Christian Imperialism
Connor T.
Contrary to its contemporary state, Christianity did not have as prosperous beginnings as it is often believed. Throughout the first 3 centuries, Christianity was widely regarded as a superstition by the Roman Empire and Christians were fiercely persecuted throughout Rome. It was not until the year 313 that Christianity was finally recognized as a legal religion when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan. Even though Constantine was a converted Christian and baptized towards the end of his life, he did not in fact make Christianity the official religion of Rome, as he is often credited for, but merely legalized the religion. However, Constantine was in large part the catalyst that eventually lead Christianity to becoming the imperial religion of the Roman Empire.
Constantine and his father Constantius were not exactly Christians, but felt sympathy for those being persecuted for their religious beliefs. They both advocated for the freedom to practice religion within the Roman Empire. Constantius was a Caesar during the Tetrarchy established by Diocletianus. After his death, Constantine took his father’s place in the Tetrarchy and was soon able to gain control of Rome by defeating his rival Augustus’/Caesars in battle. As legend has it, when Constantine and his men were marching into battle, against his rival Maxentius, Constantine looked into the sky and saw the ChiRho(a symbol of Christ) carrying the message “Hoc Signo Vinces” (“With this sign, you will conquer”). Before fighting Maxentius’s army, Constantine emblazoned the ChiRho on his breast plate and made his army put the symbol on their standards and shields. Upon his victory, Constantine converted to Christianity. After Constantine’s death the empire was split once again, this time between his three sons: Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II. Constantine II would be killed by his brother Constans, who would be killed by the usurper Magnentius. Constantius II would eventually defeat Magnentius and gain sole control over the Roman Empire in around 337. Constantius II was a Christian and very active in promoting the spread of Christianity, as well as taking part in persecuting several pagan religions. After Constantius’s rule there was a slight resurgence of pagan religions within the empire lead by the emperor Julian. He seemed to resent Christianity, but at the time there were far too many Christians for him to persecute realistically. He tolerated Christians but banned “classic literature” from being taught within the religion. This small period would end with the coronation of Theodosius I. Theodosius I, the last emperor to rule over both halves of the Roman Empire, instituted Christianity as the official religion of the empire, as well as shutting down Roman temples and banning pagan cult. Christianity finally achieved the status of the “Imperial Religon”.
With the institution of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, there were a lot of issues that needed to be addressed in order to create what we now know as “orthodoxy”. Before it became “the” religion of Rome, it was somewhat unorganized and diverse, with rituals and beliefs being different pretty much everywhere. Essentially there was no Meta to go off of. Councils were called to gain consensus on ideology. Bishops from all over would flock to convene and debate their views. The council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine in 325 to get some consensus throughout the church. Some important decisions from this council were the nature of the relationship between Jesus and the father, the divinity of Christ, the date of Easter, and some early canon law was laid down as well. Councils would be called quite frequently for the next century or two by emperors looking to make the religion reflect their own beliefs.
The Roman Empire would soon make changes within the empire to accommodate the new religion. A pretty notable change was when Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium (changed to Constantinople on his arrival). While it was mainly for political and military reasons, Rome still was a city that was associated with the old ways of paganism, Christian persecution, and emperor worship. The new capital became a booming center of Christianity with help from Constantine. Laws were also changed to favor the religion. Sunday, the Christian day of worship, was made into a day where no courts sat. Another interesting law banned any punishment on the face of a person because “we are all made in the image of God”. Churches were now able to possess land and be donated money. The clergy began to enjoy immense financial privileges and protection, becoming extremely wealthy in the process. Bishops were also granted judicial powers by emperors and became heavy figures in the Roman elite political scene.
A primary source of Imperial Christianity that can be easily found and analyzed is the Nicene Creed. It was a product of the Council of Nicaea and in much part was response to the “Arian heresy”, that claimed Jesus was not completely God. The Creed touches on the divinity of Christ but more importantly talks of the Trinity, which had been under much debate during that time. The Creed states that the Father is the origin of the Trinity and from him came the Son and Holy Spirit (The Book of Common Prayer 326). The Creed essentially outlines the very basic beliefs of the religion that the members of the Council found to be righteous. It also deals a lot with the relationship between God and the Son making sure it is very clear with differentiating the two. The Creed makes sure there is no confusion as to who the Father is, claiming that the Son cannot be the Father even though they are both God. They did this to make sure that people know that while Jesus is the son of God he is still God, although he is not the Father. The Creed also tells us that Jesus was born because of the Holy Ghost.
In reflection, I found the Creed very cryptic and hard to understand without help from secondary sources. I was raised in a secular home and, to my dismay, have never really read the Bible before. For example, the Nicene Creed seems to be a well-known part of modern Catholicism and I had never heard of it until researching it. It was very hard for me to read. I’m also pretty sure at this point that I did this reflection wrong, and I apologize immensely for that. Even so, I was happy to find that I learned a lot more about Christianity’s early origins than I previously had in the process.
Works Cited
The Book of Common Prayer. New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 2007.
Lynch, Joeseph. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
"Faithful Centurion." Accessed November 13, 2013. http://www.faithfulcenturion.org/nicene_creed_line_by_line.pdf.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.
Contrary to its contemporary state, Christianity did not have as prosperous beginnings as it is often believed. Throughout the first 3 centuries, Christianity was widely regarded as a superstition by the Roman Empire and Christians were fiercely persecuted throughout Rome. It was not until the year 313 that Christianity was finally recognized as a legal religion when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan. Even though Constantine was a converted Christian and baptized towards the end of his life, he did not in fact make Christianity the official religion of Rome, as he is often credited for, but merely legalized the religion. However, Constantine was in large part the catalyst that eventually lead Christianity to becoming the imperial religion of the Roman Empire.
