1. The problem of Eusebius' authorship of the Vita will be a continuing one. H. Grégoire argues for a Eusebian kernel with later additions: “Eusèbe n'est pas l'auteur de la ‘Vita Constantini’ dans sa forme actuelle et Constantin n'est pas ‘converti’ en 312,” Byzantion, 13 (1938), 561–83Google Scholar. J. Vogt discounts Grégoire's suggestion that the faulty account of the war between Constantine and Licinius points to later interpolation:“Die Vita Constantini des Eusebius über den Konflikt Zwischen Constantin und Licinius,” Historia, 2 (1953-1954), 463–71Google Scholar. Downey, G. in “The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople: a Contribution to the Criticism of the Vita Constantini attributed to Eusebius,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 6 (1951), 53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, accepts the addition of later material as does Moreau, J.: “Zum Problem der Vita Constantini,” Historia, 4 (1955), 234–45Google Scholar. Vittinghoff's, F. “Eusebius als Verfasser der 'Vita Constantini,” Rh. Mus., 96 (1953), 330–73Google Scholar stresses Eusebian authorship as do Winklemann's, F. W. “Zur Geschichte des Authentizitatsproblem der Vita Constantini,” Klio, 40 (1962), 187–243Google Scholar, and Die Vita Constantini des Eusebius: Ihre Authentizität, Diss. Halle (1959), at chap. 2Google Scholar. Most scholars accept a Eusebian kernel but also accept later redaction, the exact extent of which awaits a definitive study: Baynes, N. H., “Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,” Proc. Brit. Acad., 15 (1929)Google Scholar, note 18 (i) and the earlier literature cited; Morean, , “Eusebius von Caesares” Real. f. Ant. u. christ., 6, 1073–74Google Scholar. Schwartz, accepting Eusebian authorship, does not treat the problem: “Eusebius von Caesarea,” RE 61, 1422–27Google Scholar.

For the purpose of this essay, note that the image of Constantine attributed to Eusebius is derived from “non-controversial” passages in the V.C.: that is, passages which a later interpolator would have had no reason to add. For example, there is no reason to doubt that it was Eusebius, not a redactor, who made references to Constantine's closeness to the divine or to the emperor's piety, or to the benefits of his reign. There are, however, two problems, both of which relate to Eusebius' image of Constantinus victor: (1) There is discrepancy between Eusebius' professed purpose in the V.C. (I, 11Google Scholar) to relate only those events pertaining to Constantine's religious character and the content of the Vita which includes such things as military successes (I, 25, 26–40, 46; IV, 5–6: Downey, , Dum. Oaks Pap., 6 [1951], 62–63Google Scholar. These passages may have been added later, but this is not certain and two other interpretations are equally valid: perhaps Eusebius felt that Constantine's military success did pertain to his religious character in the sense that victory was an outstanding example of the close ties between God and Constantine or, Eusebius, being carried away by his panegyric, simply did not adhere to his professed purpose. (2) It has been suggested that the connection of the labarum with the victory of 312 is the work of a later redactor (on this see note 26 below). There is no conclusive evidence of this.

2. Although there has been much discussion about the purpose of the Vita the complete image of Constantine has not been noticed: Foakes-Jackson, F. J., Eusebius Pamphili (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933), pp. 102–14Google Scholar; Downey, , Dum. Oaks Pap., 6 (1951), 61–65Google Scholar; Telfer, W., “The Author's Purpose in the Vita Constantini,” Texte und Untersuchungen, 68 (1957), 157–67Google Scholar; Vogt, , “Constantinus der Grosse,” Real. f. Ant. u. Christ., 3, 371–72Google Scholar; Moreau, “Vérité historique et propagande politique chez Lactance et dans Vita Constantini,” Annales Universitatis Saraviensis (Philos. Lett.), 4 (1955), 89–97Google Scholar; Schwartz, , RE 61, 1422–23 and 1426–27Google Scholar; but not Wallace-Hadrill, D. S., Eusebius of Caesarea (Westminster, Maryland, Canterbury Press, 1961)Google Scholar. Schwartz, Both (RE 61, 1423)Google Scholar and Moreau, (Real. f. Ant. u. Christ., 6, 1073)Google Scholar, however, do refer to the famous passage in the V.C. (I, 3, 4)Google Scholar relating to the emperor's image where Eusebius remarks that, above all emperors, Constantine was a friend of God and model of Christian life to men.

