Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T18:17:45.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Metamorphosis of Constantine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Barbara Saylor Rodgers
Barbara Saylor Rodgers
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many have written of imperial qualities perceived or publicized, particularly of those attached to the emperor Constantine. Although only a tediously exhaustive volume could do justice to the whole subject, and any essay which does not embrace the whole runs the risk of being faulted for some omission or other, one may yet justify a particular concern. The subject of the present paper is the tension between form and function, which appears nowhere so readily as in a series of similar literary exercises spanning a number of years, and the demonstration that form will always yield to practical necessity. For example, the rise, fall, and rehabilitation of Maximian through seven of the Panegyrici Latini clearly illustrates the many functions of a standard form. Constantine's is a more complicated case which involves two kinds of form and a certain amount of Augustan posturing.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 233 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vereecke, E., ‘Le corpus des Panégyriques latins de l'époque tardive: problémes d'imitation’, L'Ant. classique 44 (1975), 141–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, should be consulted for a synopsis of earlier scholarship and the drawbacks of its methodology. Seager, R., ‘Some Imperial Virtues in the Latin Prose Panegyrics. The Demands of Propaganda and the Dynamics of Literary Composition’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 4, 1983 (1984), 129–65Google Scholar, deploring the neglect of the Panegyrici Latini, considers the often contradictory demands of political reality and the literary concerns of themes essential to the genre. Sabbah, G., ‘De la rhétorique à la communication politique: les Panégyriques latins’, Bulletin de l'Association G. Budé (1984), 363–88Google Scholar, similarly complains of the lack of multi-faceted inquiries, especially the failure of the modern investigator to unite the rhetorician and political adept in each orator. There are exceptions. Among the ‘ancients’, Pichon, René, Les demiers écrivains profanes (Paris, 1906)Google Scholar, is still worth reading. Almost everyone agrees that Galletier's, Edouard introductions and notes to the Budé edition (Les panégyriques latins [Paris, 1949, 1952, 1955])Google Scholar are exceptionally valuable, and that Sabine MacCormack has taken the Panegyrici out of an artificial vacuum and reunited them with political, social, and artistic reality in specific past time. See her Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1981)Google Scholar and works cited in the bibliography thereto. Baglivi, N., ‘Paneg. IX(12),26,5: attualita ideologica eproblemi interpretativi’, Orpheus 5 (1984), 32–67Google Scholar, discusses the peroration of the panegyric of 313 with reference to ideological themes in other panegyrics of Constantine.

2 Two qualities which I do not discuss are violence and clemency. To kill only in battle had been accounted a virtue at least since Caesar first exercised his clemency (cf. Cicero, , Marc. 17)Google Scholar, and when the young Caesar was found to be capable of ordering execution in cold blood disapproval exaggerated his victims' numbers. In later years he discovered that authority rendered mercy safer: Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), p. 2Google Scholar, observes that there was but a perceived transformation of Octavian into Augustus. A panegyrist explained that conflicting capacities somehow existed simultaneously in Constantine and manifested themselves according to circumstance (Pan. Lat. 12[9]. 10.5). Foreigners, however, did not receive the consideration reserved for citizens: two orators praised Constantine both for squandering many German lives in the games and for being unable to harm a Roman who had surrendered (Pan. Lat. 6[7].12.3 & 14.4, 20.1; 12[9].20.4 & 23.3). Further, in Nazarius' panegyric the emperor welcomes combat in the darkness which gives his mercy no occasion to operate (Pan. Lai. 4[10].23.3–4), yet those whom Constantine was eager to slaughter at Verona were Roman citizens. One must appreciate the conflict of encomiastic interests.

Praise for valour on the battlefield belongs to the genre. In extant Latin panegyric only Constantine hears himself honoured for sending countless human beings to the beasts. That both Octavian and the younger Constantine could have the unarmed killed is an interesting coincidence but neither the fact nor even the praise for it can be proven to be imitation. Clemency was another matter. Despite its being the most excellent of imperial virtues, not every emperor preferred praise to retaliation. After the taking of Rome, Constantine's benignitas and dementia were conspicuous (Pan. Lat. 4[10].33.2). He had done better than Octavian.

3 Syme (n. 2), pp. 53–4, 317–18, presents the opinion that Augustus respected only those aspects of Caesar which he found useful: once established, Augustus found it desirable to be divi filius but not to be associated with the Dictator and his actions.

