Constantine the Great, early 307 - 22 May 337 A.D.
|
Silvered AE 3, RIC VII 92, EF, 3.456g, 18.1mm, 0o, Heraclea mint, 327 - 329 A.D.; Obverse: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG, diademed head right, eyes to God; Reverse: D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, VOT XXX in wreath, •SMHB in exergue.
As leading numismatist Joseph Sermarini notes, "The 'looking upwards' portraits of Constantine are often described as 'gazing to Heaven (or God).' The model of these portraits is of course that of the Deified Alexander the Great
(https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ssl/myforum.asp).
The Emperor Constantine I was effectively the sole ruler of the Roman world between 324 and 337 A.D.; his reign was perhaps one of the most crucial of all the emperors in determining the future course of western civilization. By beginning the process of making Christianity the religious foundation of his realm, he set the religious course for the future of Europe which remains in place to this very day. Because he replaced Rome with Constantinople as the center of imperial power, he made it clear that the city of Rome was no longer the center of power, and he also set the stage for the Middle Ages. His philosophical view of monarchy, largely spelled out in some of the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, became the foundation for the concept of the divine right of kings which prevailed in Europe.
Constantine was not a "Christian convert" in any traditional sense. He was not baptized until close to death, and while that was not an uncommon practice, the mention of Christ in his speeches and decrees is conspicuous by its absence. Eusebius, Church historian and Constantine biographer, is responsible for much of the valorization of Constantine as the Christian Emperor. The somnambulant "sign" in which Constantine was to become victor at the Milvian Bridge is, not so surprisingly, revealed to posterity long after the "fact." Throughout his reign, Constantine continues to portray himself on coins as a sun god (Freeman, Charles. Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean; Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 582). Above all, Constantine was a pragmatist. It would be cynical to egregiously disavow his commitment to Christianity, but it would be equally wrong to think that he would allow Christianity to meddle in the governance of his empire. As he reputedly told a group of bishops, "You are bishops of those within the church, but I am perhaps a bishop appointed by God of those outside." Whatever the motives for his decision to support Christianity, Christianity benefitted from the arrangement; so, too, did Constantine. It was a match made in heaven.
Which brings us to Crispus.
Whenever I am engaged in any discussion concerning Constantine I, Crispus is never far from my mind. As historian Hans Pohlsander from SUNY notes, "Crispus' end was as tragic as his career had been brilliant. His own father ordered him to be put to death. We know the year of this sad event, 326, from the Consularia Constantinopolitana, and the place, Pola in Istria, from Ammianus Marcellinus. The circumstances, however, are less clear. Zosimus (6th c.) and Zonaras (12th c.) both report that Crispus and his stepmother Fausta were involved in an illicit relationship." And Pohlsander continues with, "There may be as much gossip as fact in their reports, but Crispus must have committed, or at least must have been suspected of having committed, some especially shocking offense to earn him a sentence of death from his own father. He also suffered damnatio memoriae, his honor was never restored, and history has not recorded the fate of his wife and his child (or children)(Copyright (C) 1997, Hans A. Pohlsander. Published on De Imperatoribus Romanis;An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors and their Families:http://www.roman-emperors.org/crispus.htm).
But there is something terribly illogigical about Constantinian apologetics. In 294 BC, prior to the death of his father, Seleucus I; Antiochus married his step-mother, Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes. His elderly father reportedly instigated the marriage after discovering that his son was in danger of dying of lovesickness. If this is the way a "Pagan" father is able to express love for his son, then would not a saintly Christian love his son in at least similar measure? This particular Christian father, about whom St. Nectarios writes, "Hellenism spread by Alexander, paved the way for Christianity by the Emperor Constantine the Great," is unique. It is important to our discussion to take note of the fact that in the Greek Orthodox Church, Constantine the Great is revered as a Saint.
Now would be an appropriate time to recall what Joseph Sermarini noted above, "The 'looking upwards' portraits of Constantine are often described as 'gazing to Heaven (or God).' The model of these portraits is of course that of the Deified Alexander the Great(https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ssl/myforum.asp).
