(a) In relations with events, things, or persons. First of all, Constantine excelled in Energy, that fundamental of all developed character. He was pre-eminent for masculine strength of character (Theoph. p. 29), a man of energy (vir ingens, Eutrop. 10. 1). This was manifested at every turn, in his successful military activity under Diocletian, in the decisive acts at the time of leaving him, in the prosecution of campaigns against Maximian, Maxentius, Licinius, in the wholesale way in which he pushed internal improvements, the building of Constantinople, the multiplication of Christian houses of worship, in his studies, in his law-making; in short, in everything he touched there was the same teeming, resistless energy of the man. His Determination was “bent on effecting whatever he had settled in his mind” (Eutrop. 10. 5). His Rapidity of action when he rejoined his father is described by Lactantius as incredible (Lact. c. 24). He showed the same alacrity in his quick return and surprise of Maximian, in his first entry into Italy, and in his campaign against Licinius. This energy and activity rose to positive Impetuosity, which led him at Verona, before Rome, and at Cibalis to plunge into the midst of battle, communicating his own resistless, indomitable, alert will to do, to his soldiers. Closely linked with these qualities was that personal Courage and Valor, inherited from his father (Paneg. 307, c. 3), mentioned by Eusebius (V. C. 1. 11), and explicitly or implicitly by almost every one. This most indubitable of all his qualities was witnessed to even by the scoffing Julian as “inexpressibly” great (Orat. p. 13), and mentioned even in the work whose chief aim seems, almost, to detract from Constantine (Cæs. p. 23). United with all these characteristics of greatness was a far-reaching Ambition. This on the one hand is represented to be an ambition for power and glory. He was “exceedingly ambitious of military glory” (Eutrop. 10. 7); “aspiring to the sovereignty of the whole world” (Eutrop. 10. 5). According to Zosimus, at the time of the appointment of Severus and Maximin, already having his mind set on attaining royalty he was roused to a greater desire by the honor conferred on Severus and Maximin, and this eager desire of power was already well known to many. On the other hand, this ambition is represented to be a burning zeal for righting wrongs; his
In view of all this powerfulness of personality, it may be said of all successes of this “man of power” (Eutrop. 10. 5) what Eutropius says of his success in war, that it was great, “but not more than proportioned to his exertions” (Eutrop.). With all this energy of personality, however, he was far from being headstrong. On the contrary, he showed marked Prudence, resembling his father in this also (Paneg. 307, c. 3). Sustaining so long the delicate position at the court of Diocletian, all his provision for guarding the frontiers, his long-suffering in waiting to be confirmed Cæsar, in waiting his opportunity to meet Maxentius, in waiting and getting everything in hand before meeting Licinius, his wise moderation in demand on the conquered, and the not pressing forward until he had everything well arranged, show this, and a high degree of Patience withal. This latter virtue was peculiarly characteristic whether exercised in respect of things or plans or people, and his great patience in listening to complaints (Naz. c. 24) is only a part of the whole. As he was patient, so he was distinguished for Perseverance, and “firm and unshaken” (Theoph. p. 29) Steadfastness. So great energy united with these other qualities barely needs testimony to suggest great Faithfulness to his tasks in hand, as in that “strict attention to his military duties” which Lactantius says (c. 18) characterized him as a young man. In brief, his whole personality was a marked example of that balance of power and the measuring of remote ends which is included under the word Self-control, in the use of the philosophy of which he, as well as his father, was a disciple. In this exercise of his great energy towards himself he was recognized to be remarkable. This self-control was manifested especially in his unusual Chastity. As a young man he was marked by correct moral habits (probis moribus, Lact. c. 18). The specific testimony of Eusebius to this (V. C.) would have comparatively little weight on a point like this, and the same might be said, in a measure, of the testimony of the Panegyrists (Naz. c. 24; 307, c. 4; 313, c. 4), who mention this virtue. But panegyrical art would forbid the laudation of what was conspicuously lacking; rather it would not be mentioned, and the general testimony goes to show at least a contemporary reputation for extraordinary continence, considering his time and environment. His relationship with Minervina hardly touches this reputation, whether she was wife or only legitimate concubine. The accusations and innuendoes of Julian, Cæsars, have, in any fairly critical estimate, hardly more than the weight of some malignant gossip whose backbiting is from his own heart. “Honi soit qui mat y pense.” Like Licinius, he seems to have been unable to understand that purity of heart which permitted the free companionship of women in social or religious life. Julian’s general charge of luxuriousness and sensuousness (p. 43, 306, 25, 38, 42, &c.) must be regarded largely in the same light; for this delight in soft garments, precious gems, games, and festivities was, if we can judge aright, in no sense “enervating pleasure and voluptuous indulgence”: for he was indefatigable in studies and works of all sorts, although it is perhaps to be referred to the vanity and love of display of which he is accused, and of which more later.