Constantine and his father Constantius were not exactly Christians, but felt sympathy for those being persecuted for their religious beliefs. They both advocated for the freedom to practice religion within the Roman Empire. Constantius was a Caesar during the Tetrarchy established by Diocletianus. After his death, Constantine took his father’s place in the Tetrarchy and was soon able to gain control of Rome by defeating his rival Augustus’/Caesars in battle. As legend has it, when Constantine and his men were marching into battle, against his rival Maxentius, Constantine looked into the sky and saw the ChiRho(a symbol of Christ) carrying the message “Hoc Signo Vinces” (“With this sign, you will conquer”). Before fighting Maxentius’s army, Constantine emblazoned the ChiRho on his breast plate and made his army put the symbol on their standards and shields. Upon his victory, Constantine converted to Christianity. After Constantine’s death the empire was split once again, this time between his three sons: Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II. Constantine II would be killed by his brother Constans, who would be killed by the usurper Magnentius. Constantius II would eventually defeat Magnentius and gain sole control over the Roman Empire in around 337. Constantius II was a Christian and very active in promoting the spread of Christianity, as well as taking part in persecuting several pagan religions. After Constantius’s rule there was a slight resurgence of pagan religions within the empire lead by the emperor Julian. He seemed to resent Christianity, but at the time there were far too many Christians for him to persecute realistically. He tolerated Christians but banned “classic literature” from being taught within the religion. This small period would end with the coronation of Theodosius I. Theodosius I, the last emperor to rule over both halves of the Roman Empire, instituted Christianity as the official religion of the empire, as well as shutting down Roman temples and banning pagan cult. Christianity finally achieved the status of the “Imperial Religon”.
With the institution of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire, there were a lot of issues that needed to be addressed in order to create what we now know as “orthodoxy”. Before it became “the” religion of Rome, it was somewhat unorganized and diverse, with rituals and beliefs being different pretty much everywhere. Essentially there was no Meta to go off of. Councils were called to gain consensus on ideology. Bishops from all over would flock to convene and debate their views. The council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine in 325 to get some consensus throughout the church. Some important decisions from this council were the nature of the relationship between Jesus and the father, the divinity of Christ, the date of Easter, and some early canon law was laid down as well. Councils would be called quite frequently for the next century or two by emperors looking to make the religion reflect their own beliefs.
The Roman Empire would soon make changes within the empire to accommodate the new religion. A pretty notable change was when Constantine moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium (changed to Constantinople on his arrival). While it was mainly for political and military reasons, Rome still was a city that was associated with the old ways of paganism, Christian persecution, and emperor worship. The new capital became a booming center of Christianity with help from Constantine. Laws were also changed to favor the religion. Sunday, the Christian day of worship, was made into a day where no courts sat. Another interesting law banned any punishment on the face of a person because “we are all made in the image of God”. Churches were now able to possess land and be donated money. The clergy began to enjoy immense financial privileges and protection, becoming extremely wealthy in the process. Bishops were also granted judicial powers by emperors and became heavy figures in the Roman elite political scene.
A primary source of Imperial Christianity that can be easily found and analyzed is the Nicene Creed. It was a product of the Council of Nicaea and in much part was response to the “Arian heresy”, that claimed Jesus was not completely God. The Creed touches on the divinity of Christ but more importantly talks of the Trinity, which had been under much debate during that time. The Creed states that the Father is the origin of the Trinity and from him came the Son and Holy Spirit (The Book of Common Prayer 326). The Creed essentially outlines the very basic beliefs of the religion that the members of the Council found to be righteous. It also deals a lot with the relationship between God and the Son making sure it is very clear with differentiating the two. The Creed makes sure there is no confusion as to who the Father is, claiming that the Son cannot be the Father even though they are both God. They did this to make sure that people know that while Jesus is the son of God he is still God, although he is not the Father. The Creed also tells us that Jesus was born because of the Holy Ghost.
In reflection, I found the Creed very cryptic and hard to understand without help from secondary sources. I was raised in a secular home and, to my dismay, have never really read the Bible before. For example, the Nicene Creed seems to be a well-known part of modern Catholicism and I had never heard of it until researching it. It was very hard for me to read. I’m also pretty sure at this point that I did this reflection wrong, and I apologize immensely for that. Even so, I was happy to find that I learned a lot more about Christianity’s early origins than I previously had in the process.
Works Cited
The Book of Common Prayer. New York: Church Publishing Incorporated, 2007.
Lynch, Joeseph. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
"Faithful Centurion." Accessed November 13, 2013. http://www.faithfulcenturion.org/nicene_creed_line_by_line.pdf.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.
Ambrose, On the Death of Theodosius
Ben O.
This document, On the Death of Theodosius, is Bishop Ambrose of Milan's funeral sermon given after the Emperor Theodosius' death in the year 395. In this sermon the bishop heaps praise upon the recent emperor, praising him for his actions against the pagans (Ambrose 308-309) his great mercy as an adjudicator (Ambrose 313), and his humility in penance (Ambrose 319). Ambrose goes on to expound on the virtues of love, the power of God and favorably compared Theodosius to the emperor Constantine, a great former member and ally of the church. While all of these things are wonderful things to say of a dead man, it was certainly not with out reason that Ambrose said them, and the actions that earned this description in death should to be examined.
