Drake: Thesis, Reviews and Validity

Drake: Thesis

According to Hal Drake, Constantine’s style of governance meant utilizing consensus politics and Christianity, as a means toward the greater end of political stability, unity and legitimacy. Exploring the historical lessons that Constantine learned from his predecessor and how he ascended toward the role of emperor serves as a paradigm for his reconstituted empire. As Diocletian failed to neutralize the Christian threat, Constantine sought to “distance himself from Diocletian’s disastrous policy” (Drake, 156). Coupled with the organizational and unifying elements that Christian unity exhibited during the plague, Christianity was seen as a tool that Constantine used instrumentally. In utilizing ties to the persecution of Christians, Constantine was successfully able to mitigate the threat of both Maxentius and Licinius. While first appealing to heredity for his role as a leader, he then turned to Christianity to acquire constituents and further exploited his conversion to present himself as an “instrument of a divine plan” (Drake, 156).  As Drake further argued, Constantine’s conversion “had nothing to do with the sincerity of [his] Christianity, but [it was] a sure sign of the accuracy of his political instincts” (Drake, 221). This instinct led him to build a coalition of Bishops with power who would replace the Senate in defining his kingship and determining his subsequent agenda that followed his reign. Essentially, Constantine utilized Christianity as a one size fits all unifying factor that would address both Christians and Pagans alike. This inclusiveness through non-coercion would be the foundation for his new empire at which he was the mediator between God and the people designated by divine, not human, selection. His political agenda was defined by how he responded to the threats of internal Christian conflicts, or heresies.

The Donatist schism gives evidence to support that political stability was at the forefront for Constantine’s agenda and not these ‘heretics’. While the theological concerns of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit represent theological concerns central to the dogma of Christian faith, it also challenged the unity that Constantine needed for imperial legitimacy. Drake argued that for the case of the Donatists, “compromise and settlement was not on their agenda” (Drake, 224). Moreover, the powerful statement by Donatus II, “what has the church to do with the emperor?,” epitomized Constantine’s inherent involvement in the coalition of Bishops and Christian affairs. This schism represented the notion that although Donatus’ political and theological agenda did not include the emperor’s, religious policy and the utilization of councils to mitigate these threats were used. The political footwork Constantine engaged in to preserve his monotheistic and inclusive unity throughout the empire required toleration and patience. Moreover, Constantine’s religious toleration is meant to embrace an inclusive society in order to remain legitimate. Therefore, Drake emphasized that Constantine’s policy of toleration was not just a principle, but a tactic for his political agenda (Drake, 419). Therefore, early in his reign, Constantine was already faced with threats to his reconstituted empire and ultimately, his political agenda.

Another major challenge to Constantine’s unity was the heresy of Arius of Alexandria. While Arius sought to tackle theological concerns of defining the role of the Father and Son, the political implications proved to be a schism in Constantine’s society. Arius’ Christian society included a defined and clear orthodoxy that would focus directly on the right beliefs against the wrong ones. This theological concern went above and beyond the agenda of Constantine’s political ne as it valued salvation from a precise Christian perspective. Drake argued that Constantine’s bitter response reveals that he was “more concerned for unity than theology; with a personal agenda that required no more specific definition of worship than acknowledgement of a single ‘Divine Providence’ ” Drake, (241). It was in fact, Constantine, who sought to unify Christians and Pagans under a broader unity to achieve “the legitimacy of Constantine and his dynasty, and the existence of a Supreme God who underwrote the empire and the dynasty” (Drake, 241). Essentially, the reconstituted society that Arius argued for had theological origins while Constantine’s were political. This case epitomizes that when Bishops were given power, their influence had the capacity to be both positive and detrimental to Constantine’s agenda. Finally, Constantine’s careful treading with such crucial Christian topics represent that giving Bishops powers also meant inheriting risks to his empirical hegemony, as the case of Ambrose and the emperor Theodosius would later show.

The reconstituted society according to bishops like Ambrose involved the collective subordination of society, even the emperor. Drake argued that Ambrose’s “demand in A.D. 390 that  Theodosius to penance for sanctioning the massacre of several thousand townsfolk in Thessalonica became a pivotal moment in history of the church and state in the West” (Drake, 442). It was in fact, the realization of a newly constituted society long after the death of Constantine in which the power that the Bishops gained became everlasting. Drake epitomized this realization by the painting of Anthony Van Dyck where the confrontation between the Bishop and emperor is scattered with clues about the relationship between church and state. Most importantly, it is the triumph of the spiritual leadership of Ambrose over the imperial spear of the emperor (Drake, 445). The important distinction here is that the emperor did not have the divine status as Constantine did in early 320 when a similar confrontation with Athanasius occurred. Therefore, the reconstituted society that the Bishop Ambrose represented was not only Christian supremacy, but clerical supremacy over the emperor as the Bishops were the  divine mediators between God and the people. Just as Bishops had to appease Constantine’s political agenda in order to remain in power, these rules do not apply to the later emperors like Theodosius as they had no control over the agenda (albeit emperor Julian did pose a threat to Christian hegemony). Drake argues that this reconstitution of power also led to the manipulation of the agenda, and Christianity’s transition to coercion. 

