The Religion of Constantine I: An Analysis of the Modern Scholarly Hypotheses and Interpretations of the Contemporary Evidence

Abstract

This thesis examines the hypotheses that modern historians have developed about the religion of the emperor Constantine I. Its aim is to elucidate the different methodologies historians have employed to interpret the contemporary evidence, which has often led to the development of conflicting hypotheses. The first chapter will discuss interpretations of the contemporary evidence that has led Barnes, Drake, and Bardill to hypothesize that Constantine converted to Christianity after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. This chapter will primarily discuss possible familial and political influences and the narratives of Eusebius and Lactantius in order to elucidate the circumstances surrounding Constantine’s conversion. Then Constantine’s military insignia and his possible sacrifice after battle will be discussed in order to demonstrate any alterations in his religious mentality. The second chapter will examine the different interpretations of Constantine’s religious policy and legislation in order to clarify why Barnes proposes that Constantine became intolerant of religious diversity after his conversion, while Drake, Potter, and Bardill believe that he had remained as tolerant as he had been as a pagan. The third chapter will present the interpretations of the contemporary evidence that has led Burckhardt and Kee to assert that Constantine never converted to Christianity. This thesis will demonstrate that the vague and sometimes contradictory contemporary evidence supports multiple and even competing hypotheses. For this reason, there can be no “correct” answer about the religion of Constantine. General Introduction The religion of Constantine I (r. 306-337) has garnered much attention from scholars over the past century because he was the first emperor to actively promote the Christian religion and Church to a position equal to traditional paganism. I am particularly interested in the nature and extent of Constantine’s religious beliefs, and originally I wanted to explore these beliefs in this thesis. However, as I soon found out, the convoluted nature of the evidence makes it difficult for a student, and indeed for many scholars, to arrive at a definitive conclusion on this complex topic. Furthermore, each small piece of evidence could also be a thesis in itself. So I adjusted the focus to provide a historiography of the modern hypotheses about Constantine’s religion in order to demonstrate not only how scholars with the same training can develop different interpretations of the evidence but also how this makes it difficult to arrive at any conclusive hypothesis. Before I set forth the outline of this thesis, three topics must be discussed in order to establish a basic understanding of the religious terminology, Constantine’s reign, and the contemporary sources. First, I will provide definitions for the terms “pagan”, “Christian”, and “conversion”. Second, Constantine’s rise to power and his unconventional religious policy will be placed in historical and political context. Third, I will give a brief background on the main contemporary Christian and pagan sources for Constantine’s reign in order to establish their historical value. It is important to define what it means to be a pagan, a Christian, and a convert because these ideas are central to the study of Constantine’s religion. Furthermore, the definitions for these words sometimes vary from epoch to epoch and person to person. For instance, the term “pagan” gained three main connotations in the past two millennia. Initially, the Latin noun paganus meant either “country-dweller” or “civilian”. A non-JudeoChristian Roman would never have used this word to identify his religion. However, Christian apologists and polemicists began to use the word in the second-half of the fourth century to describe any persons who did not adhere to either the Jewish or the Christian faiths. Various nouns like paganitas and paganismus (“paganism”), then, came to describe a myriad of non-Judeo-Christian religions. While these definitions are used in modern society to describe “pagan” and “paganism”, both terms gained a pejorative and negative 1 Cameron 2011: 15, 24, 26.