(b) In relations with people. In general he was Amiable,—popular with the soldiers, popular even with his subdued enemies (Eutrop. 10. 7). Diocletian reminded Galerius (Lact. c. 18) that he was “amiable,” and he must have been so; for he was “loved by soldiers” (Eumen. c. 16), and so “endeared to the troops” that in the appointment of Cæsar he was “the choice of every individual” (Lact. c. 18). This popularity he indeed “sought by every kind of liberality and obligingness” (Eutr. 10. 7.), but what he sought he found.
A very large element in this popularity was the universal Mildness, Mercifulness, and Forbearance which he showed. In these is found a class of characteristics which stand alongside his energy of character as peculiarly characteristic and great. “He whose familiar habit it was to save men’s lives” (V. C. 4. 6), as a young man promised, in the opinion of Diocletian
This fact becomes more clear in seeing how he excelled in kindred virtues. The Patience already mentioned, distinguished forbearance, and undoubted benevolence, or at least generosity, are traits which group with mercy and have no fellowship with cruelty. And these he had. He showed distinguished Forbearance, and that oftentimes, as in a disturbance at Antioch, where he “applied with much forbearance the remedy of persuasion” (V. C. 3. 59). The outrageous conduct of those who, in the Arian disturbances, dared “even to insult the statues of the emperor…had little power to excite his anger, but rather caused in him sorrow of spirit” (V. C. 3. 4), “and he endured with patience men who were exasperated against himself.” These words are by Eusebius, to be sure; but his conduct with Donatists, Arians, Maximinianus, and Licinius, in individual and on the whole, show that in fact he did habitually exercise great forbearance. To this was added much activity of positive Kindness. On first accession he “visited with much
Though slow to serve some friends through suspicion (i.e. dubius thus explained), he was “exceedingly generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their riches and honors” (Eutrop. 10. 7). “With royal magnificence he unlocked all his treasures and distributed his gifts with rich and high-souled liberality” (V. C. 3. 1). He seems to have carried it rather to excess, even on the showing of Eusebius. “No one could request a favor of the emperor, and fail of obtaining what he sought.…He devised new dignities, that he might invest a larger number with the tokens of his favor” (V. C. 4. 2). It is worth giving the account by Eusebius of this conduct in full here. He says (V. C. 4. 54) that this “was a virtue, however, which subjected him to censure from many, in consequence of the baseness of wicked men, who ascribed their own crimes to the emperor’s forbearance. In truth, I can myself bear testimony to the grievous evils which prevailed during those times: I mean the violence of rapacious and unprincipled men, who preyed on all classes of society alike, and the scandalous hypocrisy of those who crept into the church.…His own benevolence and goodness of heart, the genuineness of his own faith, and his truthfulness of character induced the emperor to credit the professions of those reputed Christians who craftily preserved the semblance of sincere affection for his person. The confidence he reposed in such men sometimes forced him into conduct unworthy of himself, of which envy took advantage to cloud in this respect the luster of his character.” There seems, therefore, some ground for the charge of Prodigality, that he “wasted public money in many useless buildings, some of which he shortly after destroyed because they were not built to stand” (Zos.), and (Zos. p. 104) “gave great largesses to ill-deserving persons, mistaking profusion for munificence” (τὴν γὰρ ἀσωτίαν ἡγεῖτο φιλοτιμίαν). Zosimus adds that to do this, he “imposed severe taxes on all, so severe that fathers were obliged to prostitute their daughters to raise the money, that tortures were employed, and in consequence whole villages depopulated.” This testimony is, however, by one bitterly prejudiced, who regarded money spent on Christian houses of worship as worse than wasted, and indicates only what appears from Eusebius as well, that expenditures for cities, schools, and churches built, and for other matters, must have been enormous. But so, too, they were enormous under other emperors, and Constantine, at least, instead of spending on debauchery, seems to have had something to show for it. As to taxes, Zosimus would undoubtedly sympathize with the Kentucky moonshiners in their “oppression” by revenue officers, if he were here now and Constantine were President, and would fulminate in the daily papers against the wicked party which by its wicked tariff compels men to marry