Review and Response by Drake and Colleagues

Drake’s colleagues share a mutual understanding that he has misinterpreted the Pagan, Christian, and Jewish relationship that is so vital to his argument. According to Paula Fredrikson, Drake asserted a simplistic competition between Christians and Pagans that resulted in Christianity’s victory as it offered a more personal deity rather than the city Gods of Paganism. However, Fredrikson argued that “they [Pagans] had plenty of options at hand for closeness” (Fredrikson, 38). Ultimately, Christianity did not win out over Paganism because it was a better path to personal comfort and salvation. Moreover, because the Jews “were in fact extremely tolerant of those outside the fold ,” Fredrikson agreed that they should have been a case study for the issue of tolerance that Drake puts emphasis on regarding Christians. Moreover, Ted Barnes further noted that there was “no clear evidence for this postulated ‘religiously neutral public space’ “ between Pagans and Christians (Barnes, 383). Finally, Elizabeth Clark offered her insight that not only were the Jews completely left out of his argument, but also that Christian-Pagan relationships were not neutral simply because of Pagan monotheism as they constituted only a small minority. Clearly, we see concerns over Drake’s misrepresentation, exclusion or generalization over the complex relationships between dominant Roman religions in late antiquity. Constantine’s imperial success relied on these relationships and tensions being mitigated and Drake simply overlooked them and focused his historical lens on an accepted broad monotheism until the Bishops could retain power and change the agenda.

A second major area of concern over Drake’s analysis was his use of the modern day analogy of politics with regard to Constantine. Barnes offered criticism as he seemingly mocked Drake by labeling Constantine as an “All-American” president (Barnes, 381). He further criticized Drake as being egocentric by asserting that “the claim is true only if the book is treated as a manifestation of American popular culture” (Barnes, 381). Furthermore, he offered support by arguing that the role of a President is different from an emperor due to the fact that there is no impeachment and today offers a much more democratized society in retrospect to Constantine’s empire. Clark also agreed that the “effect of this language [using modern day political references] makes the politics of the early fourth century resonate with that of America from the Cold War to our own day” (Clark, 361). As far as the modern day analogy to a president with senators compared to an emperor with Bishops, the swords are drawn against Drake. His colleagues are asserting that the modern day analogy is not entirely appropriate for the context of Constantine and his empire in which church and state are readily fused. However, they do not totally discredit his method of analyzing the evidence as a social and political process rather than a theological one.

While being credited for his political perspective, Drake defends his argument by claiming that while it does not answer all of the loose ends, it is nonetheless a starting point for such discourse that has been neglected. No matter the details of reconstructing complex relationships and events, Drake does make coherent sense of relatively confusing evidence. By using Bishops, Constantine’s “deliberate effort to craft a stable political coalition of Pagan and Christian monotheists committed to Constantine, his dynasty and his peace” does offer a rich perspective on his intentions (Fredrikson, 37). While Clark showed interest in deciphering Constantine’s interests, she admitted that Drake’s representation of a ‘kinder, gentler’ Constantine does resonate a political figure amidst the fog of religious obscurity. In response, while Drake acknowledged that there is not concrete evidence for Constantine’s intentions or Christian-Pagan relationships, he claimed that “the way to judge these various interpretations is to ask which has done the best job of reconciling all the surviving evidence” (Drake, Hal, 364). Moreover, by using his modern analogy, he could “provide a bridge” that would allow the modern person to understand the world of Constantine (Drake, Hal, 367). By interpreting the vents from the perspective of a “mass social movement”, Drake sought to “indicate alternative ways of reading the evidence” (Drake, Hal, 368). While on the whole Drake’s argument clearly invokes skepticism with regard to details, Drake and his colleagues (except Barnes who did not have any positive regard for it) seem to understand that this style of historical analysis has been neglected and uses sociological perspectives based on policy rather than theology. 

Eusebius, In Praise of Constantine: In Praise of Constantine’s Agenda?

In writing In Praise of Constantine, Eusebius successfully  and diligently orated Constantine’s own ideology of Christianity and empire; however, the attention towards correct Christian belief and against enemies of God does suggest that Eusebius’ theological agenda is intertwined in the latter portion of the Oration. Firstly, it is critical to re-emphasize Constantine’s main ideology and that of Bishops like Eusebius. In coming to power as a Christian emperor, Constantine sought nothing more than to define the new empire in monotheistic terms that included both Pagans and Christians. His agenda meant keeping unity, despite the diversity of Christian beliefs (epitomized by the schisms of orthodoxy). Moreover, it was his divine relationship with God as a mediator between men and salvation that made him the sole leader of the new empire. The ‘one God’ philosophy could warrant him a monarchy when he had competition for the throne. Furthermore, Constantine’s need for legitimacy involved suppression of Paganism to monotheism and without blood sacrifice (albeit Drake argues that these factors were accepted relatively easily by a pagan majority), thereby reducing Christian-Pagan tensions. His tactic was tolerance and patience, one that would enable him to make the rules. Despite this congruence with Eusebius, the Bishop did have theological concerns with regard to the right beliefs and introducing the “bishops as the arbiters of imperial conduct” (Drake, 391). Essentially, while his rhetoric was toned down under the presence of Constantine, the Oration, did carry hints toward a new, intolerant, Christian order against Paganism.

