Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicea
#1
[Image: rss.gif]

The Nicene Creed, a statement of faith common to Christian denominations today, was drafted during the first Council of Nicea. On August 25, A.D. 325, this council came to an...

Read more...

Source: About Ancient / Classical History
[size=75:7pd75cyp]Get the latest headlines from the About.com Ancient / Classical History GuideSite.[/size]
This is the RomanArmyTalk Newsbot. I download RSS feeds from selected websites. Ideas for additions? Email me!
Reply
#2
Quote:The heretical Arians lost, and the bishop whose name was given to the heresy was exiled to Illyria by the still pagan Emperor Constantine.

Ughhh....He renounced paganism after his victory at the Milvian bridge and was an unbaptized Christian at the time the council took place. That term may sound like an oxymoron to us moderns, but most Christians were unbaptized until they neared the end of their lives. If Constantine was a crypto-pagan he sure hid it well with his anti-pagan legislation. Plus, he made sure his sons had a Christian upbringing.

I just finished reading a book on him by Michael Grant (shudder) and even he -an atheist- believes Constantine was a sincere "convert." He also believes Constantine was an incrementalist when it came to Christianizing the empire : forbidding pagan sacrifices, withdrawing state funds from the temples, but never outright outlawing paganism. Pagan images were slowly phased out on the coinage but not completely in his lifetime. All the while he built Churches all over the empire on a massive scale - most of which were uncompleted in his own lifetime.

I never thought of the process that way before, but it sounds plausible to me.

But Grant believes that Christian disunity destabilized the empire and so Constantine, he says, contributed to the empire's fall. I don't agree with him on that because the disunity never led to civil war. Also, the, now Christian, citizens were more cohesive than they had been before. In other words, they started to "feel" like "Romans" for the very first time. The state was no longer seen as a distant oppressive alien power that ruled over their lives.

However, I do agree with Grant when he places blame on Constantine for leaving a dynastic mess by bequeathing the Empire to five men - his three sons and nephews. The same thing happened with Charlemagne after his death. Yet, Medieval kings always looked back to these two men as model Christian rulers even though they brought disaster to their empires by their dynastic arrangements.

In Grant's view, another contribution to the fall of the western empire was Constantine's military reforms. This view, the last time I checked, is not mainstream among scholars and this is where I'm dubious about analyses by popularizers like Grant who tend to oversimplify matters and are not military men. He doesn't give an alternative answer which leaves me to think that he believes that the old system based on the classical legions was what needed to be reconstructed. This view seems to ignore the new realities that Rome faced on its borders with new confederations and peoples upping the pressure against the empire. The old system wasn't designed to counteract these new forces, to my understanding. I read a book on this called "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" by Edward N. Luttwak.

Theo
Jaime
Reply
#3
Quote:If Constantine was a crypto-pagan he sure hid it well with his anti-pagan legislation.

Yes, hid it. And to understand how he actually was pagan (solar, like his father Costantius Clorus), let's see how his conversion was not a real conversion, not for his soul, for sure, but just a pragmatic way to get the full reign. It's typical of the pagan hermetic/alchemic ambients hiding the core of the truth. That makes sense if you consider that Costantinus as solar pagan, could be also an initiated and for that, accustomed to a certain sincretism. That was common in the men of the classic era, and started to end in its real and original form with the rise of the Christians since the IV century.

Anyway, during the italian campaign, worried about the magic arts often used by Maxentius in battle and convinced that because of that he never could defeat his rival (even because Iuppiter and Hercules could not succeed to help Severus and Galerius against the very Maxentius), Costantinus, according to the traditional religious roman concept of Pax Deorum, (arcaic Pax Divom) looking for a sure and actual alliance with the strongest God: the Sun! The “Summus Deusâ€
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#4
Quote:That makes sense if you consider that Costantinus as solar pagan, could be also an initiated and for that, accustomed to a certain sincretism. That was common in the men of the classic era, and started to end in its real and original form with the rise of the Christians since the IV century.

He may have been a syncretist in the beginning which would've led to his ultimate full conversion. As he learned more about Christianity he probably would've dropped such syncretic notions. If a pagan, wouldn't he be offending his god(s) since he was the Pontifex Maximus who forbade sacrifices and looted their temples ? Another hole I see in that theory is what I pointed out earlier - he sons were brought up as Christians.

Another reason I don't buy the syncretist theory is because Julian the Apostate makes no mention of it. He believed his uncle was a Christian.