4 For a brief and cogent history of the phrase and its variants as a political slogan, see Wirszubski, Ch., Liberlas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principals (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 103–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For Augustus, see, e.g. Delbrueck, R., Spdtantike Kaiserporlräts von Conslantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Weslreichs (Berlin, 1933), pp. 11–12, 36–7Google Scholar; Wright, D. H., ‘Style in the Visual Arts as Material for Social Research’, Social Research 45 (1978), 141–8Google Scholar; Rodgers, B. Saylor, ‘Constantine's Pagan Vision’, Byzantion 50 (1980), 259–78Google Scholar; and below. For Trajan, see Alföldi's, M. R. chapter ‘Das trajanische Bild Constantins’, in Die constantinische Goldprägung (Mainz, 1963), pp. 57–69Google Scholar. Alföldi's argument for Trajan would be better without the section where she argues against Augustus (and R. Delbrueck, who does not entirely ignore the Traianic model), primarily on the evidence of Julian's Caesars. Augustus the chameleon (Caes. 309a–c) does not come off so well as Alföldi claims, nor Trajan so badly, since the gods agree that he surpasses the other rulers in clemency (πρα⋯της) (327a–328b), which they found especially pleasing. This concession ill suits the argument that Julian blackened the best of emperors on his hated uncle's account.

6 From the second treatise, 368.3–377.30, happily available in the edition of D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson (Oxford, 1981). For Vereecke's objections to using Greek models for Latin texts, see below n. 29.

7 Russell and Wilson translate ⋯πιτηδε⋯ματα ‘accomplishments’, which I personally find confusing as it is the English word which I use to render res gestae.

8 Section 5.3. Although Constantine was over thirty in 306, he preferred to be described as a very young man. One should beware of being deceived by his insistence: see Barnes, T. D., The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge, MA, 1982), pp. 39–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 The children were in any case too young to rule on their own and at some time were subject to a kind of exile in Toulouse: Ausonius, Prof. 16.9–12.

10 Section 3.3; cf. 14.4: talem hunc filium tuum, qui te primus palrem fecit.

11 Section 4.2–3; the sections on Britain and barbarians other than Franks are especially weak. Constantius had thirteen years against Constantine's one. Seager (n. 1), 143 remarks upon the noteworthy distinction between the venia associated with Constantius' victoria and the terror which Constantine inspires but which robs him of opportunities for victory. Constantius' venia is significant, but Constantine's terror is the commonplace refuge taken by those who have nothing to praise.

12 The best evidence that he continued to have some power is that Constantine accepted an alliance and promotion in rank from him. Some would claim that Maximian was much more influential, even in Gaul, not only in 307 but when he tried to take control in 310. For the strongest argument, see Warmington, B. H., ‘Aspects of Constantinian Propaganda in the Panegyrici Latini’, TAPA 104 (1974), 371–7Google Scholar. Cf. Piganiol, A., L'Empereur Constamin (Paris, 1932), pp. 47–8Google Scholar. For a balanced and relatively recent narrative, see Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA. 1981), pp. 34–6Google Scholar.

13 Eusebius, , VC 1.14Google Scholar says that there are many stories about Constantius which illustrate his good qualities, and as an example he relates the incident of Constantius' empty treasury and his method of freeing himself from his senior colleagues’ criticism.

14 But not Maxentius'. At Section 12.3 the orator compares Maximian to Apollo [Helios] taking back the reins wrongly entrusted [to Phaethon]. The incompetent rector is not named. Although it is rather early to look for criticism of Maxentius, the myth fits too well to be dismissed as coincidence. It is possible that Maximian would not have noticed and probable that Constantine (and Maximian as well) would not have minded.

15 Section 12.7–8: ‘statim igitur ut praecipitantem rem publicam refrenasti et gubernacula fluitantia recepisti, omnibus spes salutis inluxit. Posuere venti, fugere nubes, fluctus resederunt, et sicubi adhuc in longinquioribus terris aliqua obversatur obscuritas aut residuus undarum pulsus immurmurat, necesse est tamen ad tuos nutus dilucescat et sileat’. One may understand that Galerius and associates had not acquiesced.

18 Lactantius, , Mort. 8.1Google Scholar; Julian, , Caes. 315a–bGoogle Scholar, Or. I 7a–b; Victor, Aurelius, Caes. 39.28–9Google Scholar; Orosius, , Adv. pag. 7.26.5–6Google Scholar.

17 The frequent allusions in the Historia Augusta are worthless. Pichon (n. 1), 93–6, gave an excellent reason decades ago for rejecting the claim: the evidence, even on inscriptions, is contradictory. Some inscriptions (e.g. CIL 9.9: abnepos, with Eutropius 9.22.1) contradict others (CIL 2.48.44; 3.3705); the Hisloria Augusta (e.g. Claud. 25.13.2) has yet a third affiliation. Julian Or. I 6d (cf. Caes. 131d) does not say what the relationship was. The panegyrist uses the vague expression avita cognatio and leaves the specifics to others. See also Syme, R., Historia Augusta Papers (1983), pp. 63–79Google Scholar ( = Botmer Historia Augusta Colloquium 1971 [1974], 237ff.). On the other side of the question, Lippold, A., ‘Constantius Caesar, Sieger iiber die Germanen-Nachfahre des Claudius Gothicus?’, Chiron 11 (1981), 347–69Google Scholar (especially 357–69), discusses the possibility that a life of Claudius was written between 297 and 305 and dedicated to Constantius, and that this biography was later incorporated into the Historia Augusta. It is an intriguing possibility that the propaganda has such an early date, but Lippold's arguments are not irrefutable. He does not cite Syme. I have difficulty with the theory because of (1) the contradictions of the evidence, (2) the orator's introduction of the information (if very few knew about it, Constantius must have suppressed publication of the life to maintain his standing as a good Tetrarch with no extra pretensions), (3) an awareness that borrowing can go two ways.

