The Roman Emperor Constantine was a key figure in antiquity. His conversion to Christianity at the beginning of the 4 e century led to a transformation of the Roman Empire. Without Constantine, Christianity may never have gained such a strong hold on the West. Yet this does not mean that his emperorship involved a break with the past. In many ways it is a continuation of ancient Roman (imperial) virtues and traditions.
The Arch of Constantine is probably the most famous monument left by this emperor in Rome. It can still be admired in Rome, next to the Colosseum. Over the centuries, the arch was the subject of beautiful etchings and other images. But above all, there have been many scientific discussions about it. An important instigator in this was Edward Gibbon. In 1776, this English historian indignantly stated that the arch had images from the time of 2 e century emperors such as Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius.
Over the past twenty years, scientists have started to think differently about this spolia (ornaments removed from older monuments to embellish a new monument). The reuse of the reliefs need not be a sign of decay at all, as Gibbon believed. By displaying images of previous emperors in a new victory arc, the new emperor placed himself in a tradition of good emperorship.
One of the reliefs in the arch, the donatio relief, shows Constantine giving money to his subjects. Statues of Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian can be seen next to Constantine. The portrait of Constantine himself is modeled after that of Augustus and Trajan. These ancient examples of 'good' emperorship in a contemporary arc reflect the tension between innovation and tradition, a tension that was characteristic of Constantine's emperorship.
The same double message is also to be found in the famous inscription on the arch:“To Imperator Caesar Flavius Constantine, the greatest, pious and happy, Augustus, the senate and people of Rome, because by the inspiration of a divinity and greatness of spirit with his army defeated the tyrant and his whole faction at the same time with just weapons in favor of the state, dedicated this arch as a monument to his triumph:to the liberator of the city, to the founder of tranquility.”
Due to the many references to pagan rituals of earlier emperors (sacrifices to Diana, Apollo, Hercules and Silvanus; the many references to the Sun God), the 'deity' mentioned here is not directly reminiscent of the Christian god. Yet that is what some scientists argue. The inscription, they say, is a sign of Constantine's changed religious preference. However, in order not to offend people, this is done in veiled terms.
In all discussions about what the famous Arch of Constantine wants to be traditional or innovative, pagan or Christian Sometimes an important point is lost. The arch was not designed by Constantine. The monument was most likely intended for Maxentius (emperor from 306 to 312). It was almost finished when Constantijn took the victory at the Milvian Bridge.
This, of course, still leaves the possibility that the spolia covering did come about under Constantine. But even then it was not necessarily the emperor himself who determined the message on the bow. The arch was an honorary arch before the emperor. The message it conveys probably says more about the wishes of the senators who erected the arch than the wishes of the emperor. Through the reliefs full of traditional virtues and references to earlier good emperors, senators showed the emperor how a good ruler should act.
Decay
The discussions surrounding Constantine's arc are illustrative of how diverse the appreciation of the emperorship of the first Christian Roman ruler is. Normative terms such as beautiful and ugly and good and bad are not avoided. There is extensive debate about the nature of Constantine's Christianity and his moment of conversion. His reign is often seen as a historical start or end point.
Numerous books and articles limit their period of research with the emperorship of Constantine. Constantine is often presented as 'the Great', while the time in which he reigned (and especially the time afterwards) is judged quite negatively. Admiration for the man and his deeds often goes hand in hand with contempt for late Antiquity whose reign would be the beginning. A common statement is that Constantine managed to postpone the inevitable decline through his innovations.
Constantine's choice for Christianity plays an important role in such discussions. His conversion would be an indication of the innovative character of the emperorship. After systematic persecutions of Christians under his predecessors particularly in the period 303-311 Constantine decided to pursue a pro-Christian policy.
This was, of course, the main reason why he was nicknamed 'the Great', as was Theodosius (379-395) who proclaimed Christianity the Roman state religion in 391. Constantine's choice for the Christian god, however, was less revolutionary than is often stated.