Grant says that Constantine, a sincere convert in his view, feared angering God (his benefactor) after learning about God's eternal punishment from the Gospel of Matthew. The last thing he wanted to do was to lose favor from the One God who gave him victory. Lactantius also wrote a treatise On the Anger of God

Quote:in fact he says that to his councilor the christian bishop Eusebius that reported the story of the conversion in his Vita Costantini and that was already written in the panegiricus of 313 by an anonymous pagan author (anyway, Costantinus was not new to that kind of visions...: in 310, in Gallia he also saw Apollo...).

Yes, experiencing "visions" were common in this century and seems to have run in his family (e.g. Helena, his mother) Grant says that Constantine's "dream" and not necessarily his "vision" is what actually converted him. He says that Lactantius only reports the "vision" later in his life and seems to have confused the two events (assuming they both happened.) That "vision" of Apollo you mentioned was told by a Panegyrist who was merely trying to woo Constantine with the hope of being granted imperial funds for his temple to Apollo. Besides, pagan sources (especially anonymous ones) are always suspect when it comes to Constantine.



Quote:
Quote:Also, the, now Christian, citizens were more cohesive than they had been before. In other words, they started to "feel" like "Romans" for the very first time. The state was no longer seen as a distant oppressive alien power that ruled over their lives

Mmmh, some doubts about that: first of all the christian emperors and reigns don't seem so "near" to the people, on the contrary, the increasing of beurocracy and court, the terrible oppression of the tax system, the adventus instead of the classic triumphus, the emperor seen as vicar of Christ (God) were typical of the christian emperors and "alien" at the same

The new tax system was Diocletian's creation, so any further alienation due to it cannot be attributed to Constantine. There should be no doubt about the new found unity Christianity brought to the empire because the evidence is there. For example, in the West, when most citizens became Christians they looked to the Emperors to uphold Orthodoxy since they were being persecuted by the barbarians who espoused Arianism. Even in the East which was fractured by schismatic / heretical Christians, the people would rally behind the Emperor in times of Persian invasions because the Persians were well known for persecuting Christians in their empire. Contrast this with the III rd century when Palmyra and Persia invaded and took over the East - there was no popular resistance towards the Palmyrans. What did they care which alien power ruled over them ? They had nothing in common.

The cohesion of the Romans as a "people" occurred after they were Christianized. The only thing we can argue over is to what degree and how long it took - but it did happen. Paganism was too amorphous to accomplish such a feat.

Theo
Jaime
Reply
#5
With Costantinus, the moderation in the portraits and statues, the low-profile ways of autodescription by the most of the previous emperors till to decline in life any honors and acclaiming for the victories in war except when coming directly from Senate were left to be substituted by a constant and extreme exaltation of himself and his “gestaeâ€
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#6
[quote]substituted by a constant and extreme exaltation of himself and his “gestaeâ€
Jaime
Reply
#7
I have no doubt that Constantine was a Christian by the end of hislife, but can we be really sure he took that view all through his life? I mean, it's decades from Pons Milvius, and his actions are not really like that of St Paul after his vision. he seems to have to get used to the idea and its implications, and unwilling to go all the way all at once. Constantine was a shrew fellow, and I sure that even if he was won over completely he would not have let it show to avoid negative reactions or others getting a hold over him. Something like 'keep all in the dark', maybe?

So what I'm saying is, can we really know?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#8
I fully recognize the validity of your point, Voritgern. I don't think I or anyone else claims to know for sure because we can't. We can accept Constantine's word or reject it. Although, I find that most of the doubt casted about his conversion (if he did convert) has modern origins, namely, Gibbon and so makes me suspicious that some people have been influenced by his contempt for Christianity.

It's funny : nobody references Gibbon anymore because his work is hopelessly outdated but his view about Constantine endures among some modern scholars and historians. That part of his history was the most blatantly biased which marred his reputation as a serious historian.
Jaime
Reply
#9
Quote:When God became the center of all the people's lives, how could God's vice-regent on earth (as Constantine styled himself) be considered alien except to a recalcitrant pagan ? From my Catholic perspective I see him as usurping Papal authority within the Church, but even I can relate more to Constantine than to his pagan predecessors.