Most important to keep in mind while reading this document is to consider why the Bishop gives such high praise of the deceased emperor. Saying that the “very elements, then, were mourning his death” (Ambrose 307) not idle commentary that could be given to just anyone. In life Theodosius had been very kind to the church. While he was not the first emperor who legally recognized Christianity as a valid religion, it was he that too the religion to the next level of state import by making it the official religion of the Roman state in 380 (Lynch 125). By doing this he gave important legal rights to the church, giving power over that could be more traditionally held by pagan priests.
In making Christianity the official religion of the state Theodosius made an important distinction by making specifically the orthodox Catholic Christianity the state religion. The edict went so far as to make the orthodox the only form of legal Christianity in the state.“In 380, Theodosius made catholic Nicene Christianity the only legal form of Christianity in the empire.” (Lynch 140) The bishop Ambrose had a history of resisting non orthodox, and particularly anti-Nicene heresies (Lynch 213). Ambrose publicly agrees with this choice, noting in his eulogy, “Emperors prefer the nail of His Cross to their own diadem, and Arians violate His power!” (Ambrose 329) referring to the heresy of Arianism that the council at Nicaea had be called to resolve.
In two significant occasions Ambrose exercised his new found power over the state. Once when an orthodox christian mob destroyed a Valentinian church, Ambrose wrote to Theodosius threatening to religiously sanction him should he order the church rebuilt by the rioters. Theodosius responded to this by obeying the bishop. (Lynch 142, 213) Ambrose might be making reference to this when he praises Theodosius for his mercy as a judge throughout his sermon, “he preferred to expostulate as a father rather than to punish as a judge.” (Ambrose 313). In seeming great contrast to this description of the emperor, Ambrose again exercised his power over Theodosius when the emperor ordered a mass killing at Thessalonika in response to a killing of an official. In response to this Ambrose ordered him to perform public penance for this sin to regain standing with the church, which the emperor dutifully performed. (Lynch 157) Ambrose takes important note of this in the document, “What private citizens are ashamed to do, the emperor was not ashamed to do, namely to perform penance publicly, nor did a day pass there after on which he did not bemoan that fault of his.” (Ambrose 322) Lynch notes that This was a dangerous thing for the bishop to do, possibly earning him exile or death, but it was done successfully. (157) This demonstrated the church's power.
Ambrose's speech also seems like a semi subtle attempt to keep what ever power the church gained with the state as Theodosius's son takes on the mantle of leadership. He tells to his audience, “Pay to his sons what you owe to their father, You owe him more now than you owed to him while he was living.”(312). This statement would ingratiate him to the new emperor and remind his flock that they shouldn't stray from supporting the new emperor if they want to maintain what influence the church has gained. At the same time Ambrose seems to speak to the sons of Theodosius reminding them of the importance of their christian faith in having success as a ruler. He draws parallels to Josias a biblical kin gin the Old Testament. Because Josias was faithful he ruled well and long. Another biblical king Asa who died when he lost his fate in the face of adversity.
While this document serves as a great praise of a dead emperor form the church that he was a member of, it also has a deeper connotation that shouldn't be ignored. When Ambrose write this document the late Emperor Theodosius had given the church more state power and control than they has had even in the time of Constantine. Through the incident of the massacre as Thessalonika showed that the bishop could exert personal control of the head of state and could make him humble himself like any other man. The destruction of the Valentinian church by the orthodox mob with no reprisal from the emperor shows that Ambrose and the church had significant sway over matters of state that simply hadn't existed so clearly before this time. Lynch says it best, “Ambrose's writings and actions pointed toward a theory of the relation of church and state in which they cooperated, but the church stood above the state because it was a judge of behavior. Ambrose is representative of men who in earlier periods might have been secular judges, magistrates, governors, and generals but were increasingly seeking the ascetic life or the life of a bishop.” (213).
Bibliography:
Saint Ambrose, Saint Gregory Nazianzen. Translated by Deferrari, Roy J., Leo P. McCauley, Martin R.P. McGuire, and John L. Sullivan. Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory and Saint Ambrose. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc, 1953.
Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2010.
This document, On the Death of Theodosius, is Bishop Ambrose of Milan's funeral sermon given after the Emperor Theodosius' death in the year 395. In this sermon the bishop heaps praise upon the recent emperor, praising him for his actions against the pagans (Ambrose 308-309) his great mercy as an adjudicator (Ambrose 313), and his humility in penance (Ambrose 319). Ambrose goes on to expound on the virtues of love, the power of God and favorably compared Theodosius to the emperor Constantine, a great former member and ally of the church. While all of these things are wonderful things to say of a dead man, it was certainly not with out reason that Ambrose said them, and the actions that earned this description in death should to be examined.
Most important to keep in mind while reading this document is to consider why the Bishop gives such high praise of the deceased emperor. Saying that the “very elements, then, were mourning his death” (Ambrose 307) not idle commentary that could be given to just anyone. In life Theodosius had been very kind to the church. While he was not the first emperor who legally recognized Christianity as a valid religion, it was he that too the religion to the next level of state import by making it the official religion of the Roman state in 380 (Lynch 125). By doing this he gave important legal rights to the church, giving power over that could be more traditionally held by pagan priests.