Isn’t it all too possible--even probable--that Constantine had been growing obsessively jealous of his ever more successful and adulated son? It is completely out of character for Constantine to merely acquiesce to being Philip to Crispus' Alexander. Remember the Constantine who has proven time and again (recall Constantine's disingenuous promise of clemency to Licinius) that he is a completely self-serving liar and a murderer, and Constantine decides to murder again. Why "must we, "as Pohlsander adamantly suggests, "resolutely reject the claim of Zosimus that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins? A similar claim had already been made by Julian the Apostate [Philosopher]."
Perhaps it is time to cease being apologists for the sometime megalomaniacal Constantine. As Michael Grant notes, "It is a mocking travesty of justice to call such a murderer Constantine the Great . . ." (Grant, Michael. The Emperor Constantine. London: Phoenix Press, 1998. 226).
Keep in mind that the obverse device of this coin shows Constantine I "gazing toward God" and was struck within a year or possibly two of Constantine I murdering his first-born son and condemning him to damnatio memoriae.
Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.
|
|
![Constantine the Great, early 307 - 22 May 337 A.D.
Silvered AE 3, RIC VII 92, [b]EF[/b], 3.456g, 18.1mm, 0o, [b]Heraclea mint[/b], 327 - 329 A.D.; Obverse: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG, diademed head right, eyes to God; Reverse: D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, VOT XXX in wreath, •SMHB in exergue.
As leading numismatist Joseph Sermarini notes, "The 'looking upwards' portraits of Constantine are often described as 'gazing to Heaven (or God).' The model of these portraits is of course that of the [b]Deified Alexander the Great[/b]
(https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ssl/myforum.asp).
The Emperor Constantine I was effectively the sole ruler of the Roman world between 324 and 337 A.D.; his reign was perhaps one of the most crucial of all the emperors in determining the future course of western civilization. By beginning the process of making Christianity the religious foundation of his realm, he set the religious course for the future of Europe which remains in place to this very day. Because he replaced Rome with Constantinople as the center of imperial power, he made it clear that the city of Rome was no longer the center of power, and he also set the stage for the Middle Ages. His philosophical view of monarchy, largely spelled out in some of the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, became the foundation for the concept of the divine right of kings which prevailed in Europe.
Constantine was not a "Christian convert" in any traditional sense. He was not baptized until close to death, and while that was not an uncommon practice, the mention of Christ in his speeches and decrees is conspicuous by its absence. Eusebius, Church historian and Constantine biographer, is responsible for much of the valorization of Constantine as the Christian Emperor. The somnambulant "sign" in which Constantine was to become victor at the Milvian Bridge is, not so surprisingly, revealed to posterity long after the "fact." Throughout his reign, Constantine continues to portray himself on coins as a sun god (Freeman, Charles. [i]Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean[/i]; Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 582). Above all, Constantine was a pragmatist. It would be cynical to egregiously disavow his commitment to Christianity, but it would be equally wrong to think that he would allow Christianity to meddle in the governance of his empire. As he reputedly told a group of bishops, "You are bishops of those within the church, but I am perhaps a bishop appointed by God of those outside." Whatever the motives for his decision to support Christianity, Christianity benefitted from the arrangement; so, too, did Constantine. It was a match made in heaven.
[b]Which brings us to Crispus[/b].
Whenever I am engaged in any discussion concerning Constantine I, Crispus is never far from my mind. As historian Hans Pohlsander from SUNY notes, "[b]Crispus' end was as tragic as his career had been brilliant. His own father ordered him to be put to death.[/b] We know the year of this sad event, 326, from the [i]Consularia Constantinopolitana[/i], and the place, Pola in Istria, from Ammianus Marcellinus. [b]The circumstances, however, are less clear.[/b] Zosimus (6th c.) and Zonaras (12th c.) both report that Crispus and his stepmother Fausta were involved in an illicit relationship." And Pohlsander continues with, "There may be as much gossip as fact in their reports, but Crispus [b]must have committed[/b], or at least must have been suspected of having committed, some especially shocking offense [b]to earn him a sentence of death from his own father[/b]. He also suffered [b][i]damnatio memoriae[/i][/b], [b]his honor was never restored, and history has not recorded the fate of his wife and his child (or children)[/b](Copyright (C) 1997, Hans A. Pohlsander. Published on [i]De Imperatoribus Romanis;An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors and their Families[/i]:http://www.roman-emperors.org/crispus.htm).