If I'm not wrong the President Bush has told less or more what Costantinus told: God told me directly what I have to do! Does it get him closer to the people, in the sense that the people consider him less “alienâ€
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#10
[quote]If I'm not wrong the President Bush has told less or more what Costantinus told: God told me directly what I have to do! Does it get him closer to the people, in the sense that the people consider him less “alienâ€
Jaime
Reply
#11
Quote:Back to your example : it isn't fair to compare a totally secular society like the US to a religious one like ancient/Christian Rome. In spite of that major flaw, your example does support my view : the people who attend church on a weekly basis are far more likely to support Bush. That's not my opinion, it's just what polls have showed in the past in this country. So to answer your question : a qualified yes.

I avoid to reply diffusely due to the RAT rules, but that can look exactly like the behaviour of the supporters of a european foot-ball team.

Quote:Why should that cast suspicion over their sincerity ?

Because he was always double: remember that his two main advisors Eusebius Pamphilii (of Caesarea) and Sopatres were respectively christian and pagan? And even if Costantinus was on the aryan side (descending aryanism from the neoplatonism and pagan view) at the synod of Nicea he was convinced by Hosius from Cordoba (the same egiptyan from Hispania that convinced him to become christian after the murder of Fausta and Crispus to reach that expiation before denied by the pagan clergy) to make Athanasius winner of the dispute with his homousiosity over homoiusiosity of Arius. Except after few years recall the Arians prevoiusly removed. Because copied Licinius about the vision (an angel appeared to Licinius teaching to him a pray to defeat Maximinus Daia's army at Adrianopolis in 313, and a similar vision appeared to Costantinus before the Milvian bridge battle) and signing the Licinius' tolerance edict seen his succees wtih the help of the Christians. And then another strange thing: Building Costantinopolis he made both churches and pagan temples, but scattered loads of pagan Gods statues oll the city, moreover Burckardt tells tha Costantinus founded his city affirming: “we have named the city with an aeternal name, obeying to Godâ€
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#12
A mistake: "Sacrum Cubiculum" not cubiculus...
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#13
Quote:Because copied Licinius about the vision (an angel appeared to Licinius teaching to him a pray to defeat Maximinus Daia's army at Adrianopolis in 313, and a similar vision appeared to Costantinus before the Milvian bridge battle) and signing the Licinius' tolerance edict seen his succees wtih the help of the Christians.

But Constantine defeated Maxentius in AD 311. So, Constantine could not have copied Lincinius, right ? I just checked the time line of events in my books.

What could (did) the Christians offer Constantine in AD 311 that helped him defeat Maxentius ? He attributed his victory to God and not to the Christians per se, right ?

Quote:Building Costantinopolis he made both churches and pagan temples, but scattered loads of pagan Gods statues oll the city

I read that these statues were looted from pagan temples and brought to Constantinopolis to beautify the city. In other words, they were to be seen merely as works of art.

By the way, I read that the statue of Apollo whose head was replaced by Constantine's was used in this way not to identify himself with a pagan god, rather this was done because of the scarcity of first class sculptors. This is extremely convincing, or at least plausible, since it is well attested that architects, artisans, and sculptors were in high demand, building all over the empire during Constantine's reign as sole emperor.

Even in good times the Romans recycled statues in this way - Trajan's head replaced Domitian's head on statues, for example.

Quote:Burckardt also tells that that God was surely not the God of the Christians.

Well, at the very least Constantine saw God differently from the average Christian citizen. For him, as many modern historians say, God was a (indeed, "the") god of battles or victory. So, I don't totally disagree with Burckardt's statement.

Quote:In fact, Sopatres at the foundation made several magic and symbolic actions at the presence of a grand priest of Iupiter come on purpose from Roma.

Yes, I read this too. Another theory is that this event is symbolic of his gradual gravitation toward Christianity, a slow conversion process, in other words.

Quote:As soon as Licinius told about the vision of that pray, loads of Maximinus' christian soldiers passed to Licinius that won easily... Costantinus learned the lesson...

As I wrote earlier in this post, the Battle of the Milvian bridge happened before Licinius' victory over Maximinus Daia which happened one or two years after Constantine became sole Augustus of the West. So, if anyone learned a lesson it was Lincinius.

Quote:Not in that sense, not about the increasing pay of the soldiers, but to be able to maintain strong and effective an army for his political purposes of deterrence vs. any foe, in and out of the Empire. And about buildings he was going to build outright a new Roma..

He built more than any one man, but remember that the four emperors of the tetriarchy also built up and expanded their "capitals" as well. That's four cities against Constantine's "Nova Roma."