In making Christianity the official religion of the state Theodosius made an important distinction by making specifically the orthodox Catholic Christianity the state religion. The edict went so far as to make the orthodox the only form of legal Christianity in the state.“In 380, Theodosius made catholic Nicene Christianity the only legal form of Christianity in the empire.” (Lynch 140) The bishop Ambrose had a history of resisting non orthodox, and particularly anti-Nicene heresies (Lynch 213). Ambrose publicly agrees with this choice, noting in his eulogy, “Emperors prefer the nail of His Cross to their own diadem, and Arians violate His power!” (Ambrose 329) referring to the heresy of Arianism that the council at Nicaea had be called to resolve.
In two significant occasions Ambrose exercised his new found power over the state. Once when an orthodox christian mob destroyed a Valentinian church, Ambrose wrote to Theodosius threatening to religiously sanction him should he order the church rebuilt by the rioters. Theodosius responded to this by obeying the bishop. (Lynch 142, 213) Ambrose might be making reference to this when he praises Theodosius for his mercy as a judge throughout his sermon, “he preferred to expostulate as a father rather than to punish as a judge.” (Ambrose 313). In seeming great contrast to this description of the emperor, Ambrose again exercised his power over Theodosius when the emperor ordered a mass killing at Thessalonika in response to a killing of an official. In response to this Ambrose ordered him to perform public penance for this sin to regain standing with the church, which the emperor dutifully performed. (Lynch 157) Ambrose takes important note of this in the document, “What private citizens are ashamed to do, the emperor was not ashamed to do, namely to perform penance publicly, nor did a day pass there after on which he did not bemoan that fault of his.” (Ambrose 322) Lynch notes that This was a dangerous thing for the bishop to do, possibly earning him exile or death, but it was done successfully. (157) This demonstrated the church's power.
Ambrose's speech also seems like a semi subtle attempt to keep what ever power the church gained with the state as Theodosius's son takes on the mantle of leadership. He tells to his audience, “Pay to his sons what you owe to their father, You owe him more now than you owed to him while he was living.”(312). This statement would ingratiate him to the new emperor and remind his flock that they shouldn't stray from supporting the new emperor if they want to maintain what influence the church has gained. At the same time Ambrose seems to speak to the sons of Theodosius reminding them of the importance of their christian faith in having success as a ruler. He draws parallels to Josias a biblical kin gin the Old Testament. Because Josias was faithful he ruled well and long. Another biblical king Asa who died when he lost his fate in the face of adversity.
While this document serves as a great praise of a dead emperor form the church that he was a member of, it also has a deeper connotation that shouldn't be ignored. When Ambrose write this document the late Emperor Theodosius had given the church more state power and control than they has had even in the time of Constantine. Through the incident of the massacre as Thessalonika showed that the bishop could exert personal control of the head of state and could make him humble himself like any other man. The destruction of the Valentinian church by the orthodox mob with no reprisal from the emperor shows that Ambrose and the church had significant sway over matters of state that simply hadn't existed so clearly before this time. Lynch says it best, “Ambrose's writings and actions pointed toward a theory of the relation of church and state in which they cooperated, but the church stood above the state because it was a judge of behavior. Ambrose is representative of men who in earlier periods might have been secular judges, magistrates, governors, and generals but were increasingly seeking the ascetic life or the life of a bishop.” (213).
Bibliography:
Saint Ambrose, Saint Gregory Nazianzen. Translated by Deferrari, Roy J., Leo P. McCauley, Martin R.P. McGuire, and John L. Sullivan. Funeral Orations by Saint Gregory and Saint Ambrose. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc, 1953.
Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 2010.
Concepts of Christian Rome: Political Legitimization in Ambrose's On the Death of Theodosius
Brian G.
Introduction: “Severe earthquakes, continual rains, and darkness denser than usual gave notice of this, that our most merciful emperor Theodosius was about to leave the earth” (On the Death of Theodosius 1). This is the first line of the first verse of Ambrose of Milan’s funeral oration entitled On the Death of Theodosius. Immediately one thinks of Christ’s death in the Gospel narrative when reading these words. Matthew (27:45) describes an earthquake at his death and both Luke (23:44-45) and Mark (15:33) tell of a darkness covering the land. This is no accident, throughout the work Ambrose seeks to connect the Christian emperor Theodosius whose reign lasted from 379-395 CE (Lynch 2010), his family, and his predecessors to figures from Scripture, particularly Christ and the Prophets. By reading this work one can see imperial propaganda designed for legitimization of a ruler in a Christian context. Harold A. Drake (2008) describes the concept of caesaropapism (the placing of the secular ruler at the head of Church) as an anachronism however, as modern separation of Church and state were completely foreign in 4th century Rome. Rather, he concludes that Church and state were one in the same, both drawing legitimization from one another. Drake also relates how deeply ingrained the religious function of the emperor actually was in those times. He was ultimately responsible for the maintaining of order and prosperity through maintaining the pax deorum, or “peace of the gods” (Lynch 2010). What follows is a critical analysis of Ambrose’s work through the lens of Christian imperialism.
