Just after Christmas I enjoyed reading a biography of Constantine, the 4th Century Roman Emperor. Reading biographies is usually interesting, because they challenge the reader to come to terms with the ‘great man’ theory. This theory was first introduced by the Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle, who held that history could be read solely by the impact of great personalities who had a decisive influence on history through their charisma, wisdom and intelligence. It was a great discussion point when I was a student, as the underlying issue of those opposing Carlyle’s view was always some form of determinism; it was going to happen anyway whether the personality was involved or not. Was the Duke of Wellington the true victor ofWaterloo or was it circumstances such as the arrival of the German general just in the nick of time to save the day? Carlyle’s idea was usually contrasted with those of theCambridge academic, Herbert Spencer, who held that great changes and events in history were the products of their societies and of many other elements such as favorable social, political, economic, military, religious, and cultural factors. It was a lively discussion and most of us tried to synthesize the two opposing positions. So, with this in mind, I read with great interest Paul Stephenson’s account of the Emperor Constantine.
Clearly this book is dominated by the person of Constantine himself, but the author does give a decent airing to other factors, such as religion and the army. In 312 A.D.,Romewas a divided empire andConstantinestrove to unite it under his sole rule. It was in preparing for one of the most decisive battles in this endeavor, at Malvin bridge, thatConstantineclaimed to have seen “a cross-shaped trophy of light” in the sky. He, although not a Christian at the time, interpreted it as a sign of support from the Christian god. AfterConstantine’s victory and his move to his newly established capital, Constantinople, Christianity gradually gained a protected position in the Empire, althoughConstantinekept the title of Pontifex Maximus of the ancient Roman religion and remained a pagan until his death bed conversion. His politics did herald in the beginnings of the fusion of church and state, which was to play such a huge role not only in the break-up of theRoman Empirebut also right up to modern times.
The author gives an admirable account ofConstantine’s conquest and unification of the Empire, and of the importance he placed on the Christian religion. However, what I did miss was an adequate account of the lives of those Christians who opposedConstantine’s religious influence on Christianity. Very little was mentioned about the Christian practice of pacifism, for example. Christians up to the time ofConstantinewere loath to join the army, but this changed during his reign; killing in a so-called ‘just cause’ situation gradually became respectable. Another question that arises was whether the new monastic movement in the Egyptian desert was a direct result ofConstantine’s church-state politics? Finally, I missed a broader overall view ofConstantine’s military accomplishments along with a more ample discussion on the effects of his politico- religious policies in the conclusion.