But success with men and popularity seem to have opened that pitfall of success,—Vanity,—and it is charged that he fell thereinto, although there is testimony to the exact contrary. According to Victor (Epit. p. 51) he was “immeasurably greedy of praise.” This agrees with, and is at the same time modified by Eutropius’ testimony to his ambition for glory and for honorable popularity (10. 7), and his apparently complacent reception of the outrageous flattery of Optatian (cf. his letter), seems at least to show some weakness in this direction. So again his tendency toward Magnificence, as shown in his assuming the diadem and his dress in general (cf. above), in the splendor of banquets as witnessed by his approving friend (V. C. 3. 15), his desire to do on a large scale whatever he did, whether in the building of cities or splendid houses of worship, or in book-binding ornamentations of pearls and gems. And yet again it is shown in what seems at this distance his Conceit, sublime in its unconsciousness in reckoning himself a sort of thirteenth, but, it would seem, a facile princeps apostle, in the disposition for his burial, “anticipating with extraordinary fervor of faith that his body would share their title with the apostles themselves.…He accordingly caused twelve coffins to be set up in this church, like sacred pillars, in honor and memory of the apostolic number, in the centre of which his own was placed, having six of theirs on either side of it” (V. C. 4. 60). One can seem to read in this a whole history of unblushing flattery, and it reminds that Eunapius (Vic. ædes. p. 41) has spoken of his pleasure in the stimulant of “intoxicating flattery.” Still it is not to be supposed that this was a peculiarly weak vanity or an absorbing one. The testimony to his Modesty (V. C. 3. 10), though by Eusebius, is too circumstantial to be wholly unreal, and the testimony to his Humility in his “indignation at excessive praise” (V. C. 4. 48), and the records of Eusebius that he “was not rendered arrogant by these plaudits nor uplifted by the praises” (Euseb. V. C. 1. 39), and of the Chronicon Paschale (p. 521) that “he was not at all puffed up by the acclamations,” evidently represent a
(c) In relations with his family. He was a filial Son, having the confidence of his father, as shown in his wish of succession, and showing his mother all honors when he came to power (cf. coins showing her position as empress, and V.C.). “And well may his character be styled blessed for his filial piety as well as on other grounds” (V. C. 3. 47).
It is in this relation to his family, however, that the most serious attacks on the character of Constantine have been made. Eutropius says: “But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister’s son, a youth of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently many of his friends.” This has been a battle-ground of accusation or excusation in all the centuries. The testimony is very meagre and uncertain, but this much may be said: 1. That any jury would regard the fact of deaths as evidenced. It is
In estimating the characteristic value of the acts it must be noted, 1. That it has in no sense the character of private execution. The emperor was judge. Even if he mistook evidence and put to death an innocent man, it was as when a judge does the same. 2. That the relative moral character of punishments inflicted is conditioned by the custom of punishment. An English judge of the past was not as cruel in hanging a man for theft, as a modern one in applying the extreme penalty of the law to an offense with mitigating circumstances, would be. 3. That all law of evidence, all rhyme and reason, says that any man’s any act is to be interpreted in the light of his general character. Where evidence is lacking or doubtful, such evidence of general character has actual weight, and may be conclusive. In application to these acts note (a) The peculiar forbearance which Constantine exercised toward Maximian. (b) The conclusive universal testimony to the general mildness of his character and his habitual mercifulness. In view of this, it is to be judged that there was some real, or appearing, great ground of judicial wrath. 4. That Constantine had suffered from plots on the part of his own relatives over and over again, and spared, and been plotted against again, as in the cases of Maximian, Bassianus, and Licinius. 5. That they were not put to death “in a gust of passion” at once, but in successive acts. In view of these things it is fair and just to say that they were put to death on grounds which seemed just and for the welfare of society, and their deaths in no sense indicate cruelty or unnaturalness on the part of Constantine. Even the death of Licinius must be interpreted by the political ethics of the times and its circumstances. So long as sentimentalists continue to send bouquets to murderers and erect monuments to anarchists, they will regard execution, even legal execution, as prima facie evidence of cruelty, and the killing of a murderer in self-defense, or the hanging of a traitor, as crime. Constantine’s whole character ensures that if he thought he could have spared them, or any one, with safety, he would have done so. 3043
In general he was a faithful husband as respects marital virtue, and a good father. He took care that his children should be well educated. Crispus was under Lactantius (Hieron.), and the others perhaps under Arborius (“Auson. de Prof. Burdig. 16”); at all events, he had the most accomplished teachers of secular learning to instruct in the art of war, and in political and legal science (V. C. 4. 51), and both by his own instruction and that of men of approved piety, took special pains with their religious training. He early appointed them to offices of authority, and distributed the empire among them.