Sol Invictus
Already in the 3 e century, some emperors had tried to place themselves under the care of a “new” deity. Sometimes this led to extremes, such as when the eccentric Heliogabalus the god of the same name (who was worshiped in the form of a black stone) in late 220 declared the new supreme god of Rome and himself its high priest. Emperor Aurelian (270-275), more than a generation before Constantine, promoted the position of the invincible sun god (Sol Invictus) so much that it could almost be called a state religion. Because one god was increasingly seen as the supreme god, the transition to monotheism was easier, and Constantine's transition to Christianity was less revolutionary than it sometimes seems.
The question of whether Constantine has "sincerely" repented cannot be answered. It is interesting, however, that at least one of the times when Constantine is said to have had a vision (in 310) a solar halo was visible. And if the aforementioned inscription on the Arch of Constantine does indeed come from senators, it seems very likely that they were aware of the emperor's preference for a new god (Sol or the Christian god) and that in traditional terms tried to catch.
This indicates that no later than 315 the emperor's affinity for a new deity was known. Even if this involved the Christian god, it was not a shocking innovation; only a new dominant deity had to be framed in the pantheon of Roman gods.
Constantine Christianity was part of a traditional imperial association with the divine. A new emperor, founder of an intended new dynasty, had to get the support of his own deity. The Christian god as a choice was (relatively) new, but the role assigned to it was not uncommon.
Divine Status
Constantine's choice for Christianity turned out to be an important innovation. From the 4 e century, with the exception of Julian the Apostate (361-363), all Roman emperors were Christian. This promoted the growth of Christianity, and had important consequences both for the organization of the early church and for the way the unity of faith was defended. But did the choice also change the way the emperorship took shape? That seems to be not too bad.
In a number of areas Constantine's emperorship was less innovative than tradition would have us believe. Due to the great historical success of the Christian church to which the emperor turned out to have finally committed himself, his rule also seemed to be a new starting point. But that's afterwards. During Constantine's reign it was of course not yet clear that Christianity would also be supported by the emperors for a longer period of time. The gods Heliogabalus and, to a lesser extent, Sol Invictus had quickly lost popularity after brief imperial support. Bishops could fear that the same fate would await their god.
The 4
e
century historian Eusebius made it clear again and again in his Life of Constantine that the successes of the emperor not least his famous victory at the Milvian bridge were ultimately the successes of the Christian god. It will not be a coincidence that at the beginning and end of the work Constantine's sons (who were also his intended successors) were regularly exhorted to follow their father's policy in all aspects. Constantine had to be 'exemplary'.
That worked. Constantine became the famous founder of a new capital of the empire. In addition, he turned out to be the first imperial "saint", whose attempts to place himself above the bishops at the head of the Christian church would ultimately have consequences for both the church and the (Byzantine) emperors. But perhaps Constantine himself had a different posthumous reputation in mind.
His sarcophagus was after being taken in a spectacular procession from Nicomedia to Constantinople placed in the Church of the Holy Apostles built under Constantine. According to a decision made by the emperor during his lifetime, the sarcophagus was located in the center of the monuments to the Twelve Apostles, in the place where Christ was expected. Constantine seems to be claiming some sort of divine status for himself - as many Roman emperors had done before him.
Ancient Imperial Virtue
The role Constantine would eventually assume as "the first Christian emperor" makes it difficult to separate his actions from their ultimate consequences. Added to this is the historical bias that is inevitably associated with "heroes". Many of the churches in Rome later attributed to Constantine do not appear to have been built during his reign. Administrative measures that brought peace to the empire built on decisions of predecessors.
Even the choice of Constantinople as an important new city seems to have been taken by Constantine's last opponent Licinius (308-325). This does not make Constantine a minor emperor, but it does make it clear that, like many Roman emperors before him, he mainly experimented with the leeway that various available conventions allowed him. All Roman emperors who seized power after a civil war and tried to found a dynasty had to distance themselves from their immediate predecessors. They also had to make it clear that they were able to bring prosperity and peace, better than others, - and that could only be done in Rome with divine support.
Constantine and those around him made creative use of existing traditions, linking them to the deity to whom he had linked his destiny - like many emperors before him. However, the innovative character of the Christian religion does not mean that Constantine's emperorship was also innovative. He brought the ancient imperial virtue pietas (piety) strongly forward and attached it to a new god. Countless Roman emperors had done the same. In many respects Constantine's emperorship was completely traditional.