apostles on the Via Appia, St. Agnes and the mausoleum of Constantina (S. Costanza) at Rome. Krautheimer, , Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae, I (Rome, 1937), 34, 35Google Scholar; Deichmann, , Frühchristliche Kirchen, 24, 25Google Scholar; Ferrua. Certainly a few of the martyr churches in Constantinople are from Constantius. See the reference in note 32, esp. Janin.
62. The Caesareum or Great Church at Alexandria, probably intended for the Arian bishop George but occupied by Athanasius on April 19, 352, and the crypt church at the shrine of St. Menas. Moreau, 176; Athanasius, , Apologia ad Constantium, 14Google Scholar; Socrates, vii.15; Perkins, Ward,“The Shrine of St. Menas in the Maryût,” Papers of the British. School at Rome, XVII (London, 1949), 26–71Google Scholar; Krause, Martin, “Die Menasstadt,” Koptische Kunst: Christentum am Nil (Essen, 1963), pp. 65–70Google Scholar; Schläger, Helmut, “Die neuen Grabungen in Abu Mena,” Christentum am Nil, ed. Wessel, Klaus (Recklinghausen, 1964), pp. 158–170.Google Scholar
63. Imperial patronage of the great episcopal church in Ephesus built about this time is thus far merely presumptive. Miltner, Franz, Ephesos: Stadt der Artemis und des Johannes (Vienna, 1958), pp. 91–95.Google Scholar
64. Cf. on the Conant, Holy Sepulchre, and Wistrand, Erik, Konstantins Kirche am Heiligen Grab in Jerusalem nach den ältester literarischen Zeugnissen, Acta Universitatis Gotoburgensis, LVIII (1952: 1)Google Scholar. For a discussion of the descriptions in Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, see Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa, ed. Telfer, William, Library of Christian Classics, IV (Philadelphia, 1955), 43–54.Google Scholar
65. Socrates, ii.12, 13; Sozomen, iii.7; Athanasius, Historia Arianorum, passim; general accounts of the politico-ecclesiastical development may be found in Lictzmann, III, 181–235; Morean, 170–175.
66. Downey, , Antioch, pp. 355–373.Google Scholar
67. Socrates, ii.38; Sozomen, iv.20.
68. Frend, , The Donatist Church, pp. 177–188Google Scholar; Moreau, 175, 182, 183.
69. Moreau, 167–168.
70. Downey, , “Philanthropia in Religion and Statecraft in the Fourth Century after Christ,” Historia:Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, IV (1955), 199–208.Google Scholar
71. Codex Theodosiannus, XVI.x.2–5Google Scholar; Libanius, , Orationes, Ixii.8Google Scholar. See also Jones, pp. 113, 114.
72. Moreau, 168–170, 180, 181. Constantius did, however, remove the Altar of Victory from the Senate House. Cf. Ambrose, , Epistle 18.Google Scholar
73. Downey, ,“Julian and Justinian and the Unity of Faith and Culture,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, XXVIII (1959), 342Google Scholar. E.g., Julian, , Epistles 22 and 41.Google Scholar
74. The Cambridge Medieval History, ed. Gwatkin, H. M. and Whitney, J. P., Vol. I: The Christian Roman Empire and the Foundation of the Teutonic Kingdoms (Cambridge, Eng., 1964 repr.) p. 111Google Scholar; Downey, , Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, XXVIII, 343Google Scholar: “Julian's intense belief in the essential unity of faith and culture is illustrated by his famous edict on Christian teachers.”
75. Bidez, Joseph, La Vie de l'Empereur Julien (Paris, 1930), PP. 230–231.Google Scholar
76. Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Smith, William (Boston, 1854), III, 165Google Scholar; ch. xxiii.
77. Socrates, iii.20; Sozomen, v. 22.
78. Gibbon, III, 158; ch. xxiii.
79. Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae, xxiii.1.2, 3.Google Scholar
80. Frend, p. 168.
81. Socrates, iii.11.
82. Socrates, ii.38; Sozomen, iv.20.
83. Socrates, iii.18; Sozomen, v. 19.
84. Downey, , Antioch, p. 396Google Scholar; Eltester, Walther, “Die Kirchen Antiochias im IV. Jahrhundert. Zeitschrift für die neutestarnentliche Wissenchaft, XXVI (1937), 274, 275.Google Scholar
