Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:53:04.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome: The Legal Evidence*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2009

John Curran
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between Constantine and the ancient cults of Roman civilization remains one of the most important and discussed features of late antique history. It is a relationship which has defied those who see in his victory over Maxentius a sudden, monolithic shift in the religious consciousness of the ancient world, because the sources stubbornly refuse to yield to such a tidy interpretation. In this paper I review a body of evidence that reveals Constantine to be a flesh-and-blood emperor, confronting the difficulties of transition and reining in his own passions, sometimes for narrow political reasons and sometimes for what might be taken as statesmanship. What follows is neither exhaustive nor definitive. It is an attempt to gauge the complexity of some of Constantine's problems and assess his skills in dealing with them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , April 1996 , pp. 68 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. For the difficulties of determining the extent to which the laws were enforced, see Bradbury, S., ‘Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century’, CP 89 (1994), 120–39, esp. 133 ffGoogle Scholar; cf. Hunt, D., ‘Christianising the Roman Empire: the evidence of the Code’ in Harries, J., Wood, I. (edd.), The Theodosian Code (London, 1993), 143–58Google Scholar.

2. Two panegyrics delivered before him had made explicit reference to the importance of the gods as part of the adventus: Pan. Lat. 6 (7), 8, 6–9 (A.D. 310): Te primo ingressu tuo tanta laetitia, tanta frequentia populus Romanus excepit, ut, cum te ad Capitolini Iovis gremium vel oculis, ferre gestiret, stipatione sui vix ad portas urbis admitteret. The Roman people at your first entrance [to the city] welcomed you in such large numbers and with such great joy that, although they yearned to carry you with their very eyes to the lap of Capitoline Juppiter, they could barely offer you access to the gates of the city through their thronging crowds. Cf. 8 (5), 8, 4 (A.D. 312). See MacCormack, S., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981), 22–33Google Scholar.

3. Straub, J., ‘Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol’, Historia 4 (1955), 297 ffGoogle Scholar.

4. See the discussion of Fraschetti, A., ‘Costantino e l'abbandono del Campidoglio’ in Giardina, A. (ed.), Societὰ romana e impero tardoanlico (Rome and Bari, 1981), vol. II, 74–80Google Scholar with n. 51 for further references.

5. Josephus, , BJ 7. 4. 1 (68–74)Google Scholar shows that Vespasian went straight to the Palatine and offered his thanks there to the lares, not Juppiter. Cf. the admittedly dubious SHA ‘Heliogabalus’ 15. 7 for a refusal by the emperor to attend ceremonies on the Capitol. The duties were performed by the Urban Praetor.

6. See Alföldi, A., Constantine and the Conversion of Pagan Rome (Oxford, 1948), 61–2Google Scholar. Also Paschoud, F., Cinq Études sur Zosime (Paris, 1975), 24–62Google Scholar.

7. Lactantius, , DMP 45. 1Google Scholar.

8. Idem, 48. 2–12, the so-called ‘Edict of Milan‘. Cf. Eusebius, , HE 10. 5. 2–14Google Scholar. See Millar, F., ERW, 582–4Google Scholar; Lane-Fox, R., Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, 1986), 621Google Scholar denies Constantine's role in the choice of words; also Mitchell, S., ‘Maximinus and the Christians in A.D. 312’, JRS 78 (1988), 105–24Google Scholar, here 116.

9. Lactantius, , DMP 48Google Scholar. 2 (CSEL 22. 228–9):… haec inter cetera quae videbamus pluribus hominibus profitura… quibus divinitatis reverentia continebatur, ut daremus et Christianis et omnibus liberam potestatem sequendi religionem quam quisque voluisset, quo quicquid est divinitatis in sede caelesti, nobis atque omnibus qui sub potestate nostra sunt constituti placatum ac propitium possit existere (Trans. J. L. Creed). Cf. for a similar expression of God-fearing, letter of Constantine to Aelafius, , Vicarius Africae in 314Google Scholar: CSEL 26. 204–6.

10. Lactantius, , DMP 48Google Scholar. 6 (CSEL 22. 230–1):… intellegit dicatio tua etiam aliis religionis suae vel observantiae potestatem similiter apertam et liberam pro quiete temporis nostri esse concessam, ut in colendo quod quisque delegerit, habeat liberam facultatem. Quod a nobis factum est, ut neque cuiquam honori neque cuiquam religioni detractum aliquid in nobis videatur. Cf. guarantees of toleration in the edict of April 311 published by Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius: Lactantius, , DMP 33. 11–35. 1Google Scholar; Eus, . HE 8. 17. 3–10Google Scholar. See Mitchell, , art. cit. (n. 8), 112–13Google Scholar.

11. Seeck, O., Regesten de Kaiser und Päpsie für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Ch. (Stuttgart, 1919), 163Google Scholar.

