From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views

A Source History

Samuel Lieu, Dominic Montserrat

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• Print ISBN:
  9780415093361
• eBook ISBN:
  9781134871186
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

From Constantine to Julian provides students with important source material, covering an age of major transition in Europe; an age which saw the establishment of Rome as a Christian Empire and a period of recidivism under Julian.
Texts included are the anonymous Origo Constantini^; Eumenius, Panegyric of 310; Byzantine life of Constantine; Libanius, oration 59; and the Passion of Artemius. Most of this material has not previously been translated into English: students will now have direct access to the most important sources for the period which is studied on courses in classical antiquity, early medieval Europe and ecclesiastical history.

1
THE ORIGIN OF CONSTANTINE

The Anonymus Valesianus pars prior (Origo Constantini)

INTRODUCTION

Sam Lieu

In 1636, Henricus de Valois (1603–76), the famous classical scholar on whom Cardinal Mazarin bestowed the title of ‘Historiographe du Roi de France’, published together with his editio princeps of the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus, a Latin work which has come to be known after its editor, the Anonymus Valesianus (more correctly the Excerpta Valesiani). It consists of two distinctive historical works: (1) excerpts from a history or political biography of Constantine written in a clear classicising style and (2) a brief history of the events in Italy in the last days of the Western empire (474–526) focusing mainly on Theodoric, the king of the Ostrogoths, written in a distinctive vulgar style. (Cf. Adams, 1976:2.) The first part, commonly known as the Origo Constantini, gives the impression of being a biography of Constantine from his birth at Naissus to his death near Nicomedia. However, the narrative contained in the excerpts concentrates almost exclusively on political and military events of his early career (305–24). The last seven years of the reign receive the most cursory of treatments. Now generally acknowledged as ‘a sober and accurate source’ (Syme, 1974:237 [63]) on the events which it covers, the work nevertheless remains an enigma although the famous pessimistic remark of Momigliano (1963:87), ‘all is in doubt about the first part of the Anonymus Valesianus’, can now be safely consigned to history in the light of intensive research on the work in the intervening decades.

Authorship and date

The author of the anonymous work was almost certainly a pagan as evidenced by his predominant interest in the political and military history of the reign. The few sections devoted to Christianity are almost all verbatim quotations from the work of a Christian author, the Historia contra paganos of Paulus Orosius, which was composed c. 417. There is little doubt that the parallel passages are taken from Orosius’ work by a later redactor to give what was a pagan work the much needed Christian garb, probably in the reign of Constantius III (417–421) at a time when there was much anti-pagan polemic. (Cf. Zecchini, 1993:32–33.) A date close to the death of Constantine in 337 has often been suggested for the composition of the original work and this suggestion remains the most likely in view of the precise and valuable information it contains and, as Barnes (1989b: 161) has well pointed out, the avoidance of errors which became standard in later sources. These include presenting Theodora, the wife of Constantius Chlorus, as the daughter and not the stepdaughter of Maximianus Herculius (I(I), cf. Pan. Lat. X(2), 11, 4, a contemporary work of 310) and the accurate chronology of Constantine’s flight from the court of Galerius which took place in the summer of 305 when his father was preparing for a campaign against the Picts in Britain (II(4), confirmed by Pan. Lat. VII(6), 7) and was not occasioned by news of his father’s last illness in July 306, as implied in most sources. (Cf. Lact., Mort. pers. 24, 8, Eus., V.C. I, 21, 1 etc.)

Content and sources

Despite its extreme brevity, the Origo Constantini has long been accepted by modern scholars as a major source on the reign of Constantine because of the precise and unique material it provides on some aspects of Constantine’s early life, which is otherwise more poorly documented, and on the political and military events of his reign. The anonymous, author gives the duration of the reign of each emperor after the account of his death. As the work begins with the duration of the co-emperorship of Diocletian and Maximianus Herculius, there is a distinct possibility that it once contained an account of the reign of these two emperors. (Cf. König, 1987:6.) Particularly important is the information it gives on the cursus honorum of Constantius Chlorus, the father of Constantine, and on the birthplace of Constantine. Little, however, is said about the reign and administration of Constantius Chlorus (a favourite among Christian historians) and the narrative soon focuses on the early career of Constantine, especially on his exploits at the court of Galerius and his daring escape. The biographical elements may have been derived from a now lost ‘biography’ of Constantine (Praxagoras perhaps), which was also used by Byzantine historians like Zonaras. (See above, See Page.) It is one of only two sources (the other being Pan. Lat. VII(6)) which disproves decisively that the reason for Constantine’s desertion was the fatal illness of his father, as the campaign against the Picts (in which both father and son took part) must have taken place before the death of Constantius and not afterwards as Eusebius would have us believe (V. C. I, 25, 2).

