Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:01:03.931Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constantine as a ‘Bishop’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

W. Seston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The author of the Vita Constantini (traditionally and persistently identified with Eusebius, despite the silence of St. Jerome), tells us that Constantine ‘at a banquet he was giving to the bishops declared that he too was a bishop. He added these words which I heard with my own ears: ἀλλ᾽ ὑμεῖϛ μὲν τῶν εἴσω τῆϛ ἐκτὸϛ ὑπὸ θεοῦ καθεσταμένοϛ ἐπίσκοπϛ ἂν εἴην ’.

In attempts to define the relations between the first Christian emperor and the Church, no phrase is more frequently quoted than this obiter dictum. In the sixteenth century the French scholar Henri de Valois rendered τῶν ἐκτόϛ as if it were the genitive of τὰ ἐκτόϛ, and since then it has been the practice to regard Constantine as an ‘évèque du dehors’: the Emperor either exercised episcopal functions though not consecrated, or supervised mundane affairs (that is, the State), after the fashion of a bishop, or else held from God a temporal commission for ecclesiastical government, the bishops retaining control of dogma, ethics and discipline. Each of these three distinct interpretations is equally admissible.

Type
Papers Presented to N. H. Baynes
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , November 1947 , pp. 127 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © W. Seston 1947. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 Vita Const. VI, 24 = Heikel, p. 126, 9 (I. A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke 1, Leipzig, 1902, cited below as Heikel).

2 Migne, PG XX, 1171: ‘vos quidem, inquit, in iis quae intra Ecclesiam episcopi estis, ego vero in iis quae extra geruntur a Deo sum constitutus.’

3 Histoire des Empereurs IV, 293.

4 In Revue critique d'hist. et de litt. NS 68 (1909), 362–4, adducing 1 Cor. 5, 13; Col. 4, 5; 1 Thess. 4. 12.

5 For example, J. R. Palanque in Fliche, et Martin, , Histoire de l'Église III (1936), 63Google Scholar, and, quite recently, A. Piganiol in Glotz, Hist. romaine IV : L'Empire Chrétien (1946), 137. H. Lietzmann, on the other hand, sticks to the interpretation first given by de Valois, Henri, Hist. de l'Église Ancienne III (1941), 157Google Scholar.

6 ‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,’ Proceedings of the British Academy xv (1931), 90 f.Google Scholar

7 Vita II, 22 = Heikel, p. 50, 8.

8 Vita II, 23 = Heikel, p. 50, 23.

9 On the other hand one will notice that there is not, it is true, any ambiguity in the phrase τῶν ἔξω τιϛ in the letter of the synod of the Egyptian bishops in Athanasius, Apol. contra Arianos 3, to which Baynes (o.c. 91) draws attention. Similarly Julian, when writing to a provincial high-priest and using the phrase ἄρΧειϛ γὰρ τῶν ἔνδον, indubitably contrasts pagans and Christians (of whatever brand); cf. Epp. 84a, cited by A. Piganiol, o.c., 137. The view of E. Caspar (Gesch. des Papsttums 1, 117) is that in the passage of the Vita Constantini under discussion the contrast lies not between Christians and pagans, but between Church and State: ἐπίοκοποϛ τῶν ἐκτόϛ ought to be rendered ‘Bischof für die aüsseren Angelegenheiten’. In support of his translation he might have cited Vita IV, 1, and III, 12, where secular affairs are, in fact, τἀ ἐκτόϛ or τἀἔξωθεν

10 Vita 1, 44 = Heikel, p. 28, 17 ff.

11 Apol. contra Arianos 3.

12 Op.cit., 142.

13 Contra Auxentium 31.

14 Cf. Epp. 12, 6; 21, 15, and the texts quoted and analysed by J. R. Palanque, S. Ambroise et l'Empire Romain (1933), 373 ff.

15 Philostorgius I, 9a = Bidez, p. 9.

16 ‘Eusebius and the Christian Empire,’ Mélanges Bidez I (1934), 14 ff.Google Scholar

17 Tricenn. XI =Heikel, p. 224, 2; 225, 13.

18 Tricenn. VII = Heikel, p. 215, 23 f.

19 Tricenn. II = Heikel, p. 199, 16; IX = Heikel, p. 224, 26 f.

20 Cf. especially Tricenn. XI = Heikel, p. 224, 26 f.

21 In c. IX ( = Heikel, p. 219 f.), Eusebius furnishes an instance of the method followed in a restricted field, namely the Palace.

22 Vita II, 69 = Heikel, p. 68, 27; and III, 12 = Heikel, p. 83, 11.

23 Cf. Baynes, ‘Constantine the Great and the Christian Church’ 87 (see note 6).

24 Cf. Philostorgius I, 9a = Bidez, p. 9.

25 Athanasius, Apol. contra Arianos 86 = PG XXV, 404.

26 o.c., 27. But I hold for a forgery the letter Έπίγνωτε νῦν (Vita III, 64 f. = Heikel, p. III, 14 ff.), since, after a passage of sheer rhetoric, it contains a ban upon heretical conventicles and confiscation of their property: contra, P. Batiffol, ‘Les documents de la Vita Constantini,’ Bull, de l'ancienne litt, et d'arch. chrét., 1914, 87; N. H. Baynes, o.c., 25.

27 Vita III, 13 = Heikel, p. 83, 14.

28 Vita IV, 22 and 25 = Heikel, p. 126, 2 and 14.

29 Cod. Theod. xv, 1, 2.

30 Ib., IX, 16, 3.

31 Ib., IX, 16, 2.

32 Ib., xv, 12, 1.

33 Pro templis 35 = Foerster III, p. 105, 13: ‘Not only at Rome have sacrifices been maintained. They are also in the great and populous city of Sarapis…. As for the Nile, it is the banquets that cause it to flood the countryside, and if they were not offered to the Nile on the right occasion and by the proper officiants, the river would refuse to fertilize the fields. Well did they know it, so I fancied, they who would have wished to suppress these festivals also, but did not do so, and permitted the river to be worshipped according to the ancient observances so as to get the benefit of his annual increment…. I should like to ask them (i.e., those who want to destroy the temples), would they dare to march before the tribunal and propose to put a stop to the worship rendered to the Nile ?’ It was in A.D. 391 that the Sarapeum of Memphis was demolished; cf. O. Seeck, Gesch. des Untergangs der antiken Welt v2, 527 f. and 534 f. What the author of the Vita (IV, 16 = Heikel, p. 123, 26 ff.) says of the imperial cult betrays the same sort of distorting exaggeration. He asserts that Constantine officially forbade statues being set up in his honour. But we have the Hispellum document to prove the contrary, ILS 705. And Socrates, as long ago as the fifth century, knew the truth (Hist. eccl. 1, 18).