Eusebius’ Oration carried tones of inclusion with Pagans through his use of inclusive language and solar imagery. Ironically, while claiming not to”[desire] to charm my hearers as it were,” Eusebius did present this in front of the emperor and even more importantly, he had learned what such consequences would be from Athanasius if he had been schismatic to Constantine’s agenda. In using universal language, Eusebius appealed to Constantine by arguing that God’s teachings would encompass  “the entire body of the people, the universal frame of earth” and act as a “substance capable of receiving all forms,” while being the “sovereign lord of all” (Eusebius). This was used instrumentally to appeal to Constantine as it sufficed his vision of one Christian empire under one divine ruler. As Drake agreed, “the language of the LC is universal and inclusive” (Drake, 383).  Indeed, while the Bishop primarily used Christianity throughout his Oration, the beginning does incorporate solar imagery that appealed to Pagan deities. Eusebius notes, “and thus our emperor, like the radiant sun, illuminates the most distant subjects of his empire” (Eusebius, 4). Surely, this type of language and these references are meant to appease Constantine’s wishes of unity within his empire of both Christians and Pagans. Despite inclusive language, Eusebius does also make a direct link between the emperor’s triumph as a legitimate ruler and his divine role as the mediator of God.

By giving praise to Constantine’s divine role as emperor, he was paying his ‘tribute’ as a player in a game that he needed to win in order to gain power for Bishops. Eusebius began by claiming that the “emperor is gifted as well as with the sacred wisdom which has immediate reference to God, as with the knowledge which concerns the interests of men”( Eusebius, 2). Again, Constantine’s legitimate, all inclusive role is emphasized, as a “source of imperial authority from above… [Constantine] aims at recalling the whole human race to the knowledge of God; proclaiming clearly in the eras of all, and clearing with powerful voice the laws of truth and godliness to all who dwell on earth” (Eusebius, 4). This evidence suggests that Eusebius was well aware of the benefits of having a Christian emperor, so he supplied verification for the emperor that the Bishops recognized his divine authority that Donatus hastily challenged earlier by questioning his involvement with the Donatist schism. Even more so, Eusebius credited the peace and tranquility of the times with Constantine’s own tactics of patience and tolerance (Eusebius, 10). Drake supplements this notion by noting that the language in other works like the Vita Constantini represent Eusebius’ own theological agenda of creating tension between Pagans and Christians. Drake argues that once the Bishops secured their power and Constantine was not part of the ‘game’, such language that “bears the mark of imperial support” in which “the Bishop mined that work [Oration to the Saints] diligently for topics that would please Constantine” were not necessary (Drake, 374). Finally, this does show in fact that the Oration, and its language, was the skillful work of not only a Bishop, but a skilled politician like Constantine. The message from the meeting was very directly directed towards the approval of Constantine, thus representing Constantine’s own ideology (as Drake interprets it). 

While the initial portion of the Oration does in fact portray Constantine’s approved message, the latter portion gives direct hints at the intolerance and patronage of the new Christian order Eusebius had on his political agenda. For instance, Drake noted that Constantine’s sons “picked up Eusebius’ cue” and took an offensive stance against Paganism (Drake, 402). These politics of intolerance truly do stem from Eusebius’ Oration in a faint fashion. Although Constantine promoted an inclusive society and renounced Pagan sacrifice, he did have patience and tolerance as a tactic. Eusebius, however, hints in chapters VI, VII and VIII that pagan practices and worship were evil and thus directly against the teachings  of Christianity. Thus, Drake’s argument about “resisting Satan,” turned into the driving force that would be the tensions between Christians and Pagans after Constantine is dead and Bishops have control of the agenda. Finally, the attention that Eusebius pays to the decrement of sacrifice and precise detail of the Trinity within the latter chapters represent his concerns for a Christianity that is not inclusive like Constantine wanted for his legitimate, unified empire.

Works Cited

Barnes, T. D. . "Review: Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance by H. A. Drake." Phoenix 54, no. 3/4 (2000): 381-383.

Clark, Elizabeth . "Article Review: Hal Drake's Constantine and the Bishops." Scottish Journal of Theology  55, no. 3 (2002): 356-362.

Drake, H. A.. Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Ancient Society and History). New Ed ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Drake, Hal. "A response to Liz Clark." Scottish Journal of Theology  55, no. 3 (2002): 363-368.

Fredriksen, Paula. "Lambs Into Lions." Scottish Journal of Theology  55, no. 3 (2002): 35-39.