Policy, policy, policy...
In the long run, was the authenticity of Constantine's conversion important? He was responsible for the induction of the
Church into Imperial affairs, not necessarily because he firmly believed in
Christ, but because he
had limited political options:
For years, the Emperors
had had to find new sources of legitamacy; after the catastrophic first half of the third century, they
had tried casting about amongst the army, resulting in those that we refer to as the
Military Emperors. They quickly discovered that the army was an incredibly unstable power base, able to be bought at a
price. It is with this knowledge, that
Aurelian began to associate himself with a "companion God" (
comes)- drawing legitimacy from the divine.
Diocletian took this one step further and introduced the concept of divine anscestry (Diocletian's Iovi connection, and Maximian's
Hercules connection). Already, the practise of pagan monotheism was spreading, making the apologist's (and Constantine's, as we shall see) job far easier.
With Diocletian's
tetrarchy, came the abandonment of successionist Emperors based on familial links. This obviously didn't sit well, and both
Maxentius and Constantine usurp. Again, both figures needed to find a support base and a way of making themselves legitamite in the eyes of the power players of the Empire. Constantine did this through the
Church, as well as recognizing
Claudius Gothicus as an anscestor, giving himself an imperial lineage; which flies squarely in the
face of Diocletian's succession through
merit idea.
The Senate was essentially defunct as it did not represent the people of the Empire anymore. Constantine, or anybody in
his position needed a new base from which to draw their power. We can see that
Maxentius saw this too, as the number of Churches and clergy in the city of
Rome grew, and Christian's opinions of him as a
contemporary were relatively positive. It was only after Maxentius' defeat that the Christians of
Rome rejected him, probably as a result of the embarassment involved, and the fact that he
had secretly been allied with Daza; something that only came to light when documents to that effect were discovered after
his defeat.
Daza was continuing a pogrom initiated by
Diocletian, something that failed to such an extent that
Galerius issued
his Edict of Toleration in 311. The Great Persecution
had the effect of creating some sense of pity in some pagans, but also drove Christians and the majority of conservative pagans apart. Now, there was a very powerful and organized force seperate from the established
Roman political entity. The Persecution
had not dealt with the
Christian Question, but
had forced it into the forefront of
Roman politics.
It is under these circumstances that Constantine's vision at Milvian Bridge occurs, as we see Constantine realize what the key to the political jigsaw must be.
As is anything in politics, ambiguity is everywhere in the symbolism of the era in which Constantine conquered. Seeing as that this is a
numismatics board, it is important for us to be able to see what the seemingly contradictory messages that appear on Constantine's coinage are telling us. Constantine's
comes,
Sol Invicto, is present on the vast majority of the coinage even after Milvian Bridge. While we are accumstomed to thinking of conversion as an instantaneous moment of enlightenment, the actual event
comes about as the result of a gradual change of the way we think, and it is only with time that we can look back and see the point of change (imagined or otherwise) and how profound it was on our lives. The continued use of
Sol Invicto on coinage supports this model of conversion.
The ambiguity doesn't end there... very nearly everything that Constantine does and says for next few years after Milvian Bridge is intentionally vague: The
Edict of Milan refers only to the "Supreme Deity" and "The Divinity".
Contemporary panagyrists usually follow the same line.
His coinage also reflects this: When
Sol Invicto and other pagan
symbols disappear, they are not replaced with anything overtly
Christian within Constantine's lifetime.
I have summarised above the first 200 pages of Drake's "Constantine and the Bishops"- a
very good book well worth reading.
Was Constantine even aware of
his own conversion? Eusebius writes that Constanting called forth those who were learned in gospel following
his vision, but was
still perplexed by what it all meant. Comments? Let's get some sort of discussion going here!
Evan