Text Summary of On the Death of Theodosius: Ambrose of Milan delivered his oration on February 25 in the year 395 CE (On the Death of Theodosius Introduction). It was a eulogy, a moving sermon on love, and imperial propaganda all at the same time. As mentioned, he begins the oration with the supposed supernatural events at the death of the emperor. He then salutes the emperor’s two surviving sons, the emperor Arcadius and his younger brother Honorius (2). He compares the royal family to the house of Jacob and his sons to Joseph who he cites as a “model for filial devotion” (3). Ambrose frequently refers to Old Testament narratives throughout his oration. Also throughout is Ambrose’s praise for Theodosius’ earthly rule. He even goes so far as to say that he (Theodosius) “supplanted the perfidy of tyrants” (4). Another example can be seen in verse 5 where Ambrose speaks of Theodosius granting an indulgence for a certain grain tax. After this he describes Theodosius’ military victories and how they were made possible by faith (7). This leads into a major portion of the oration, a lengthy sermon on the love Theodosius showed throughout life and how he was a model of Christ (19-23)
After praising Theodosius for his rule, he goes on to praise him for his piety. There are several accounts (19-23) of Theodosius’ love, both for God and his enemies. Ambrose said that Theodosius would rather pardon his enemies than harm them, and that he even believed that the opportunity to pardon was a kindness (13). What follows after the sermon emphasizing love and how Theodosius was a model of Christian life (done to inspire the populace no doubt) is an account of the Emperor Constantine’s conversion, his mother Helena’s trip to the Holy Land and acquisition of supposed relics, and the implications it had for the empire (40-48). He often equates the empire to Israel, and says that the faith of these people brought shame to the Jews. Ambrose even goes as far as to say that the Jews admitted they were wrong, something which seems difficult to believe (49). He then honors the new emperor and his brother a final time (54-55) and offers them advice on Christian piety, concluding the work.
Critical Analysis: First and foremost one must take into account the context of Ambrose’s funeral oration. He is a Christian writing for Christians, and his sermon was designed to inspire the people after the death of a great figurehead (On the Death of Theodosius Introduction). It was also designed as a religious sermon and a political statement (Introduction). As Drake notes in his chapter “The Church and Empire (2008), religion and politics at the time were completely intertwined and the modern concept of Church and state did not exist for them. Ambrose has no problem with showing Theodosius’ piety (19-23), and as Drake notes, for most of man’s history religion has played a legitimizing role in politics (Drake 2008). This is why describes the term caesaropapism as anachronistic. The emperor was within the Church, symbolically, figuratively, and literally (2008). As Drake and Ambrose note, the emperor Constantine was not even baptized until his deathbed (On the Death of Theodosius 40), yet he still sat in on the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 and nobody questioned his right to do so despite his catechumen status within the Church (2008). The legalization of Christianity by Theodosius coupled with the ancient Roman ideal of pax deorum or “peace of the gods” led to the emperor becoming an integral part of God’s intervention on earth. Drake notes that this is what led many scholars to adopt a model of Christian intolerance when discussing the suppression of Mediterranean religion by Christian Rome (2008).
Drake (2008) often uses a mosaic found on the Lateran palace as a metaphor. In the middle are Christ and the Apostles, and on either side are two other scenes. On the left is Christ handing the keys of heaven to Peter and a banner to Constantine, while on the right is Peter crowning Pope Leo III and giving a banner to Charlemagne. He uses its imagery to show how closely connected political power was to the Christian faith in the Christian Roman empire (and subsequent Holy Roman Empire in the west) (2008). He concludes his argument by saying that power comes from faith ultimately, something which Ambrose repeatedly expresses in his oration (8). The imagery of the mosaic shows this (in a decidedly Western context), Christ gives power to the Pope and the Pope gives power to the emperors (2008). What is being commemorated according to Drake is not the legitimization of Rome per se, but rather the legitimization of Christian Rome, and Ambrose’s oration illustrates this brilliantly (Drake 2008; On the Death of Theodosius).
Conclusions: In Ambrose of Milan’s On the Death of Theodosius he delivers a moving funeral oration designed to honor the emperor, his family, and their predecessors. He seeks to show that Theodosius was a pious ruler who, like Christ himself, would forgive his enemies rather than seek retribution. However, one must be careful and critical of his evaluation for several reasons. First, Ambrose was a Christian writing about other Christians (and non-Christians) for a Christian audience. Moreover he was part of the developing state-sponsored “Orthodox” camp of Christianity and has certain biases in that regard. Throughout he is seeking to shed favorable light on Theodosius and affirm his legitimacy. To this end he appeals to Scripture and to historical precedence in order to tie the emperor with the prophets, and the empire to Israel. One can easily see how intertwined the Church and empire were in Ambrose’s writing. As Drake (2008) points out, for the newly Christian Roman Empire faith was just as important as imperial policy and more often than not dictated it. The ancient concept of pax deorum ensured that Christian Orthodoxy would follow soon after state sponsorship of the faith. Correct worship was necessary for the state to function properly and heresy was tantamount to treason. Viewing the political situation of Christian Rome in this light shows that the concept of caesaropapism is both inadequate for explaining the situation and a serious anachronism. The emperor was not above the Church, nor was he its head. Rather, he was an integral part of the Church and reckoned to be within and bound by its developing precepts (which he had a hand in creating). As Drake concludes, the greatest folly of the emperors and their bishops was actually their inability to distinguish between the concepts of Church and state.
Works Cited
Ambrose of Milan. "On the Death of Theodosius." The Fathers Of The Church, A New Translation. Trans. Leo P. McCauley, S.J., John P. Sullivan, C.S.Sp., Martin R. P. McGuire, and Roy J. Deferrari. Vol. 22. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953. 303-32.
Funeral Orations. Internet Archive. Archive.org. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <https://archive.org/stream/fathersofthechur012812mbp#page/n359/mode/2up>. Drake, Harold A. "Church and Empire." The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Ed. Susan Ashbrook. Harvey and David G. Hunter. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. 446-64. Print.