(e) In relations with society. 1. As General he seems to have been popular with his own soldiers (cf. above), inspiring them with enthusiasm and energy. Toward hostile soldiers he was merciful (cf. above), not following up an advantage further than was necessary, and toward conquered enemies unusually forbearing; e.g. at Sigusium, at Rome, with Maximian, with Licinius, and with the Goths (cf. above). His generalship is characterized by careful provision for the guarding of his rear, and by rapidity of movement and dash in actual conflict. 2. As Legislator he “enacted many laws, some good, but most of them superfluous, and some severe” (Eutrop. 10. 8). He seems to have had a weakness for law-making which, at all events, shows a characteristic respect for law little shared by his early contemporaries. Of course Eutropius would consider all laws in favor of Christians superfluous. Laws for the abolition of idolatrous practices, for the erection of Christian houses of worship, observance of the Lord’s Day (V. C. 4. 23), permitting cases to be tried before bishops (Soz. 1. 9; Euseb. H. E. 10. 7; Cod. Theod. Tit. de episc. 2) &c., would surely seem so. But even in other laws Constantine seems to have had at times an abnormal zeal for law-making, when his energies were not occupied in war or church-building. The laws were generally wise and, at the least, benevolently or righteously meant. Such were the abolition of crucifixion (Vict. Cæs.) and of gladiatorial shows (V. C. 4. 25; Socr. 1. 8; C. Theod. 15. 12. 1), the law that the families of slaves were not to be separated (C. Theod. 2.25), that forbidding the scourging of debtors (C. Theod. 7. 3), and that repressing calumny (Vict. Epit. 51). Among the “severe” laws were such as punished certain forms of illicit intercourse with death. 3. As Statesman his policy was broad and far-reaching. He fully organized and carefully established one section of his territory before he enlarged. He changed the whole constitution of the empire, both civil and military (cf. Wordsworth, in Smith & W.). He inaugurated reforms in finance, and especially was most assiduous in the matter of internal improvements, restoring and building from one end of the empire to the other. The great characteristic consummation of his reign was the union of Church and State, over which men are still divided as to whether it was a tremendous blessing or a tremendous curse. Tremendous it surely was in its shaping power on world history. (Compare numerous titles under Literature.) The general statement of Eutropius that “in the beginning of his reign he might have been compared to the best princes, in the latter part only to those of a middling character,” must be interpreted by the fact that during the latter part of his reign he was so associated with Christianity, in itself a falling away in the eyes of the old religionists. His reign was one of order and justice such as few were, and an order out of chaos, a reign in which it could be peculiarly said that “chastity was safe and marriage protected” (Naz. c. 38), where a man’s life and property were secure as under few of the Roman emperors. It is idle to refuse the title of Great to a man who, from the beginning, followed a consistent, though developing policy, organized the interior, and securely guarded the frontier of his empire at each enlargement, and finally unified the whole on such a basis as to secure large internal prosperity and development.
It is hardly necessary to say that the various tales of the remorse of Constantine for the death of Crispus are mythical. The tale of Sopater has been mentioned. That of Codinus (De signo Cp. p. 62–63), also that, “in regret for death of Crispus, he erected a statue of pure silver with the inscription, ‘My unjustly treated son,’ and did penance besides,” falls into the same category.
429:3042Seeck (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1890, p. 73) maintains that it is established (“urkundlich fest”) that Licinius was still living in 336, in which case he would have been more than twenty years old. He maintains also that he was not the son of Constantine, but the illegitimate son of Licinius by a slave woman.
429:3043On this question compare especially monographs of Görres and Seeck. See under Literature, where other titles, e.g. Hug and Wegnerus, will also be found. In general, the remark of Ludermann (Lipsius, Theol. Jahrb. 1886, p. 108) is valid, “The arguments against Constantine’s Christianity, which are drawn from his moral character, have ever been the weakest.”
