In this book, Andrew J. Pottenger asks what rhetorical strategies Constantine I employed when he intervened in Christianity’s internal ecclesiastical divisions. P. has assembled forty-two Constantinian letters from a range of ancient sources through which to examine Constantine’s rhetorical engagements with the ‘Donatist Schism’ and the ‘Arian Controversy’. P. believes that these letters best reflect the emperor’s priorities and approaches to managing these disputes. Through his close reading of the texts, he has identified three recurring themes (which he calls ‘doctrines’) — ‘divine favour and agency’, ‘ecclesiastical unity’ and ‘resistance and compromise’ — which he traces through Constantine’s ecclesiastical correspondence.
The volume comprises an introduction, six chapters, a brief conclusion and an appendix. In the introduction, P. lays out his arguments and what he sees as his observations’ stakes for Constantinian scholarship. In ch. 1 (‘The Constantinian correspondence on ecclesiastical conflicts’), he explains his focus on Constantine’s letters, arguing that they represent a fuller picture of Constantine’s ‘stated perspective’ than other types of evidence.
Chs 2–5, in which P. examines the ‘doctrines’ in turn, constitute the core of the book. Ch. 2 (‘The doctrine of divine favour and agency’) examines Constantine’s view that ecclesiastical divisions constituted a threat to the Christian God’s ‘divine favour’ that had benefited him since the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Similarly, P. argues in ch. 3 (‘The doctrine of ecclesiastical unity’) that Constantine recognised two types of discord and used different rhetorics to address each. In the Donatist schism, he saw a difference of opinion about ritual matters and leadership structures, to which he responded rhetorically with metaphors of madness and sanity to promote a single Christian order. In the Arian controversy, he recognised the theological disagreement at its heart, so prioritised the importance of communion and fellowship, even if that entailed some degree of theological diversity. To do so, Constantine adopted rhetorics related to medicine and healing.
Chs 4 and 5 form a unit in which P. examines how Constantine employed the rhetoric of resistance and compromise in his responses to the different disputes. In ch. 4 (‘The doctrine of resistance and compromise: the Donatist schism’), he considers how Constantine discussed two kinds of ‘resistance’ in his treatment of the Donatists. On the one hand, Constantine cast the Donatists’ resistance to the will of God as ‘obstinate’, subtly gesturing toward the anti-Christian persecutions of his predecessors. On the other, as the situation in North Africa deteriorated between 317–321, Constantine began to encourage the Caecilianists to resist with patience as they awaited divine justice. P. argues in ch. 5 (‘The doctrine of resistance and compromise: the “Arian controversy”’) that Constantine had learned from his interactions with the Donatists and adopted what he calls ‘aesthetic arguments’ — those in which ‘an individual with authority intended to communicate the reasonableness of complying with his wishes’ (158) — in his communications concerning the debates that Arius of Alexandria had prompted. P. traces two types of aesthetic arguments used by Constantine: normative arguments (i.e. an appeal to some standard) and imitative arguments (i.e. invocation of models that should be imitated).
The last two chapters offer something of a coda. Ch. 6 (‘Projecting imperial power in ecclesiastical affairs’, 325–37) examines how Constantine applied these ‘doctrines’ in the latter years of his reign, while P. contends in the conclusion that that each doctrine ultimately failed as a ‘permanent solution’ (226) to the problems of ecclesiastical disunity. An appendix offers complete citations for the letters.
P. presents his argument clearly throughout, as he demonstrates close readings of the texts. While I am unconvinced by his use of the term ‘doctrine’, he nonetheless makes a compelling case for the recurring themes of divine favour, ecclesiastical unity and resistance and compromise. However, the chapter-by-chapter presentation of these themes suggests that they were more discrete entities than his argument supports. For instance, the ‘doctrine of ecclesiastical unity’ seems to have grown out of the ‘doctrine of divine favour’, while the ‘doctrine of resistance and compromise’ depended in part upon the ‘doctrine of ecclesiastical unity’. They were all connected. Perhaps clearer theorisation on how these doctrines related to one another would have enriched this otherwise compelling argument.
I also found P.’s decision not to discuss legal texts frustrating. To justify this, he cites the revisions laws underwent before their inclusion in the Codex Theodosianus. This choice makes sense to a degree: any reader of the Codex knows how spare some of these texts can be. While I concede that most laws explicitly about the Donatists and Arians derive from later emperors, they too can be rich and informative documents for contextualising Constantine’s rhetoric. Lawmaking was perhaps the most direct avenue by which emperors could enact their will, so it would be interesting to see how imperial laws about religion may or may not have reflected the patterns P. has described and how Constantine’s perspectives may have influenced subsequent lawmaking. As one illustration, I cannot help but wonder how broadening his scope might have enriched P.’s discussion of Constantine’s use of medicalising discourses in ch. 3. For instance, the Tetrarchs described Manichaeism as ‘like poisons’ (Coll. Leg. 15.3.4 (302)) in the early fourth century, while later emperors invoked madness and insanity to describe heresy and apostasy (see, for example, Cod. Theod. 16.1.2 (380) and 16.5.65 (438)). Comparanda like these might further have stressed that Constantine was a participant in established rhetorical tropes, even as he profoundly transformed them for his successors.
Ultimately, despite these few quibbles and the limitations of his analysis, P.’s book will offer its readers much food for thought on Constantine’s ‘stated perspective’ on the Christian controversies of his age.