3. Eusebius' political philosophy, perhaps deriving from Hellenistic theories of kingship, involved the view that the empire was an earthly copy of the rule of God in heaven, with the emperor being a representative of the godhead: Baynes, , Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London: Athlone Press, 1955), pp. 168–72.Google Scholar

4. V.C. II, 12; III, 1.Google Scholar

5. H.E. X, 9Google Scholar. The general view of the character of books IX and X of the H.E. is expressed by Schwartz, (RE 61, 1423)Google Scholar: “Die letzten Bücher der Kirchengeschichte sindeben nicht Zeitgeschichte in strengen Sinn, sondern ein kirchliches und politisches Pamphlet…” Eusebius' image of Constantine appears most vivid in the Vita but is supported by the last two books of the Church History, both of which were written after Constantine's conversion.

6. V.C. I, 5, 6, 46.Google Scholar

7. Ibid., II, 15.

8. Lact. de mort. pers. 44; Zos. II, 16; Eus. H.E. IX, 9Google Scholar and V.C. I, 36.Google Scholar

9. Lact. de mort. pers. 46.

10. V.C. II, 4.Google Scholar

11. H.E. X, 2.Google Scholar

12. de mort. pers. 48.

13. H.E. X, 5.Google Scholar

14. Licinius' impiety: H.E. X, 8, 9Google Scholar; V.C. II, 2, 12.Google Scholar

15. H.E. IX, 9, 11; X, 2, 8.Google Scholar

16. V.C. I, 59.Google Scholar

17. H.E. X, 9.Google Scholar

18. V.C. I, 11.Google Scholar

19. Ibid., IV, 53.

20. Ibid., 8.

21. Ibid., I, 6.

22. Ibid., II, 19. This title is mentioned in the same breath with the piety of Constantine and the acknowledgement that the victories behind the title are God-given.

23. H.E.. IX, 9Google Scholar; V.C. I, 39.Google Scholar

24. V.C. IV, 20.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., II, 5.

26. Although the Vita, in its present form, connects the labarum with Constantine's victory at the Milvian Bridge there is a question of exactly when it was adopted as the standard of the army—A.D. 312, 324, or at some time in between: Baynes, “Const. and the Christ. Ch.,” note 33; Vogt, , Real. f. Ant. u. Christ., 3, 323–25Google Scholar; Grosse, , “Labarum,” RE 121, 241Google Scholar. Grégoire argues that the whole account of the vision can be attributed to later interpolation but includes no specific remarks about the labarum: “La vision de Constantin 'liquidee,” Byzantion, 14 (1939), 341–51Google Scholar. The labarum, as described in the Vita (I, 31)Google Scholar, cannot be accurate for 312 A.D. but Eusebius may have been describing it as he knew it later or the detailed description could have been added by a later redactor. It cannot be conclusively stated that the labarum, in some form, was not adopted by Constantine's army at the battle in 312. The Vita presents the labarum as the constant safeguard of the army from 312 (the labarum in the V.C.: I, 28–31, 37, 40Google Scholar — here the “salutary symbol” is the safeguard of the government and the whole empire; II, 3–9, 16, 55; III, 2, 3; IV, 5, 21).