The complex events following the abdication of Diocletian and Maximianus Herculius in 315 constitute much of the surviving portions of the work. From the abdication of Diocletian to the fall of Maxentius (5–12), the Origo shares many common themes with the De mortibus persecutorum of Lactantius (completed 314/15) but verbal similarities are rare and direct acquaintance cannot be proved. Thematic parallels with the De Caesaribus of Aurelius Victor, the Epitome of Eutropius and the Epitome de Caesaribus are numerous and presuppose a common source. The latter may well have been the so-called lost ‘Kaisergeschichte’ postulated by Enmann—an epitome which may well have been utilised by Eunapius. (See above, See Page.) The existence of such a source is deduced from the similarities as well as shared errors which exist in the three epitomators for the period from Diocletian to the death of Constantine and it has even been suggested that the Origo may well be our sole surviving exemplum of this chronicle. (Cf. Zecchini, 1993:37–38.) However, exact verbal parallels between the Origo and the three main Latin epitomes are in fact rare, and on most common themes the Origo provides distinctive and, with few exceptions, the more accurate or more detailed information.

The civil war between Constantine and Licinius in two phases is recounted in considerable detail in the Origo and the latter is our only source which gives the names of the protagonists involved in the breakdown of the settlement between Constantine and Licinius, namely Constantine’s brother-in-law Bassianus and his brother Senecio (§13). It is also the only source to give the troop strength of both contestants at the Battle of Cibalae (§16) and the name of the site of the second battle (Ardiensis, §17) of that campaign.

The causes of the second conflict between the two emperors are partly obscured in the Origo by an intrusive excerpt from Orosius (Adv. pag. VII, 28, 18) aimed at giving a religious (i.e. anti-pagan) flavour to the affair. Nevertheless it gives as the casus belli Constantine’s victory over the Goths in the Balkans, which is seen as unacceptable interference in Licinius’ allotted sphere of influence. Although the account of the actual conflict is much more extensive in Zosimus, that of the Origo contains much detail which cannot be found elsewhere such as the inspired leadership of Caesar Crispus, the son of Constantine by his first wife Minervina.

On the founding of Constantinople, the author of the Origo does not betray any knowledge of the pagan polemical version which links it to the execution of Crispus and the murder of Fausta, which helps to reinforce a pre-Eunapius dating to the work. (See above, See Page.) The figure of Crispus is cast in a heroic mode in the Origo and there is nothing to suggest that he would later be implicated in a domestic scandal.

Once the civil wars are over and the new capital founded, the narrative in the Origo peters out rather rapidly. The main events of the reign from the final defeat of Licinius onwards were ecclesiastical, punctuated by sporadic wars against the Sarmatians, and therefore of little interest to a pagan historian. The importance of the Origo to the modern historian remains in the unique information which it provides on Constantine’s rise to power, and for this we owe a debt to the ‘Redactor’ whose crude attempts to Christianise the text also enabled its survival.

Editions etc.

The principal manuscript, now in the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin, was written in Verona in the 9th century (MS. Phillipps 1885, foil. 30v.36v.) The standard and most often cited modern edition is that of Th. Mommsen in MGH (Auct. Ant.) IX (Berlin, 1892) 1–11. The first modern commentary by Westerhuis (1906) is in Latin and the Budé edition by J.Moreau revised by V. Velkov (Paris, 1968) remains little known to undergraduates and research students in the Englishspeaking world who mostly prefer the more widely accessible but vastly inferior edition with English translation by J.C.Rolfe which is appended to his Loeb edition of Ammianus Marcellinus (London and Cambridge, Mass., 1923) iii, 508–69. The more recent edition (with translation and extensive commentary) by König (1987) is an improvement on the text of Moreau and it is on this text that our present translation is based with the permission of Prof. König. On the various editions of the Origo see the valuable survey by Barnes (1989b).