12. Eusebius, , VC 1. 48Google Scholar.

13. Geffcken, J., The Last Days of Graeco-Roman Paganism (revised and translated by MacCormack, S., Amsterdam, 1978), 119Google Scholar thought that the passage quoted in the text above showed the prohibition of sacrifices at Rome during the official games.

14. VC 4. 10. See also 3. 15 (Vicennalia) and idem, Laus Constantini 2. 5–6. Philip ‘the Arab’ had also abhorred sacrifice: Orosius 7. 20. 3. For Christian attitudes towards blood sacrifice, see Bradbury, , art. cit. (n. 1), 129ffGoogle Scholar, although he does not make the connection with magic and divination.

15. CT 9. 16. 3:… quibus non cuiusque salus aut existimatio laederetur, sed quorum proficerent actus, ne divina munera et labores hominum sternerentur (trans. C. Pharr).

16. See Maurice, J., ‘La terreur de la magie au IVeme siècle’, Revue historique de droit français et élranger 4eme series vol. 6 (1927), 108–20Google Scholar, here, 109; Chastagnol, A., La Préfecture urbaine ὰ Rome sous le has-empire (Paris, 1960), 144Google Scholar calls the legislation a ‘tentative d'épuration’ and points out the lack of evidence for a specifically Christian policy at work. See Barb, A., ‘The Survival of the Magic Arts’ in Momigliano, A. (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity during the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963), 102–3Google Scholar. Also Liebeschuetz, J. H. G. W., Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford, 1979), 127Google Scholar with references and MacMullen, R., Enemies of the Roman Order (Harvard, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ch. 3 ‘Magicians’.

17. CT 9. 16. 2:… nee enim prohibemus praeteritae usurpationis officia libera luce tractari.

18. Dio 56. 25. 5 (A.D. 11): ‘… the seers were forbidden to prophesy to anyone alone or to prophesy regarding death even if others should be present.’ Suetonius, , Tiberius 68Google Scholar: ‘… he lived a life of extreme fear and was even exposed to insult. He forbade anyone to consult soothsayers secretly and without witnesses.’ See Cramer, F., Astrology in Roman Politics and Law (Philadelphia, 1954)Google Scholar, Part II; also Liebeschuetz, , op. cit. (n. 16), 120 ffGoogle Scholar, with the apposite quotation from Ulpian, , De Officio Proconsulis 7Google Scholar: ‘… those who consult about the health of the emperor are punishable by death or some still heavier punishment; and about their own or relative's affairs by a lighter sentence.’ See MacMullen, R., op. cit. (n. 16), 129 fGoogle Scholar.

19. CT 9. 16. 1. Date from Seeck, , op. cit. (n. 11), 169Google Scholar. For the Prefect Valerius Maximus Basilius, see PLRE 1. 590.

20. See MacMullen, R., ‘Judicial Savagery in the Roman Empire’, Chiron 16 (1986), 147–66Google Scholar, here 155.

21. CT 9. 16. 1:… superstitioni enim suae servire cupientes poterunt publice ritum proprium exercere.

22. On the fluidity of the term in the fourth century, see Salzman, M. R., ‘Superstitio in the Codex Theodosianus and the Persecution of Pagans’, Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 172–88Google Scholar. Also Wilken, R. L., The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven, 1984)Google Scholar, Ch. 3 ‘The Piety of the Persecutors’.

23. CT 16. 10. 1:… ceteris etiam usurpandae huius consuetudinis licentia tribuenda, dummodo sacrificiis domesticis abstineam, quae specialiter prohibita sunt.

24. CT 16.2.5.

25. See Salzman, , art. cit. (n. 22), 177Google Scholar.

26. Op. cit. (n. 6), 85–6.

27. See Fraschetti, A., ‘Costantino e l'abandono del Campidoglio’ in Giardina, A. (ed.), Societὰ romana e impero lardoantico II (Rome and Bari, 1986), 85Google Scholar.

28. Cf., e.g., Eusebius, , HE 10Google Scholar. 8. 10; 16; VC 1. 52; 54; 56. Nöthlichs, , Massnahmen, 25–6Google Scholar; 30.

29. For what follows, see Bradbury, art. cit. (n. 1) and the items in nn. 34 and 35 below.

30. VC 2. 44.

31. VC 2. 44.

32. VC 2. 45. Cf. Socrates, , HE 1Google Scholar. 3.

33. CE, 97, 224, 269.

34. The phrase was ‘mostly such as were devoted to the saving faith’.

35. CE, 210 and n. 11. Re-stated in his article, ‘Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice’, AJPh 105 (1984), 69–72Google Scholar. His repost was to the important review by Drake, H. A., AJPh 103 (1982), 462–6Google Scholar. See also the review by Cameron, Averil, JRS 73 (1983), 189Google Scholar.

36. CE, 269. Also art. cit. (n 35), 72. Contra, see Drake, H. A., In Praise of Constantine: a Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Oration (Berkeley, 1976), 150 n. 17Google Scholar.