But there is something terribly illogigical about Constantinian apologetics. In 294 BC, prior to the death of his father, Seleucus I; [b]Antiochus married his step-mother[/b], Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes. His elderly father reportedly instigated the marriage after discovering that his son was in danger of dying of lovesickness. If this is the way a "Pagan" father is able to express love for his son, then would not a saintly Christian love his son in at least similar measure? This particular Christian father, about whom St. Nectarios writes, "Hellenism spread by Alexander, paved the way for Christianity by the Emperor Constantine the Great," is unique. It is important to our discussion to take note of the fact that in the Greek Orthodox Church, Constantine the Great is revered as a Saint.
Now would be an appropriate time to recall what Joseph Sermarini noted above, "The 'looking upwards' portraits of Constantine are often described as 'gazing to Heaven (or God).' [b]The model of these portraits is of course that of the Deified Alexander the Great[/b](https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ssl/myforum.asp).
Isn’t it all too possible--even probable--that Constantine had been growing obsessively jealous of his ever more successful and adulated son? It is completely out of character for Constantine to merely acquiesce to being Philip to Crispus' Alexander. Remember the Constantine who has proven time and again (recall Constantine's disingenuous promise of clemency to Licinius) that he is a completely self-serving liar and a murderer, [b]and Constantine decides to murder again[/b]. Why "must we, "as Pohlsander adamantly suggests, "resolutely reject the claim of [b]Zosimus[/b] that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins? A similar claim had already been made by Julian the Apostate [Philosopher]."
Perhaps it is time to cease being apologists for the sometime megalomaniacal Constantine. As Michael Grant notes, [b]"It is a mocking travesty of justice to call such a murderer Constantine the Great . . ."[/b] (Grant, Michael. [i]The Emperor Constantine[/i]. London: Phoenix Press, 1998. 226).
[b]Keep in mind that the obverse device of this coin shows Constantine I "gazing toward God" and was struck within a year or possibly two of Constantine I murdering his first-born son and condemning him to [i]damnatio memoriae[/i].[/b]
Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.](albums/userpics/15402/CTGeyes2GodRIC7.jpg "Constantine the Great, early 307 - 22 May 337 A.D.
Silvered AE 3, RIC VII 92, [b]EF[/b], 3.456g, 18.1mm, 0o, [b]Heraclea mint[/b], 327 - 329 A.D.; Obverse: CONSTAN-TINVS AVG, diademed head right, eyes to God; Reverse: D N CONSTANTINI MAX AVG, VOT XXX in wreath, •SMHB in exergue.
As leading numismatist Joseph Sermarini notes, \"The 'looking upwards' portraits of Constantine are often described as 'gazing to Heaven (or God).' The model of these portraits is of course that of the [b]Deified Alexander the Great[/b]
(https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ssl/myforum.asp).
The Emperor Constantine I was effectively the sole ruler of the Roman world between 324 and 337 A.D.; his reign was perhaps one of the most crucial of all the emperors in determining the future course of western civilization. By beginning the process of making Christianity the religious foundation of his realm, he set the religious course for the future of Europe which remains in place to this very day. Because he replaced Rome with Constantinople as the center of imperial power, he made it clear that the city of Rome was no longer the center of power, and he also set the stage for the Middle Ages. His philosophical view of monarchy, largely spelled out in some of the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, became the foundation for the concept of the divine right of kings which prevailed in Europe.