27. Eg. V.C. II, 3, 8, 9.Google Scholar

28. Ibid., II, 7.

29. Ibid., I, 31.

30. Ibid., II, 3.

31. Ibid., I, 32. H.E. IX, 9Google Scholar. See also Tert. Adv. Marcion., IV. 20.Google Scholar

32. On the trophy: Picard, G. C., Les Trophées Romaines (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1957)Google Scholar; Janssen, A. J., Het Antieke Tropaion (Lederberg-Gent: Drukkeij Erasmus, 1957)Google Scholar, is especially valuable as a catalogue of literary and artistic references, although the study substantially ends with the close of the second century A.D.; Lammert, , “Tropaion,” RE 7 A ¹663–73Google Scholar; Reinach, , “Tropaeum,” Daremberg-Saglio, 5, 497–518Google Scholar is most helpful for artistic references; Woelcke's, K. fundamental Beiträge zur Geschichte des Tropaions (Bonn: Georgi, 1911)Google Scholar is not useful for the imperial period.

Eusebius applied the word “trophy” to more than the labarum. For example, he referred to the remains of Peter, and Paul, as “trophies” (H.E. II, 25)Google Scholar, On this passage see Careopino, J., Etudes d'histoire chretienne (Paris: A. Michel, 1953), pp. 251–58Google Scholar and Bernardi, E., “Let Mot ‘tropaion’ applique aux martyrs,” Vigil. Christ., 8 (1954), 174–75.Google Scholar

33. V.C. I, 4.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., I, 19, 20; IV, 1.

35. Ibid., IV, 2.

36. Ibid., II, 22.

37. Ibid., II, 20.

38. Ibid., I, 9.

39. Ibid., II, 13.

40. Eusebius, here, makes Constantine very little different from earlier emperors. Charlesworth, M. P., “Pietas and Victoria: The Emperor and the Citizen,” JRS, 33 (1943), 1Google Scholar: “… the consecutive (and almost casual) connection of these adjectives: because the emperor is pius the gods will render him felix (for felicitas is their gift to their favorites) and his felicitas is best demonstrated in his being invictus.”

41. V.C. IV, 33.Google Scholar

42. Ibid., XV, 35.

43. Ibid., IV, 36. Also Soc. H.E. I, 9Google Scholar and Theod. H.E. I, 15.Google Scholar

44. V.C. III, 61Google Scholar. Constantine considered Eusebius as being worthy to be bishop of the whole world—Soz. H.E. II, 19.Google Scholar

45. V.C. I, 10, 28.Google Scholar

46. Ibid., IV, 7.

47. Ibid., II, 8, 9.

48. Ibid., I, 32.

49. Ibid., II, 63.

50. Ibid., II, 4.

51. Ibid., IV, 24.

52. Ibid., I, 42.

53. Ibid.

54. Ibid., II, 4; IV, 56.

55. Ibid., I, 42.

56. Ibid., IV, 18, 52.

57. The authenticity of the Constantinian documents preserved in the V.C. and by Optatus and Athanasius is no longer seriously questioned: Baynes, , “Const. and the Christ. Ch.,” notes 18 (i), 46, 59, 64Google Scholar; Moreau, , Real. f. Ant. u. Christ., 6, 1074Google Scholar; Schwartz, , RE, 61, 1423Google Scholar; Vogt, , Real. f. Ant. u. Christ., 3, 362Google Scholar. The strongest evidence for the genuineness of the documents in the Vita came with the discovery of a papyrus that guaranteed the authenticity of Constantine's letter to the provincials following his defeat of Licinius (V.C. II, 27–28Google Scholar with the end of 26 and the beginning of 29). On this: Jones, A. H. M., “Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' Life of Constantine,” Jour. Ecc. Hist., 5 (1954), 196–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58. V.C. II, 46.Google Scholar

