S.’s monograph examines the intertwined political and theological implications of the emergence of Constantine as a Christian emperor. It takes seriously the claims found in Christian literature that theology could shape politics, and politics shape theology, thereby positing a deep intertwining of the structures of ‘church’ and ‘state’ largely regarded as alien (if not downright inimical) to post-Enlightenment ideologies. In so doing, S. opts for a position that resembles A.W. Jones’s appraisal of thirteenth-century France (Beyond Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of Saint Louis IX [2017]).
An introduction briskly sets out the book’s theoretical framework. It suggests that explicit theoretical discussions about governance – of the sort that might once have been found in Cicero’s De re publica – are in late antiquity ‘replaced by the formal conventions and clichés of the proliferating genre of imperial panegyric’ (p. 1). Concurrently, there was a ‘(partial) migration’ of political theoretical discourses ‘from the realm of “secular” politics to that of public Christian theology’ (p. 2). That parenthetical ‘partial’ seems to me to be doing a great degree of heavy lifting. So too is the rather reductive characterisation of panegyric as ‘formal conventions and clichés’: there are many other sources where one could look for echoes of political theory in this period, from legislation to imperial iconography and epigraphy to extant historiographical works like that of Ammianus Marcellinus, sources that are rather less frequently cited throughout the book than one might expect.
The first part of the study argues that Constantine and his son Constantius II were ‘theological thinker[s] and actor[s]’ (p. 7). Chapter 1 examines developing Constantinian political theology as a response to the uncertainties that attended his bid for power first in the Western Empire and then in the East. Essentially, his Christianity is regarded as providing him with a form of cosmic legitimacy against his rivals (including his immediate predecessors). S., taking a lead from H.A. Drake, wisely judges that it is the consequences of Constantine’s opting for Christianity that are more easily traceable in our sources than anything so nebulous as the emperor’s ‘beliefs’. It is those consequences that shape the remaining discussion of Constantine’s reign in terms of interactions between the emperor and the Christian episcopate. The case of using bishops as judges in church councils underscores the essentially pragmatic approach by Constantine, albeit one underscored by a more abstract sense that the emperor had been entrusted by God with this role at the intersections of cosmic and earthly affairs. Chapter 2 develops further the question of Constantine’s relationship with the Church, particularly in matters of theological debate and how his role in such matters reflected his position as divinely ordained emperor. This is traced through several works by Eusebius of Caesarea in particular, but also by Athanasius of Alexandria, with corroboration sought in a detailed reading of Constantine’s Oration to the Assembly of the Saints. S. argues above all that Constantine’s theological statements reflect his adherence to models akin to those of Eusebius and Arius, in which a created Son ‘functions … as the intermediate step in a chain of causes extending from God to cosmos’ (p. 103).
The remaining two chapters of Part 1 examine the evolution and ultimate failure of this imperial theology in the reign of Constantius II. It rightly highlights the difficulties of conducting such an analysis given the hostile source tradition about Constantius. Much of that sought to dismantle continuities between Constantine’s policies and those of his son that S. regards as essential to any ‘proper understanding of the history of the 4th century’ (p. 127). Yet this continuity was subject to various challenges already during Constantius’ reign, not least from his dynastic rivalries with his brothers ruling in the West, Constantine II and Constans. In turn, such tensions could be exploited by bishops seeking, for instance, restoration to their sees from positions in exile: S. treats as authentic the threat of Constans to go to war with Constantius in 345 ce should he not agree to the restoration of bishops Paul to Constantinople and Athanasius to Alexandria. Constantius’ ambitions were further challenged by the usurpation of Magnentius and its aftermath, even if the defeat of the usurper offered Constantius the tantalising prospect of affirming himself as a ‘cosmic emperor’ very much in his father’s mould. Yet no sooner than such a prospect was dangled before him, it seemed to slip through Constantius’ fingers. While the mid- and late-350s were characterised by his efforts to secure ecclesiastical unity, even through coercion, by the end of his reign this was subverted by challenges to imperial unity posed, above all, by the usurpation of his cousin Julian. Following Constantius’ sudden death, S. argues that the Constantinian experiment in Christian cosmic emperorship lay in ruins.
The second part of the book explores how bishops defending the orthodoxy of the Trinitarian theology of the Council of Nicaea (325) used Constantius as a foil against which to develop an alternative vision of the Christian empire – one in which bishops, and not emperors, were the ultimate arbiters of theological truth. Chapters 5 and 6 offer detailed discussions of Constantius’ chief western critics, Lucifer of Cagliari and Hilary of Poitiers. Both authors can be seen to begin from a position in which they seek to engage with Constantius (while nevertheless averring that his theological position is deeply flawed), but ending up in strident condemnation of an emperor now decisively cast as an arch-heretic and a persecutor just as wicked as any of Constantine’s pagan predecessors. Hilary offered the most shocking verdict, claiming in In Constantium that such conduct manifested Constantius as the Antichrist. By viewing Constantius in such a light, S. argues that Lucifer and Hilary both repudiated the Constantinian conception of a cosmic emperor who could bring unity to God’s people: only through episcopal guidance could peace be restored to the Church.
A reasonably substantial epilogue considers the later trajectories of these developments. Constantius II’s ambitions for a revival of his father’s cosmic emperorship were stretched beyond breaking point by 361, when Julian’s revolt loosened the logjam and allowed for the emergence of a new framework for church–state interactions. What might have happened had Julian lived is left unclear, with his pagan revival discussed only briefly (pp. 319–20), almost as a brief side-show to the unfolding ecclesiastical narrative. The successive elevations of Jovian and the brothers Valentinian I and Valens are sensibly discussed under the twin rubrics of seeking to secure new dynastic arrangements and the need to redress the turbulent relations between emperor and church under Constantius. While Valens’ affinity with non-Nicene Christians is fully admitted, it is largely regarded as a failure (not least by impelling bishops in the East opposed to the emperor’s favoured theology to seek alliances with pro-Nicene bishops in the West). Perhaps S. is too ready to regard Valens’ death at the battle of Hadrianople as ‘a stroke of good fortune’ for the Nicenes and to regard the western emperor Gratian as firmly in the Nicene camp from the outset (pp. 329–30). Even so, there can be little doubt that under Theodosius I a pattern emerged in church–state relations, in which adherence to theological truths espoused by orthodox bishops was paramount.
The discussion is complemented by two appendices, one giving basic orientation on the dates and debates of ‘major’ fourth-century church councils (which places the councils of Constantinople and Aquileia in 381 in the wrong order: p. 342) and of the dating criteria of texts by Constantine (including the vexed question of the date and place of the Oration to the Saints) and Lucifer.
Some aspects of the presentation are, perhaps, idiosyncratic: readers seeking a general statement on the author’s approach to translating sources might not immediately think of going to p. 27 n. 72 to find it. Nevertheless, S. offers a very useful discussion, contributing to a fertile field, where in the last decade or so important studies of Constantius II have been put forward by M. Moser, P. Maraval, R. Flower and N. Baker-Brian. Even my brief discussion of S.’s arguments should indicate that the volume offers a challenge to some accepted narratives of church–state interactions in the fourth century. In some places, particularly in the discussions of Constantine, it is clear that S. aligns more with H.A. Drake (who provides the dustjacket endorsement) than with T.D. Barnes. There is, therefore, every hope that S.’s book will encourage further debate.