THE ORIGIN OF CONSTANTINE

translated by Jane Stevenson

I(1) Diocletian ruled for twenty years with Herculius Maximianus. Constantius, a grand-nephew of the divine Claudius (Gothicus),¹ best of princes, through his brother, first became protector, then tribune, and afterwards governor of the Dalmatias. Then he was made Caesar by Diocletian, along with Galerius.² Having left Helena, his previous wife, he took to wife Theodora,³ daughter of Maximianus, by whom he subsequently had six children, the brothers of Constantine. But by Helena,⁴ his previous wife,⁵ he already had a son, Constantine, who later became the most mighty of princes.

II(2) This Constantine, therefore, was born of a very humble mother,⁶ Helena, in the town of Naissus⁷ and brought up there (he later adorned this town most splendidly).⁸ Having been scantily instructed in letters, he became a hostage with Diocletian and Galerius,⁹ and fought bravely under them in Asia.¹⁰ After Diocletian and Herculius had laid down their power, Constantius asked for Constantine back from Galerius: but Galerius threw him into the path of many dangers. (3) For when he was a young man fighting in the cavalry against the Sarmatians,¹¹ having seized a fierce barbarian by his hair, he captured him and brought him to the feet of the emperor Galerius.¹² Then, having been sent by Galerius into a swamp, he entered it on horseback and made a way for the rest of the army to the Sarmatians, and brought victory to Galerius, having killed many of them.¹³ (4) Then Galerius sent him back to his father.¹⁴ And Constantine, so that he might avoid Severus as he was passing through Italy, crossed the Alps with the greatest possible speed, having killed the posthorses behind him,¹⁵ and came to his father at Bononia [Boulognesur- mer], which the Gauls previously called Gesoriacum. After his victory over the Picts,¹⁶ his father Constantius died at York and Constantine, by the will of all the soldiers,¹⁷ was made Caesar.¹⁸

III(5) Meanwhile, two Caesars had been created, Severus¹⁹ and Maximinus [i.e. Maximinus Daia].²⁰ Maximinus was given rule over Oriens,²¹ and Galerius kept for himself Illyricum, Thrace and Bithynia.²² Severus took Italy, and whatever Herculius [i.e. Maximianus] had previously gained. (6) After Constantius had died in Britain and Constantine his son had succeeded him, suddenly the Praetorian Guard in the city of Rome created Maxentius, the son of Herculius,²³ emperor.²⁴ But at the order of Galerius, Severus took an army against Maxentius, but he was suddenly deserted by all his men and fled to Ravenna.²⁵ After that, Galerius went to Rome with a vast force, threatening the destruction of the city, and encamped at the fort Interamna [Terni] on the Tiber. (7) Then he sent Licinius²⁶ and Probus²⁷ to the city as ambassadors, asking, in negotiation, that the son-in-law [Maxentius] should seek to obtain what he wanted from his father-in-law Galerius²⁸ by requesting it rather than by making war. This was spurned, and he learned that on account of Maxentius’ promises, [many] men had deserted his side. Disturbed by this, he turned back, and so that he could give his army some kind of booty, he told them to steal things along the Via Flaminia.²⁹ (8) Maximinus himself fled to Constantine. Then Galerius made Licinius Caesar³⁰ in Illyricum.³¹ Next, leaving him behind in Pannonia, he himself retired to Serdica, having been attacked by a fearsome disease, and he so melted away that he died with his entrails exposed and rotting, in punishment for the most dread...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations and Primary Sources
• Chronology of the Main Events
• Introduction
• 1 The Origin of Constantine
• 2 Constantine’s ‘Pagan Vision’
• 3 Constantine Byzantinus
• 4 The Sons of Constantine
• 5 From Constantine to Julian
• Bibliography