The essential insight that history is written by the victors, whilst the defeated often suffer from obscurity and neglect, is heartily reckoned with in this biography of the emperor Maxentius. Appearing at a historically symbolic moment, 1,700 years after Maxentius was defeated in the battle of the Milvian Bridge (as the preface does not fail to mention), the book is meant as an addition to the host of monographs dedicated to the victor of the battle, Constantine the Great. Not only the subject of the last emperor residing in Rome, but also a description of the emperor's life from birth to death, are worth a dedicated study. Apart from publications about the emperor's building activities (certainly the most conspicuous aspect of his reign) or his imperial policies, there are very few studies aiming at a description of the life and times of the individual man. In recent times, Maxentius. Der letzte Kaiser in Rom (H. Leppin & H. Ziemssen [2007]), although no biography, is noteworthy.
The outcome of D.'s study is disappointing, not only because of its dry style, but also as a result of the untenable stands it takes. The central thesis is that Maxentius was a convinced Christian from birth – stemming from a Christian community in Syria from which his mother Eutropia originated – and actively promoted a Christian policy during his reign (‘un empereur chrétien dans la capital du christianisme’, p. 94). It is an established fact that Maxentius supported Christians (as some tetrarchic emperors, by whom Maxentius was never recognised as their colleague, also did), but the Christian faith that D. attributes to him cannot hold. The romanitas to which Maxentius also adhered is explained by an attempt to underline the position of Rome as the capital of Christianity and to please the mainly pagan Senate. Maxentius is supposed to have organised the election of a new Pope on the Chair of Saint Peter (sic) immediately after his accession (Chapter 6 passim). It does not have to be pointed out in detail here that Rome was far from the Christian capital it later came to be, nor that the bishop of Rome cannot be considered a pope in the modern sense of the word. ‘Pope’ in the early fourth century was a colloquial denotation of a patriarch in the East, quite soon to be transferred to Rome. Rome indeed kept the record of her bishops better than any other place, but that does not mean that it positioned itself as a Christian capital, nor that it was so perceived by other Christian communities, until the liber pontificalis and Saint Peter's alleged grave came to play a role more than a century later.
Other unsupported speculations present themselves in the guise of historical conclusions, such as the supposition that the soldiers of Severus and then Galerius, who both tried to attack Maxentius in his territory in a.d. 307, deserted to the enemy camp while they knew Maxentius to be a Christian, for the majority of the soldiers, many of them of African origin, must have been Christians too (pp. 95, 98). D. is aware of the fact that many soldiers knew Maxentius as the son of their former leader Maximianus, which is the traditional and uncontested version of events, but commits the sin of petitio principii. The question why Maxentius never applied the final stroke to his averted enemies is, be it in a note (p. 99 n. 35), explained by the fact that he is led by Christian morale (without further comments on this topic).
Maxentius' main contribution to world history is postulated to have been the introduction of Christian policy in Rome, so that Constantine could simply take over the existing models with matching building activities (apart from the arch facing the Colosseum, which is said to be an original addition to the building programme by Constantine, pp. 207–9). Christianity is said to have been the trailblazer for the competing tetrarchs, who set their spin-doctors (‘chancelliers’) at work to develop their own version of monotheism, such as Sol Invictus for Constantine and the Christian god in Galerius' case – the latter died a Christian (p. 103). D. ignores the many forms of (quasi-)monotheism that arose in the course of the third century, promoted by Neoplatonism. In this atmosphere, Christianity was ranged among a variety of Roman religions, rather than the other way round. Christian faith is all-embracing in D.'s book: Maxentius lost the battle of the Milvian bridge because he made the crucial error of consulting the Sibylline books on the eve of the battle (p. 194), while Constantine applied the sign of Christ on his soldiers' shields (after which he wiped them out so the pagans were not offended; after all, says D., there are no depictions of this event on Constantine's arch, p. 180). The only addition Constantine made to Maxentius' Christian measures is the restoring of Christian property as an appendix to the ‘Edict of Milan’, a declaration of religion, of which the text is said to be conserved up to the present day (p. 196). It is the other way round: the text, in the two versions transmitted by Lactantius and Eusebius (the latter not being a translation of the former, as D. states, p. 196 n. 47) that have been understood as referring to a declaration of religious freedom, is in fact a traditional preamble to a local directive, that attests of a world view meant to separate the Christians from the pagans. Admittedly, this part of scholarship is subject to severe discussion in general.
Beyond the untenable propositions, the historical method leaves much to be desired. Before venturing upon the task of composing Maxentius' biography, D. determines which sources are biased and which are not. Eusebius, being an advocate of Constantine's cause, is treated in a stepmotherly fashion throughout the book, resulting from Eusebius' accusation of Maxentius supporting a ‘false religion’. Consequently, D. is also set against Barnes, who is said to lack ‘une analyse critique’ (p. 21 n. 70). In matters of tetrarchic reign, Kolb is the preferred scholar, though D. makes up his own version of this complex imperial institution, with Lactantius as the most favoured spokesman for the period. After the inquisitional second chapter, most of the historical questions are treated in notes (while the main text remains apodictic) by referring to often very outdated studies – so, Harnack's Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums (1924 in the bibliography, but originally 1902) is a fostered source of inspiration, whilst on a more detailed level evaluations of primary sources are rarely successful. Other important sources for fourth-century Rome are largely absent, like Ammianus Marcellinus, whose appearance would be expected in the mention of the ‘clibanarii’ (pp. 81, 165–7) at least. This is very regrettable, because the topics addressed, for which D. certainly shows affinity, are too compelling to be set aside by this kind of tendentious scholarship.
There are some misprints (e.g. the ‘concilium principis’ instead of ‘consilium’), the index is incomplete (see e.g. the entry ‘Galère’, which does not lead to D.'s debatable views discussed above) and the translations are often contentious (e.g. Historia Augusta, vita Heliogabali 34.4: imperatorum esse fortunae est: ‘ceux qui disent régner grâce au Dieux doivent en être dignes’). The portrait on the frontispiece shows the portrait of Maxentius now in Dresden, showing ‘le regard de l'empereur tourné vers le ciel’, which makes him a precursor to Constantine, who turned himself from humble mortals towards the Spiritual Empire of Christ (p. 204, repeated on p. 205, for both emperors: ‘le regard levé vers Dieu’). I wonder whether Alexander the Great would have approved of such an interpretation. One of the most interesting figures in the pre-Constantinian era, about whom such interesting developments have unfolded in recent years, still seeks the biographer he deserves.