59. Opt. App. IX.

60. V.C. IV, 11.Google Scholar

61. Ibid., II, 24.

62. Eus. H.E. X, 7.Google Scholar

63. V.C. II, 29.Google Scholar

64. Opt. App. III.

65. Ibid., App. V; VI.

66. Eus. H.E. X, 7.Google Scholar

67. Opt. App. III.

68. V.C. II, 28, 42.Google Scholar

69. Ibid., II, 71.

70. Ibid., II, 49; III, 52.

71. Ibid., IV, 13.

72. Opt. App. V.

73. V.C. II, 28.Google Scholar

74. Ibid., II, 27; IV, 12.

75. Ibid., II, 54; IV, 10.

76. Ibid., II, 55; III, 52.

77. Opt. App. X.

78. V.C. II, 65; 67.Google Scholar

79. Ibid., II, 28.

80. Ibid., II, 55.

81. Ibid., II, 42; III, 17.

82. Ibid., II, 28, 29, 31; Opt. App. VIII; Athan. Apol. c. Ar. 86.

83. V.C. II, 46; IV, 9.Google Scholar

84. Ibid., II, 59.

85. Ibid., II, 56.

86. Ibid., III, 60.

87. Opt. App. III.

88. V.C. III, 17; IV, 42.Google Scholar

89. Ibid., II, 65.

90. Except for one brief reference (V.C. II, 66Google Scholar) where he makes a vague statement suggesting that Constantine settled the dispute, Eusebius ignores the Donatist problem presumably because Constantine's lack of success in solving it would blemish his image of felicitas.

91. Benjamin, (“Constantinus der Grosse,” RE, 41, 1024)Google Scholar correctly refers to Constantine's concern with “bad luck” as a result of disunity. It was apparently of no significance to Eusebius that Constantine, although lacking training in theological matters, single-handedly directed the solution of the Arian problem, again, because the perseverance of disunity would tarnish his felicitas.

92. Ziegler, (“Panegyrikos,” RE, 183, 571–581)Google Scholar makes no attempt to discuss the content of the XII Panegyrici Latini, confining his remarks to problems of dating, authorship, and text. Born, L. K. (“The Perfect Prince according to the Latin Panegyricists,” Amer. Jour. Phil.,” 15 [1934], 20–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar especially at 21–23) discusses only the qualities of a good ruler. Pietas is not mentioned, there is only one reference to the emperor victor (23: “The prince should be a good soldier;”), and the interest of panegyricists before Eusebius in divine forces is neglected. J. Mesk analyzes the panegyries only in terms of rhetorical types: “Zur technik der lateinischen Panegyriker,” Rh. Mus., 67 (1912), 569–90.Google Scholar

93. Pan. IX, 26; X, 7. All references to the panegyrics are to Galletier, E., Panegyriques latines, 3 vols. (Paris: Societe d'Edition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1949-1955).Google Scholar

94. Ibid., II, 1; VII, 3, 9.

95. Ibid., VI, 16; X, 9.

96. Ibid., III, 6; Pliny, Pan. 5.

97. Pan. II, 10.

98. Ibid., II, 6, 7, 11; VI, 8, 13; VII, 20; IX, 2; X, 13, 16.

99. Ibid., IX, 4.

100. Pliny, Pan. 1.

101. Pan. I, 2, 14; III, 2.

102. . Pliny, Pan. 14 (the divinity of Trajan's father).

103. Pan. X, 14; VI, 3, 14.

104. Ibid., VII, 2.

105. Hercules: Pan. II, 1, 2; VI, 2, 8, 11. Jupiter: VI, 12. Apollo: VII, 21, 22.

106. Pan. VI, 1; VII, 20; X, 26.

107. Ibid., IX, 4; X, 7, 12.

108. Ibid., II, 1; VI, 2; VII, 7, 8.

109. Ibid., VIII, 7.

110. Ibid., VII, 1.

111. Ibid., III, 18. Pietas and felicitas are closely related: Pan. III, 6, 13, 19.

112. Ibid., VII, 20.

113. Ibid., VII, 14.

114. Ibid., VI, 2.

115. Ibid., IV, 12.

116. Ibid., IX, 10.

117. Ibid., IV, 2; X, 16.

118. Ibid., IX, 2; X, 7 (circumstances were varios at volubiles), 17, 19. Pliny, Pan. 13: Trajan shared the inconveniences of the campaign with his soldiers.

119. Pan. VIII, 11.

120. Ibid., IX, 9.

121. Eg., justice, generosity, prudence, moderation, courage, diligence, clemency, liberality, indulgence, leniency.