Gillquist, Peter E., Alan Wallerstedt, and Joseph Allen. The Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, New King James Version. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1993. Print. Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Introduction: “Severe earthquakes, continual rains, and darkness denser than usual gave notice of this, that our most merciful emperor Theodosius was about to leave the earth” (On the Death of Theodosius 1). This is the first line of the first verse of Ambrose of Milan’s funeral oration entitled On the Death of Theodosius. Immediately one thinks of Christ’s death in the Gospel narrative when reading these words. Matthew (27:45) describes an earthquake at his death and both Luke (23:44-45) and Mark (15:33) tell of a darkness covering the land. This is no accident, throughout the work Ambrose seeks to connect the Christian emperor Theodosius whose reign lasted from 379-395 CE (Lynch 2010), his family, and his predecessors to figures from Scripture, particularly Christ and the Prophets. By reading this work one can see imperial propaganda designed for legitimization of a ruler in a Christian context. Harold A. Drake (2008) describes the concept of caesaropapism (the placing of the secular ruler at the head of Church) as an anachronism however, as modern separation of Church and state were completely foreign in 4th century Rome. Rather, he concludes that Church and state were one in the same, both drawing legitimization from one another. Drake also relates how deeply ingrained the religious function of the emperor actually was in those times. He was ultimately responsible for the maintaining of order and prosperity through maintaining the pax deorum, or “peace of the gods” (Lynch 2010). What follows is a critical analysis of Ambrose’s work through the lens of Christian imperialism.
Text Summary of On the Death of Theodosius: Ambrose of Milan delivered his oration on February 25 in the year 395 CE (On the Death of Theodosius Introduction). It was a eulogy, a moving sermon on love, and imperial propaganda all at the same time. As mentioned, he begins the oration with the supposed supernatural events at the death of the emperor. He then salutes the emperor’s two surviving sons, the emperor Arcadius and his younger brother Honorius (2). He compares the royal family to the house of Jacob and his sons to Joseph who he cites as a “model for filial devotion” (3). Ambrose frequently refers to Old Testament narratives throughout his oration. Also throughout is Ambrose’s praise for Theodosius’ earthly rule. He even goes so far as to say that he (Theodosius) “supplanted the perfidy of tyrants” (4). Another example can be seen in verse 5 where Ambrose speaks of Theodosius granting an indulgence for a certain grain tax. After this he describes Theodosius’ military victories and how they were made possible by faith (7). This leads into a major portion of the oration, a lengthy sermon on the love Theodosius showed throughout life and how he was a model of Christ (19-23)
After praising Theodosius for his rule, he goes on to praise him for his piety. There are several accounts (19-23) of Theodosius’ love, both for God and his enemies. Ambrose said that Theodosius would rather pardon his enemies than harm them, and that he even believed that the opportunity to pardon was a kindness (13). What follows after the sermon emphasizing love and how Theodosius was a model of Christian life (done to inspire the populace no doubt) is an account of the Emperor Constantine’s conversion, his mother Helena’s trip to the Holy Land and acquisition of supposed relics, and the implications it had for the empire (40-48). He often equates the empire to Israel, and says that the faith of these people brought shame to the Jews. Ambrose even goes as far as to say that the Jews admitted they were wrong, something which seems difficult to believe (49). He then honors the new emperor and his brother a final time (54-55) and offers them advice on Christian piety, concluding the work.
Critical Analysis: First and foremost one must take into account the context of Ambrose’s funeral oration. He is a Christian writing for Christians, and his sermon was designed to inspire the people after the death of a great figurehead (On the Death of Theodosius Introduction). It was also designed as a religious sermon and a political statement (Introduction). As Drake notes in his chapter “The Church and Empire (2008), religion and politics at the time were completely intertwined and the modern concept of Church and state did not exist for them. Ambrose has no problem with showing Theodosius’ piety (19-23), and as Drake notes, for most of man’s history religion has played a legitimizing role in politics (Drake 2008). This is why describes the term caesaropapism as anachronistic. The emperor was within the Church, symbolically, figuratively, and literally (2008). As Drake and Ambrose note, the emperor Constantine was not even baptized until his deathbed (On the Death of Theodosius 40), yet he still sat in on the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 and nobody questioned his right to do so despite his catechumen status within the Church (2008). The legalization of Christianity by Theodosius coupled with the ancient Roman ideal of pax deorum or “peace of the gods” led to the emperor becoming an integral part of God’s intervention on earth. Drake notes that this is what led many scholars to adopt a model of Christian intolerance when discussing the suppression of Mediterranean religion by Christian Rome (2008).
Drake (2008) often uses a mosaic found on the Lateran palace as a metaphor. In the middle are Christ and the Apostles, and on either side are two other scenes. On the left is Christ handing the keys of heaven to Peter and a banner to Constantine, while on the right is Peter crowning Pope Leo III and giving a banner to Charlemagne. He uses its imagery to show how closely connected political power was to the Christian faith in the Christian Roman empire (and subsequent Holy Roman Empire in the west) (2008). He concludes his argument by saying that power comes from faith ultimately, something which Ambrose repeatedly expresses in his oration (8). The imagery of the mosaic shows this (in a decidedly Western context), Christ gives power to the Pope and the Pope gives power to the emperors (2008). What is being commemorated according to Drake is not the legitimization of Rome per se, but rather the legitimization of Christian Rome, and Ambrose’s oration illustrates this brilliantly (Drake 2008; On the Death of Theodosius).