[quote]We're telling of peace or pacifism? I stay totally on the side of the “si vis pacem para bellumâ€
Jaime
Reply
#14
Quote:But Constantine defeated Maxentius in AD 311. So, Constantine could not have copied Lincinius, right ? I just checked the time line of events in my books.


The time line is not sure: there are three accounts about Constantine's dreams or visions:

-from the Panegyrici Latini 313; the account is dated 310 or 311 and refers to a campaign against the Franks near Trier (Treviri), or Autun.

-from Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum XLIV

-from Eusebius, Vita Constantini, I.XXVI-XXVII

The earliest of the three, it's outright decidedly pagan in tone (Apollo, the sol invictus) and, like in the other two, after the vision there comes victory in battle:

“For, O Constantine, you saw, I believe, your protector Apollo, in company with Victory, offering you laurel crowns... “

According to Schaff, the account from Lactantius has been questioned by Burckhardt to have actually been composed by Lactantius himself. Surely, Schaff says, it was composed soon after the event, when Constantine was still on good terms with Licinius, because a similar vision is attributed to Licinius in chapter 46 (Constantine and Licinius agreed on religious toleration in 313):

Tunc proxima nocte Licinio quiescenti adsistit angelus dei monens, ut ocius surgeret atque oraret deum summum cum omni exercitu suo; illius fore victoriam, si fecisset.

Some important differences between the two "dreams": Licinius is guided explictly by an angel, and the angel tells him to pray to the deum summum. On the other hand, Constantine is told to emboss a generic (in the dream) signum dei on the shields. Actually the monogram appears on Constantine's coins only from 315 onwards, i.e. 3 years after the battle at the Milvian Bridge. It is not so clear how "transversa X littera, summo capite circumflexo" can be seen as the Christ's monogram: this sign is then explained to be the symbolum of Christ, but was a symbol used by the Costantinus' gallic soldiers too as solar symbol (as often we see).
The same vision of the labarum cross before the Milvian Bridge battle was reported by Eusebius only in 337 in his “Vita Costantiniâ€
TITVS/Daniele Sabatini

... Tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum
desinet ac toto surget Gens Aurea mundo,
casta faue Lucina; tuus iam regnat Apollo ...


Vergilius, Bucolicae, ecloga IV, 4-10
[Image: PRIMANI_ban2.gif]
Reply
#15
So there's a discrepancy in the sources about Constantine's victory, I didn't know that. Every book I have says AD 311, there must be a reason why they settled on this date.

I also read about the origins of the chi-ro being pagan, that perhaps it was slightly modified by Constantine. It was almost never used by Christians before him. Many forms have pagan origins, though.

The pagan statues he placed in Constantinopolis where placed outside in the open air, I believe. They weren't placed in the pagan temples of the city. So, they were to be admired by everyone as works of art from what I've read.

Quote:Any urbanist or architect (as I am) will can tell you that the resources to build a completely a new (imperial) capital are enormously bigger than those necessary for expansions or minor cities.

Byzantium was a minor town as well. I read that Diocletian greatly expanded Nicomedia to match the grandeur of his power. So, if we were to combine the building efforts of these tetriacrhs, they wouldn't rival Constantine's expansion of Byzantium ? Constantine didn't start building from scratch. The houses he built were of very poor quality. This illustrates the scarcity of skilled workers.

Quote:Maybe he was so guilty knowing well to be so? Hey, the man was tremendous: he killed loads of people, his wife, his son! He was cruel and double just because hungry of personal power! And was made saint too...

A saint of the Orthodox Church. Yes, he was cruel although I don't hold it against him. Licinius was worse. At that time, you were either cruel or dead.

If the Emperor Claudius killed both his last wife (Agrippina) and adopted son (Nero), he would've lived and his biological son (Britannicus) would have become Emperor. :wink:

Quote:After the defense or the conquer even heroes and warriors need of Peace.

Yes, I agree you need time to recover strength. But to have decade after decade of idleness is very debilitating, IMO.

Quote:Theo, I like this discussion, but it's looking like a loop...

Yes, I know. There were some loose ends I wanted to address though.

Thanks for laying out your point of view, Titvs Smile

Vale.

Theo
Jaime
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Council of Chalcedon Jona Lendering 11 3,043 10-04-2007, 10:42 PM
Last Post: Jona Lendering

Forum Jump: