Customer Reviews

Constantine and Eusebius

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Besides Augustus, Constantine is perhaps the most written about Roman Emperor by scholars down through the centuries because of his impact upon the development of Christianity. Most works on Constantine are very one sided. Some scholars have portrayed Constantine as a saint who saved Christianity through the inspiration of God. Others have portrayed him as a murdering tyrant who used religion as a political tool to gain power and benefit his own deranged ambitions. Barnes' portrayal shows that Constantine was a much more complex individual who had the characteristics of both saint and tyrant. Through extremely thorough research, Barnes reveals that Constantine was a complex, driven, and intelligent individual who acted as both saint and tyrant to advance his evangelical wish to make Christianity the dominant religion of the Roman world, and his goal of making his imprint on that religion. Woven into the story of Constantine is that of Eusebius, a bishop contemporary to Constantine who had a profound influence on the dissemination of the New Testament, the place of the Old Testament in Christian teachings, and how the Christian church fits into the overall history of humanity. Besides being contemporary to one another, Constantine and Eusebius also influenced each other, and became two of the most influential individuals in Christian history. Through these two men, Barnes presents one of the most important moments in the history of western civilization that would turn Christianity into a religion threatened with destruction to the dominant religion of the western world.

Most readers of history are familiar with the Emperor Constantine's reported vision of the Cross before his victory at the Milvian Bridge and his deathbed baptism to Christianity, yet few probably know about the emperor's first biographer, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (260-339 C.E.). University of Toronto Professor Timothy D. Barnes devotes this scholarly volume to the two men. With copious footnoting, the first third of the book details the era from Diocletian's reforms to Constantine's consolidation of power as sole emperor of a united Roman Empire. In introducing Eusebius, Barnes backtracks to Third century Caesarea, a cosmopolitan seaport in Roman Palestine, and the Christian scholar Origen. Origen's interest in the relationship of God with humankind led him to a synthesis of Platonism and Christianity, believing that God had revealed himself - imperfectly - through Holy Scripture, and on three levels of understanding that encompassed body, soul and spirit. Eusebius was influenced by Origen, but interpreted the Bible from a historical perspective, with the Holy Spirit as the ultimate author. As scholar-historian, Eusebius compiled Chronicle, a guide to biblical place names, with a chronology that dated Moses and the Hebrew prophets in relation to Christ's Incarnation. Eusebius met Constantine in 325, at Nicea, during a council of some 300 bishops, which the emperor called primarily to settle the heresy of Arianism. A bishop by then, Eusebius was under suspicion and presented a formal creed of orthodoxy to refute reports of his Arian sympathies. In 330, when Constantine dedicated New Rome on the site of ancient Byzantium, Eusebius was asked to provide 50 bibles for churches in the new capital. The bishop was there again in 336 for the emperor's 30th anniversary, and read his Panegyric to Constantine, a poem of praise that likened the emperor to Christ. Eusebius then began a 4-book Life of Constantine, another panegyric that he transformed into a biography. In the final chapter Barnes discusses the historical value of the Life and provides a summary of the book's contents. Although Eusebius only met Constantine 4 times and received 6 letters, which reflect respect but not intimacy, he had access to documents after 324, yet glosses over the bloody succession to power by Constantine's 3 sons. An Epilogue treats of the criticism of Constantine by Julian II, Zosimus and others, and the renewed interest in the emperor during the Renaissance and Counter- Reformation. Barnes's conclusion, "Constantine... was neither a saint nor a tyrant. He was more humane some of his immediate predecessors, but still capable of ruthlessness and prone to irrational anger.... After 312 Constantine considered that his main duty as emperor was to inculcate virtue in his subjects and to persuade them to worship God. Constantine's character is not wholly enigmatic; with all his faults and despite an intense ambition for personal power, he nevertheless believed sincerely that God had given him a special mission to convert the Roman Empire to Christianity." Albert Noyer M.A. Author: The Saint's Day Deaths.