Constantine was not a \"Christian convert\" in any traditional sense. He was not baptized until close to death, and while that was not an uncommon practice, the mention of Christ in his speeches and decrees is conspicuous by its absence. Eusebius, Church historian and Constantine biographer, is responsible for much of the valorization of Constantine as the Christian Emperor. The somnambulant \"sign\" in which Constantine was to become victor at the Milvian Bridge is, not so surprisingly, revealed to posterity long after the \"fact.\" Throughout his reign, Constantine continues to portray himself on coins as a sun god (Freeman, Charles. [i]Egypt, Greece and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean[/i]; Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 582). Above all, Constantine was a pragmatist. It would be cynical to egregiously disavow his commitment to Christianity, but it would be equally wrong to think that he would allow Christianity to meddle in the governance of his empire. As he reputedly told a group of bishops, \"You are bishops of those within the church, but I am perhaps a bishop appointed by God of those outside.\" Whatever the motives for his decision to support Christianity, Christianity benefitted from the arrangement; so, too, did Constantine. It was a match made in heaven.
[b]Which brings us to Crispus[/b].
Whenever I am engaged in any discussion concerning Constantine I, Crispus is never far from my mind. As historian Hans Pohlsander from SUNY notes, \"[b]Crispus' end was as tragic as his career had been brilliant. His own father ordered him to be put to death.[/b] We know the year of this sad event, 326, from the [i]Consularia Constantinopolitana[/i], and the place, Pola in Istria, from Ammianus Marcellinus. [b]The circumstances, however, are less clear.[/b] Zosimus (6th c.) and Zonaras (12th c.) both report that Crispus and his stepmother Fausta were involved in an illicit relationship.\" And Pohlsander continues with, \"There may be as much gossip as fact in their reports, but Crispus [b]must have committed[/b], or at least must have been suspected of having committed, some especially shocking offense [b]to earn him a sentence of death from his own father[/b]. He also suffered [b][i]damnatio memoriae[/i][/b], [b]his honor was never restored, and history has not recorded the fate of his wife and his child (or children)[/b](Copyright (C) 1997, Hans A. Pohlsander. Published on [i]De Imperatoribus Romanis;An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors and their Families[/i]:http://www.roman-emperors.org/crispus.htm).
But there is something terribly illogigical about Constantinian apologetics. In 294 BC, prior to the death of his father, Seleucus I; [b]Antiochus married his step-mother[/b], Stratonice, daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes. His elderly father reportedly instigated the marriage after discovering that his son was in danger of dying of lovesickness. If this is the way a \"Pagan\" father is able to express love for his son, then would not a saintly Christian love his son in at least similar measure? This particular Christian father, about whom St. Nectarios writes, \"Hellenism spread by Alexander, paved the way for Christianity by the Emperor Constantine the Great,\" is unique. It is important to our discussion to take note of the fact that in the Greek Orthodox Church, Constantine the Great is revered as a Saint.
Now would be an appropriate time to recall what Joseph Sermarini noted above, \"The 'looking upwards' portraits of Constantine are often described as 'gazing to Heaven (or God).' [b]The model of these portraits is of course that of the Deified Alexander the Great[/b](https://www.forumancientcoins.com/ssl/myforum.asp).
Isn’t it all too possible--even probable--that Constantine had been growing obsessively jealous of his ever more successful and adulated son? It is completely out of character for Constantine to merely acquiesce to being Philip to Crispus' Alexander. Remember the Constantine who has proven time and again (recall Constantine's disingenuous promise of clemency to Licinius) that he is a completely self-serving liar and a murderer, [b]and Constantine decides to murder again[/b]. Why \"must we, \"as Pohlsander adamantly suggests, \"resolutely reject the claim of [b]Zosimus[/b] that it was Constantine's sense of guilt over these deeds which caused him to accept Christianity, as it alone promised him forgiveness for his sins? A similar claim had already been made by Julian the Apostate [Philosopher].\"
Perhaps it is time to cease being apologists for the sometime megalomaniacal Constantine. As Michael Grant notes, [b]\"It is a mocking travesty of justice to call such a murderer Constantine the Great . . .\"[/b] (Grant, Michael. [i]The Emperor Constantine[/i]. London: Phoenix Press, 1998. 226).
[b]Keep in mind that the obverse device of this coin shows Constantine I \"gazing toward God\" and was struck within a year or possibly two of Constantine I murdering his first-born son and condemning him to [i]damnatio memoriae[/i].[/b]
Edited by J. P. Fitzgerald, Jr.")