Conclusions: In Ambrose of Milan’s On the Death of Theodosius he delivers a moving funeral oration designed to honor the emperor, his family, and their predecessors. He seeks to show that Theodosius was a pious ruler who, like Christ himself, would forgive his enemies rather than seek retribution. However, one must be careful and critical of his evaluation for several reasons. First, Ambrose was a Christian writing about other Christians (and non-Christians) for a Christian audience. Moreover he was part of the developing state-sponsored “Orthodox” camp of Christianity and has certain biases in that regard. Throughout he is seeking to shed favorable light on Theodosius and affirm his legitimacy. To this end he appeals to Scripture and to historical precedence in order to tie the emperor with the prophets, and the empire to Israel. One can easily see how intertwined the Church and empire were in Ambrose’s writing. As Drake (2008) points out, for the newly Christian Roman Empire faith was just as important as imperial policy and more often than not dictated it. The ancient concept of pax deorum ensured that Christian Orthodoxy would follow soon after state sponsorship of the faith. Correct worship was necessary for the state to function properly and heresy was tantamount to treason. Viewing the political situation of Christian Rome in this light shows that the concept of caesaropapism is both inadequate for explaining the situation and a serious anachronism. The emperor was not above the Church, nor was he its head. Rather, he was an integral part of the Church and reckoned to be within and bound by its developing precepts (which he had a hand in creating). As Drake concludes, the greatest folly of the emperors and their bishops was actually their inability to distinguish between the concepts of Church and state.
Works Cited
Ambrose of Milan. "On the Death of Theodosius." The Fathers Of The Church, A New Translation. Trans. Leo P. McCauley, S.J., John P. Sullivan, C.S.Sp., Martin R. P. McGuire, and Roy J. Deferrari. Vol. 22. New York: Fathers of the Church, 1953. 303-32.
Funeral Orations. Internet Archive. Archive.org. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. <https://archive.org/stream/fathersofthechur012812mbp#page/n359/mode/2up>. Drake, Harold A. "Church and Empire." The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Ed. Susan Ashbrook. Harvey and David G. Hunter. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. 446-64. Print.
Gillquist, Peter E., Alan Wallerstedt, and Joseph Allen. The Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, New King James Version. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1993. Print. Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Josh Gavett - Life of Constantine
Constantine plays a major role within the early Christian Church. He was the first emperor to support Christianity and started a trend with the emperors that would allow Christianity to grow and become the religion it is today. However there is much rumor and myth behind Constantine. There are many biographies about him that have different views on him. Eusebius wrote a biography on Constantine right after Constantine’s death that gives a very pro Christian point of view of the hallowed emperor. His Life of Constantine gives us a look into Constantine’s character, laws and actions that helped promote Christianity in a society that was very into its pagan religions. In this paper I will analyze Book 1 in Eusebius’s Life of Constantine and compare Eusebius’s pro Christian Constantine to the historical Constantine.
Eusebius wrote this biography not far after Constantine’s death in the fourth century and was not able to finish it before he passed away. Constantine was praised by Christians for making Christianity legally tolerable and granting it other freedoms also. Eusebius highlights these actions in his biography and makes Constantine out to be a hero for his actions. The Life of Constantine is broken into four books and touches on many themes regarding Constantine’s character, laws and actions. Since Eusebius is a Christian, his biography is very pro Constantine and makes him out to be the hero throughout the entire biography. It also holds many Christian beliefs and ideals since Eusebius is writing from a Christian’s point of view.
The first part of book one talks about Constantine’s rise to power and his defeat of his evil unnamed rival. We know that his rival is Maxentius who was competing with Constantine to be Caesar in the West. Constantine is described as being selected by God to become the emperor: “In such a way, then, did God, the President of the whole world, of his own will select Constantine, sprung from such a father, as universal ruler and governor”. Eusebius is starting off stating that Constantine was divinely selected by God to become the ruler of Rome. Constantine discovers God when trying to find a spiritual entity to pray to before his battle. This passage is showing Eusebius’s pro Christian beliefs already. Eusebius writes how Constantine rejects to worship pagan gods and chooses to worship God instead. However it took Constantine a while until he finally found out where the vision came from that he had.
Eusebius also highlights Constantine’s rival in a very bad light. His rival dies in a cowardly manner, which is a common theme in Roman literature during this time period for people who are considered weak. The rival also performs many pagan rituals such as, look at the entrails of babies and opening up pregnant women’s stomachs. His behavior is described as “foul and filthy” and gives us a light vs. dark motif. The author is using this motif to bring down the roman pagan religions, which was happening in society during this time period. The author writes about Constantine’s rival’s evil ways as a way to take a shot at the pagans. The rival breaks up marriages for his own lusts, and this is important because marriage is to be revered by Christians. This is another example of the author trying to show the evils of the pagans by them trying to stop soil Christian’s marriages.
Constantine is also described as being very generous to his new subjects and especially the poor. “He made all sorts of distributions to the poor, and apart from them showed himself compassionate and beneficent to those outside who approached him. (Ehrman 35). Christians are supposed to be selfless and give to those who need and the author is making sure Constantine is living up to that theme in this passage. He even pays the dowries of the wives showing that he is gracious to multiple social groups.
An important part the author chooses to mention in Constantine’s biography is his involvement within the church. “But of the Church of God he paid particular personal attention. When some were at variance with each other in various places, like a universal bishop appointed by God he convoke councils of the ministers of God” (Ehrman 35). Eusebius writes this to show readers that not only did Constantine start making laws for the church but that he was involved with it and its theology.