In this book, Timothy Barnes attempts to give an outline of the two men's lives and investigate their relationship to each other. The first third of the book chronicles Constantine's rise to power, the second describes the Eusebius's life and thought, and the third discusses the Christianization of the empire and Eusebius's relationship to Constantine.

Constantine's life has been interpreted in a number of ways, and Barnes seems to strike a nice balance. His narration of Constantine's rise and reign is not a hagiography: Barnes's Constantine can be shrewd and ruthless when he needs to be. Conversely, Barnes does not impute to Constantine purely political motivations. He claims that Constantine's conversion was genuine, and that even before his conversion, many of his policies can be attributed to his Christian sympathies. Barnes seems to handle the evidence well, and preserves a multifaceted view of Constantine.

His reading of Eusebius is equally intelligent. Barnes understands the issues and theologies of the day, and he is able to place Eusebius in his proper context. Barnes lauds Eusebius's originality, but even though he admires Eusebius, he realizes that Eusebius's account of history is colored by his own purposes for writing. Barnes rightly sees, however, that this coloring does not in any way invalidate Eusebius's usefulness for historical inquiry.

Barnes's analysis of Constantine's involvement with the church is also a balanced understanding of the ecclesiastical controversies that Constantine became involved in. Barnes does not make a firm dichotomy between issues of church and state, with one dominating the other. Instead, he portrays Constantine as having to navigate a new role as the first Christian emperor, an emperor who was attempting to build a new Christian empire.

This book gives an historical overview of the reign of Constantine the Great, the first Roman emperor who converted to Christianity. It also deals extensively with Eusebius of Caesarea, the Christian bishop who became Constantine's biographer (or perhaps panegyrist). The book is boring, tedious and sometimes hard to read. Yet, it's a must for anyone interested in Constantine.

The book might be of special interest for those who wish to counter the current craze around "The Da Vinci Code". Barnes believes, correctly in my opinion, that Constantine was a real Christian and that his conversion took place already before his conquest of Rome. While he certainly used Christianity as an instrument of political power, he seems to have been personally convinced that the Christian message was true. And no, he was not a pagan.

Even more interesting is Barnes' analysis of Constantine's dealings with the Church. It turns out that Constantine wasn't "orthodox" and didn't suppress the "heretical" Arians. Rather, Constantine attempted to mediate between the orthodox and Arian factions within the Church. He simply didn't understand what the fuzz was all about!

At the first ecumenical church council at Nicaea, the Nicene creed was adopted almost unanimously while Arius was excommunicated. But this was not a victory for orthodoxy over Arianism. Rather, Constantine hoped that the Nicene creed would be acceptable to all factions, as indeed it was - even the Arians voted for it, with the exception of two close associates of Arius himself. Of course, the unity achieved at the council proved to be very short-lived, as conflicts between the various factions erupted again shortly afterwards, with Constantine constantly wavering back and forth between orthodox and Arians. Ironically, both the bishop who wrote Constantine's biography, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the bishop who baptized him at his deathbed, Eusebius of Nicomedia, were Arians! So was Constantine's son and main successor, Constantius.

Thus, Constantine was neither the orthodox saint he is imagined to be by traditionalist Catholics, or the orthodox villain of Da Vinci Code fame. The real Constantine was a much more complex person. This Timothy Barnes demonstrates conclusively in his book. The only problem with the book is the author's inexplicable hatred for the orthodox church father Athanasius, which he develops even more in a later book, "Athanasius and Constantius". It's unclear why Athanasius should be considered as worse than avarage relative to other churchmen or imperial officials, or why Constantius (who seems to have been an average despot), should be seen as better...

Yet, I give "Constantine and Eusebius" 4 stars out of 5, not because of its style, but because of its contents and importance.

Since this review is so objective and dispassionate, I guess I have to point out, that I don't *like* Constantine the Great. True, he was probably "better" than other Roman emperors, but that doesn't say much, since the competition wasn't very stiff - I mean, many emperors of Rome seem to have been sociopaths! The problem was the Empire itself, a deeply oppressive system that ultimately couldn't be reformed, only smashed. This was eventually accomplished during the 5th century, at least in the West... But that's another story.