This concise survey of religious developments during the century from Constantine to Augustine offers an intriguing viewpoint focused on attitudes about miracles. H. A. Drake's starting point is what he calls “the governing idea of this century,” which he defines as “a belief . . . that supernatural support was available to individuals who gained divine favor” (2). By representing himself as an agent of the Christian God in the early fourth century, the emperor Constantine advanced the increasingly attractive notion that divine power was now on the side of Christianity. Emperors and their empire were meant to be Christian. But the ransacking of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 seemed to imply that the Christian God had failed to safeguard the empire. Augustine hence had to explain God's involvement in human affairs without relying on more miracles in support of emperors.
Drake defines miracles as “supernatural phenomena” and “events that can be explained in no other way” (7). For Christians, the sudden transition from persecution to imperial power was so unexpected that “a miracle was simply the most rational way to explain the stunning reversal in their fortunes” (21). Drake emphasizes in particular two miraculous interventions that ensured victories by Christian emperors over rival emperors. One, of course, was Constantine's famous vision of a cross in the sky; the other was the windstorm that appeared supposedly in response to Theodosius's challenge to God for assistance on a battlefield in 394. The actual winners were the bishops, such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Ambrose of Milan, who included stories about these battles in their theories of a Christian empire. “It was a vision of a Christian empire that relied on such miraculous intervention for its justification” (41). In fact, bishops deployed their stories about these miraculous spectacles to establish themselves as the true intermediaries between God and Christian believers, including emperors. Even as Eusebius acknowledged Constantine's claim to a direct relationship with God, he insisted that the emperor should listen to episcopal tutors. Ambrose likewise “repeatedly emphasizes the bishop's role in maintaining the emperor's successful relationship with the Christian God” (43–44).
The pivotal role of bishops in publicizing stories about miracles is a recurring theme in Drake's discussion. Cyril of Jerusalem noted the wide diffusion of wood from the True Cross, whose discovery at Jerusalem was attributed to Helena, Constantine's saintly mother. Epiphanius of Salamis maligned Jews for their scandalous behavior; his libels made it easier for medieval churchmen to imagine that Jews had deliberately concealed the location of the True Cross. Athanasius of Alexandria claimed that desert ascetics acquired the power to intercede with God and perform miracles. In Egypt, for instance, the great ascetic Antony could even defeat philosophers by demonstrating his mastery over demons. As a result, according to Drake, “the language of miracles began to bleed over into other forms of discourse” (156).
Pagans pushed back. The emperor Julian famously taunted Christian intellectuals for their hypocrisy in studying classical texts filled with allusions to pagan gods; he also proposed rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem simply to contradict one of Jesus's prophecies. The senator Symmachus argued that emperors could still benefit from the supernatural assistance of the traditional gods against the invading barbarians. In 410 the Visigoths seemed to prove Symmachus's point by rampaging through Rome. “Were the pagans right to point out that their gods had kept the Eternal City safe for eight hundred years, whereas Christ had blown it after a couple of decades?” (205).
Drake's interpretation of Augustine's answers to this question is also the culmination of his account of miracles. In his City of God, Augustine rejected the triumphalist narrative of Eusebius and Ambrose by dissolving the connection between miracles and imperial victories. His argument “makes a pale mockery of . . . complacent triumphalism” (218). Instead, the miracles he recorded, such as healings and exorcisms, benefitted the everyday concerns of ordinary people.
Interpreting ancient miracles poses many problems for modern historians. The easy solution is to dismiss them as signs of superstition while substituting commonsensical, or even scientific, explanations that seem more satisfying to modern readers. Drake's discussion occasionally verges on this sort of empiricist voyeurism, for instance, by raising the possibility of determining what Constantine actually saw in his vision (51). In contrast, his discussion is at its best when he keeps the focus on the stories about the miracles. These stories, as constructed and publicized by bishops and historians, were representations of past events that served partisan needs and agendas. In the face of great social and religious transformations, Drake suggests that “Christians used miracle stories to explain these changes to themselves” (9). Interpreting miracle stories as an epistemology, a comprehensive way of organizing knowledge, understanding events, and influencing behavior, has been a very effective approach for dealing with hagiography and saints' cults. Drake also underscores the seductive value of these stories for reinforcing the emergence of a Christian society organized around Christian values. The telling of these stories created textual communities identified by their common legends and their shared narratives.
The final chapter highlights the possibility of acquiring power through story-telling. Like much conventional political history, Drake's discussion is top-down, focused on the ambitions of the authors and preachers who promulgated the stories. The themes of knowledge, identity, and community have a wider resonance, however, and the next step is to imagine the reactions to these stories by readers and listeners.