18 The other two instances are at Pan. Lat 10(2).2.1 and 2(12).4.5. For recent discussion of the ruler-cult in this oration, see Rodgers, B. Saylor, ‘Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Lalini’, Historia 35 (1986), 83–5Google Scholar; there is no mention given there to the word deus used of Constantius, and no category deus in the Appendix.

19 These are also essential elements of Constantine's early coin portraiture: see Wright (n. 5), 141–8; Belloni, G. G., ‘La bellezza divinizzante nei Panegirici e nei retratti monetali di Costantino’, CIS A 7 (1981), 213–22Google Scholar.

20 Cf. Pan. Lat. 7(6).6.2. In 321, after nearly half a century of life and fifteen years as emperor, with a grown-up son, Constantine could no longer pretend to be little more than a teenager, yet Nazarius dusts off the myth as part of his retrospection to the emperor's earliest accomplishments (Pan. Lat. 4[10]. 16.4–6, beginning ‘tu, imperator optime, inito principatu, adhuc aevi immaturus sed iam maturus imperio’).

21 For bibliography and discussion of the vision as a political statement connected with a reminder of the emperor Augustus, see Rodgers (n. 5), 270–7. In what follows, I borrow from this the references and some of the argument. See also Baglivi (n. 1), 24–5 on the content of the vision. For Belloni (n. 19), 217 (cf. 215) the vision is meant to equate ruler and Apollo.

22 See Rodgers (n. 5), 271 with n. 23.

23 Menander Rhetor, the first treatise 353.5ff. Although this oration fits exactly no category found in either treatise, it has much in common with the presbeutikos (423.7–424.32), the case being argued after the event.

24 Section 4.2–3 contains the narrative. For a recent modern reconstruction with a survey of the evidence and bibliography see Konig, I., Die gallischen Vsurpatoren von Postumus bis Tetricus (Munich, 1981), 148–57Google Scholar.

25 For a different emphasis, see Cicero, Mil. 16Google Scholar.

26 Jullian, C., Histoire de la Gaule (Paris 1926Google Scholar, repr. Brussels 1964) 7.92 with n. 3, theorizes that the renaming may rather have been done earlier in Constantius’ honour.

27 See RIC 7: Constantius appears on no coin later than 317/318. Note that he does not appear for the second conflict with Licinius. Nazarius mentions him only as the leader of the heavenly army (see below). Maximian puts in an appearance in this oration but not in Nazarius'.

28 He might, however, have exercised more restraint in his employment of rhetorical devices. Inter alia, he overuses apostrophe. See Galletier 11.118–19.

29 Vereecke (n. 1), 144–51 objects to the judging of Latin rhetoric by Greek handbooks, as if the western practitioners actually had Menander Rhetor or his like, in Greek, and no other, before them. Yet one cannot dismiss the likeness between the Greek basilikos logos of Menander Rhetor and most of the Panegyrici Latini. The form books, like grammar books, were compiled from practice and influenced by the products as much as they influenced them.

30 Cf. Sections 4.4 and 3.4, where there is the same claim of bastardy.

31 Pan. Lat. 7(6). 13.4 (‘si pro divo Augusto Actiacam victoriam tantummodo gener Agrippa confecit’) and 2(12).33.3, in a long passage comparing the battle of Actium to Theodosius' march on Italy in 389 (‘non contendam duces - nee enim principem nostrum non dicam victus Antonius, sed victor Augustus aequaverit’). Alfüdi (n. 5), pp. 60–1 cites the passage about Actium in Panegyric 12 as evidence that Constantine would not wish to be identified with Augustus. Use of what is clearly a handbook exemplum cannot be made to demonstrate something so specific.