37. For a discussion see Norman, A. F., Libanius, Selected Works vol. 2 (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 96–7Google Scholar following the article of Petit, P., ‘Sur la Date du “Pro Templis”’, Byzantion 21 (1946), 293ffGoogle Scholar.

38. Oratio 30. 6. Cf. 30. 37: [Constantine was punished for being a desecrator] ‘leaving aside the fact that he did not proceed against the sacrifices.’ Bradbury, , art. cit. (n. 1), 128Google Scholar makes well-judged remarks on Libanius' capacity for protreptic rhetoric, but I interpret the circumstantial evidence differently.

39. VC 2. 60.

40. See, e.g., Dörries, H., Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse 34 (Göttingen, 1954), 51–4Google Scholar.

41. CE, 210: ‘An emperor with these convictions could not be expected to tolerate pagan practices which all Christians found morally offensive.’

42. Drake, H. A., ‘Constantine and the Pagans’, GRBS 29 (1988), 309–18Google Scholar, here 315.

43. Ibidem: ‘[Eusebius] knowingly creating a false impression of his [Constantine's] actual practice and long-term policy in the central field of the suppression of paganism.’

44. Galerius: Eusebius, , HE 8Google Scholar. 17. 1 and Lactantius, , DMP 34Google Scholar. Edict of Milan: see n. 8 above. Donatists: Optatus, De Schismale Donatistarum App. 9 (CSEL 26. 212–13). Gallienus’ edict of toleration: Eusebius, , HE 7. 13Google Scholar. Bradbury, , art. cit. (n. 1), 125–6Google Scholar is also sceptical of the ‘quiet supersession’ but I differ in the interpretation of Libanius and CT 16. 10. 2.

45. Art. cit. (n. 35), 72.

46. Barnes, , CE 265–71Google Scholar, here 267.

47. Ibidem, 266.

48. VC 1.3. 4.

49. Op. cit. (n. 8), 627.

50. Seeck, , op. cit. (n. 11), 177Google Scholar. He entered the city on 18th July and the main festival was celebrated on the 25th. He had held a celebration the previous year at Nicomedia: ed. Helm, 231.

51. Zosimus, , HN 2Google Scholar. 29. 1–5.

52. For a full discussion of the incident, see Paschoud, F., Cinq Études surZosime (Paris, 1975), 24–62Google Scholar.

53. Dedicatur Constantinopolis omnium paene urbium nuditate: ed. Helm, 232.

54. Edicto Constantini gentilium templa subversa sunt: ed. Helm, 233.

55. Eusebius, , VC 3Google Scholar. 54. Cf. VC 3. 62. 1 and De Rebus Bellias 2. 1.

56. Oratio 30. 6.

57. Laus Constantini 9. 6. For my views on the religious ambivalence of statues, see Curran, J., ‘Moving Staues in Late Antique Rome: Problems of Perspective’, Art History 17 (1994), 46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Probably the shortage of coins: Piganiol, A., L'Empereur Conslanlin (Paris, 1932), 183–6Google Scholar; idem, L'Empire chrelien (Paris, 1972), 57–8; MacMullen, R., Constantine (London, 1969), 201Google Scholar. Ammianus refers to this period at 32. 4. 3.

59. Nöthlichs, , Massnahmen, 31Google Scholar.

60. ILS 705. See Karayannopulos, I., ‘Konstantin der Grosse und der Kaiserkult’ Historia 5 (1956), 341–57Google Scholar, here 345ff; Gascou, J., ‘Le Rescrit d'Hispellum’, MEFR 79 (1967), 609–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nöthlichs, , Massnahmen, 29–30Google Scholar; Price, S. R. F., ‘Between Man and God: Sacrifice in the Roman Imperial Cult’, JRS 70 (1980), 40Google Scholar; Bowersock, G. L., ‘The Imperial Cult: Perceptions and Persistence’ in Meyer, B. F., Sanders, E. P. (edd.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition vol. 3 (1982), 76 ffGoogle Scholar.

61. For the date see the discussion of Gascou, , art. cit. (n 60), 618–23Google Scholar.

62. CT 15. 12. 1 (October 325).

63. Aurelius, C. Matrinius is a local example: CIL XI. 5283Google Scholar. At Rome, see Proculus, L. Aradius Valerius: CIL VI. 1690Google Scholar, 1691.

64. ILS 705, 11. 45–7:… ne aedis nostro nomini dedicata cuiusquam contagione superstitionis fraudibus polluatur (trans. Lewis and Reinhold).

65. Androtti, A., ‘Contributo alia discussione del' rescritto Costantiniano di Hispellum’, Atti del I Convegno di Studi Umbri (1964), 278 ffGoogle Scholar. Maternus, Firmicus, De Errore 12. 1Google Scholar; 20. 7; 26. 2.