Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande. Storia di una scomoda eredità (review)

Abstract

Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande. Storia di una scomoda eredita. By Marilena Amerise. [Hermes Zeitschrift fur klassische Philologie, Einzelscbrifien, Heft 95.] (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. 1995/2005. Pp. 180. euro34.00 paperback.) story which Amerise has to tell is an extremely interesting one, even if some of its details will probably always remain obscure. emperor was baptized in May, 337, when he was very close to death, and the bishop who baptized him was Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius was constantly and consistently reviled by the adherents of the creed drawn up at Nicaea in 325 as an arrant heretic, not merely after his own death in 342, but even while he and were both still alive, as his political ally Eusebius of Caesarea complained (Contra Marcellum 1.4.9). Hence it is not surprising that the orthodox of later ages found it hard to stomach the fact that the first Christian emperor had been baptized by an Arian. truth about Constantine's baptism was, therefore, concealed, adapted, and modified, then eventually completely replaced by deliberate invention. first part of Amerise's study analyzes the account of the baptism of the emperor in the Life of by Eusebius of Caesarea (pp. 13-64); the second part describes how writers of the fourth century after Eusebius presented Constantine's baptism in a new way because they depicted the emperor, who had in reality been sympathetic to Arius and had recaEed him twice from exile, as an unwavering supporter of doctrinal orthodoxy against Arius, Arians, and Arianism (pp. 65-92); the third part examines the emergence of the completely fictitious account which subsequently established itself as canonical and was accepted throughout the Middle Ages-the legend that had at first persecuted the Christians and had been stricken with leprosy, but converted to Christianity, was miraculously healed and then baptized by Pope Silvester in Rome (pp. 93-120). Unfortunately, it is not clear to the present reviewer that Amerise's monograph marks any significant advance on previous scholarship, and her bibliography raises serious doubts about her scholarly expertise and judgment. A bibliography of secondary literature, which runs to fully twenty-seven pages in what is a rather short book (pp. 145-172), includes several unscholarly and perverse books such as Alastair Kee's notorious versus Christ. Triumph of Ideology (London, 1982), yet finds no space for (1) W. Levison, Kirchenrechtliches in den Actus Silvestri, Zeitschrifl der Savigny Stiftung, Kanonistische Abteilung, 15 (1926), 230-240, reprinted in the posthumous volume Aus Rheinischer und Frankischer Frilhzeit. Ausgewahlte Aufsatze (Dusseldorf, 1948), pp. 466-473; (2) Jean Gaudemet,La legislation religieuse de Constantin, Revue d'histoire de l'eglise de France, 33 (1947), 25-61; or (3) Peter Weiss, Die Vision Constantins, Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss. Frankfurter Althistorische Studien, 13 (Kallmunz, 1993), pp. 146-169, now translated into English by A. R. Birley and revised by the author as The Vision of Constantine Journal of Roman Archaeology, 16 (2003), 237-259. These omissions are regrettable because they are so relevant to Amerise's book. …