It may be overly subtle to observe a silent indication that Constantine would do what Augustus had done. At Section 21.5 the panegyrist predicts that Constantine will extend the empire from Tuscan Albula (Viṝgil, , Aen. 8.332)Google Scholar to German Alba (Elbe: see Straub, J., ‘Alba = Elbe oder Alb?’, in Regeneratio Imperil [Darmstadt, 1972], pp. 425–6)Google Scholar: cf. Suetonius, , Aug 21.2Google Scholar. This orator, incidentally, is fond of allusions to and echoes of Virgil, the more the nearer he approaches Rome: at Sections 4.2 {Aen. 9.185), 12.3 (G. 1.508), 17.3 (Aen. 8.538–40), 18.1 (Aen. 8.31–65), 21.5 (above), 24.2 (Aen. 1.33), 26.1 (Aen. 6.724ft”.).

32 Cicero, , Phil. 13.24Google Scholar, quoting Antonius to Octavian, ‘Qu i omnia nomini debes’, cited by Syme(n. 2), 113.

33 There is an enormous literature on the subject of Ovid's intentions and the extent to which the use of Caesar in the Metamorphoses is meant as insult or parody. For a smattering of scholarly opinions from the past two decades, see Galinksy, G. K., ‘The Cipus Episode in Ovid's Metamorphoses (15.565–621)’, TAPA 98 (1967), 181–91Google Scholar and Ovid's Metamorphoses (Berkeley, 1975), pp. 259–60Google Scholar; Segal, C. P., ‘Myth and Philosophy in the Metamorphoses. Ovid's Augustanism and the Augustan Conclusio of Book XV’, AJP 90 (1969), 257–92Google Scholar; Moulton, C., ‘Ovid as Anti-Augustan: Met. 15.843–879’, CW 67 (1973), 4–7Google Scholar; Little, D. A., ‘Ovid's Eulogy of Augustus. Metamorphoses 15.851–70’, Prudentia 8 (1976), 19–35Google Scholar, and bibliography in ‘Politics in Augustan Poetry’, ANRW 2.30:1 (1982), 368–7Google Scholar; Syme, R., History in Ovid (Oxford, 1978), pp. 190–1Google Scholar; Lundstrom, S., Ovids Metamorphosen und die Politik des Kaisers (Uppsala, 1980), pp. 90–104Google Scholar. Consultation of any of these titles, especially the mor e recent ones, will reveal further bibliography.

34 So the passage appears at first blush to the assiduous reader of encomiastic orations. Lundstrom (n. 33) 93–6 has entertaining analyses of the humorous intent of Ovid's descriptions of these campaigns.

35 See Lundström 97–9 on the topics of, inter alia, adoption, begetting, and Caesarion.

36 Pacatus employed one facet of Ovid's treatment(Pan. Lat. 2[12].6.1): ‘scire obvium est qua praeditus fuerit felicitate: te genuit!’ (Cf. also Julian, , Or. I 9aGoogle Scholar.)

37 Severus and Maximianus [Galerius] in Section 3.4; Maximian's name occurs at Section 4.3.

38 Cf. Baglivi (n. 1), 44–6. Section 5.3 of the panegyric contains a nearly identical theme, there to Alexander's detriment (and quite unfairly).

39 Whoever or whatever that is. This paper does not deal with the question of Constantine's religious affiliation before or after 312.

40 Pan. Lat. 9(12).26.5; ‘quamvis enim, imperator invicte, iam divina suboles tua ad rei publicae vota successerit et adhuc speretur futura numerosior, ilia tamen erit vere beata posteritas ut, cum liberos tuos gubernaculis orbis admoveris, tu sis omnium maximus imperator’.

41 Note that the army got more honour than it gave: Section 14.5.

42 Section 4.5: ‘iam tibi quidem in erudiendo, imperator optime, non omnia proponebantur quae sequi velles, nisi quod recte factorum contemplator accerrimus, si quid secus fieret, a spectandi cura pudentes oculos abstrahebas’.

43 Lactantius, , Mort. 18.10, 24.3–5Google Scholar; Anon. Val. 2.2; Eusebius, , VC 1.12.2, 19Google Scholar; Epitome 41.2.

44 The source is Pan. Lat. 12(9).25.1.

45 Eusebius, , LC 3.5–6Google Scholar justifies and glorifies monarchy as the best form of government, earthly parallel to the celestial scheme. For the difference between Eusebius' and the Gallic viewpoint, see MacCormack (n. 1), p. 181. The Gauls had better experience of the Tetrarchs than the Christian writer had.

46 Aen. 6.794–5, 798–800. Cf. Suetonius, , Aug. 21.3Google Scholar.

47 Grégoire, Henri was right all those years ago (‘La vision de Constantin “liquidee”’, Byzamion 14 [1939], 348–9)Google Scholar when he observed that the importance of any imperial vision was political: ‘Licinius et Constantin ont pris soin de faire répandre par des ecrivains et par des orateurs a leur devotion ces histoires merveilleuses'.

48 Cf. Julian on Constantius’ ancestors, Or. I 6d 8d.

49 On the contrary: see, e.g., Julian, , ad Ath. 270c–dGoogle Scholar.