Constantine is also shown to be merciful to his enemies and acting calm when opponents detest him. “There were even some who spoke harshly against him, and he tolerated them without resentment, with a gentle voice bidding then to behave reasonably and not to be contentious“(Ehrman 35). He remains calm and is slow to anger just like how a good Christian should act.
Eusebius writes as if all of this happened over night, however it did not. “Such an aggressive show of imperial support on behalf of Christianity did not, however, mean that everything changed overnight. A significant portion, perhaps a majority, of the population of the empire probably remained pagan for a substantial period of time” (Johnson 256). This written helps explain historically what happened with Constantine. Eusebius writes as if everything happened overnight but it actually was a long and slow process. Constantine never made the Roman imperial religion Christianity. He just made Christianity religiously tolerable and took away some of the discriminatory laws against Christianity away.
Many of the things written in Eusebius’s biography did not happen as fast as the author wants the reader to believe. Eusebius makes Constantine sound perfect in his biography. He does this to create Christian literature that gives a role model following the steps of the perfect Christian. You have the emperor who is historically normally a very sinful position just by the way one has to rule. Yet in this biography Constantine is perfect. He does not do a single thing wrong and is following all the Christian laws.
Constantine was an important man in the history of Christianity but there will always be some uncertainty with him and historians due to the varied biographical account we have on him.
Bibliography:
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.
Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Ehrman, Bart D. Christianity in Late Antiquity: 300-450 CE. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Eusebius wrote this biography not far after Constantine’s death in the fourth century and was not able to finish it before he passed away. Constantine was praised by Christians for making Christianity legally tolerable and granting it other freedoms also. Eusebius highlights these actions in his biography and makes Constantine out to be a hero for his actions. The Life of Constantine is broken into four books and touches on many themes regarding Constantine’s character, laws and actions. Since Eusebius is a Christian, his biography is very pro Constantine and makes him out to be the hero throughout the entire biography. It also holds many Christian beliefs and ideals since Eusebius is writing from a Christian’s point of view.
The first part of book one talks about Constantine’s rise to power and his defeat of his evil unnamed rival. We know that his rival is Maxentius who was competing with Constantine to be Caesar in the West. Constantine is described as being selected by God to become the emperor: “In such a way, then, did God, the President of the whole world, of his own will select Constantine, sprung from such a father, as universal ruler and governor”. Eusebius is starting off stating that Constantine was divinely selected by God to become the ruler of Rome. Constantine discovers God when trying to find a spiritual entity to pray to before his battle. This passage is showing Eusebius’s pro Christian beliefs already. Eusebius writes how Constantine rejects to worship pagan gods and chooses to worship God instead. However it took Constantine a while until he finally found out where the vision came from that he had.
Eusebius also highlights Constantine’s rival in a very bad light. His rival dies in a cowardly manner, which is a common theme in Roman literature during this time period for people who are considered weak. The rival also performs many pagan rituals such as, look at the entrails of babies and opening up pregnant women’s stomachs. His behavior is described as “foul and filthy” and gives us a light vs. dark motif. The author is using this motif to bring down the roman pagan religions, which was happening in society during this time period. The author writes about Constantine’s rival’s evil ways as a way to take a shot at the pagans. The rival breaks up marriages for his own lusts, and this is important because marriage is to be revered by Christians. This is another example of the author trying to show the evils of the pagans by them trying to stop soil Christian’s marriages.
Constantine is also described as being very generous to his new subjects and especially the poor. “He made all sorts of distributions to the poor, and apart from them showed himself compassionate and beneficent to those outside who approached him. (Ehrman 35). Christians are supposed to be selfless and give to those who need and the author is making sure Constantine is living up to that theme in this passage. He even pays the dowries of the wives showing that he is gracious to multiple social groups.
An important part the author chooses to mention in Constantine’s biography is his involvement within the church. “But of the Church of God he paid particular personal attention. When some were at variance with each other in various places, like a universal bishop appointed by God he convoke councils of the ministers of God” (Ehrman 35). Eusebius writes this to show readers that not only did Constantine start making laws for the church but that he was involved with it and its theology.
Constantine is also shown to be merciful to his enemies and acting calm when opponents detest him. “There were even some who spoke harshly against him, and he tolerated them without resentment, with a gentle voice bidding then to behave reasonably and not to be contentious“(Ehrman 35). He remains calm and is slow to anger just like how a good Christian should act.
Eusebius writes as if all of this happened over night, however it did not. “Such an aggressive show of imperial support on behalf of Christianity did not, however, mean that everything changed overnight. A significant portion, perhaps a majority, of the population of the empire probably remained pagan for a substantial period of time” (Johnson 256). This written helps explain historically what happened with Constantine. Eusebius writes as if everything happened overnight but it actually was a long and slow process. Constantine never made the Roman imperial religion Christianity. He just made Christianity religiously tolerable and took away some of the discriminatory laws against Christianity away.
Many of the things written in Eusebius’s biography did not happen as fast as the author wants the reader to believe. Eusebius makes Constantine sound perfect in his biography. He does this to create Christian literature that gives a role model following the steps of the perfect Christian. You have the emperor who is historically normally a very sinful position just by the way one has to rule. Yet in this biography Constantine is perfect. He does not do a single thing wrong and is following all the Christian laws.
Constantine was an important man in the history of Christianity but there will always be some uncertainty with him and historians due to the varied biographical account we have on him.
Bibliography:
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.
Lynch, Joseph H. Early Christianity: A Brief History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Ehrman, Bart D. Christianity in Late Antiquity: 300-450 CE. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.