Of Constantine (Panegyric VI, Lactantius' De Mortibus
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Man of Visions: A New Examination of the Vision(s) of Constantine (Panegyric VI, Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum, and Eusebius’ De vita Constantini) Rajiv Kumar Bhola Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy degree in Religious Studies Department of Classics and Religious Studies Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © Rajiv Kumar Bhola, Ottawa, Canada, 2015 ABSTRACT Rajiv Kumar Bhola, ‘A Man of Visions: A New Examination of the Vision(s) of Constantine (Panegyric VI, Lactantius’ De mortibus persecutorum, and Eusebius’ De vita Constantini)’ Dissertation Supervisor: Pierluigi Piovanelli This study seeks to address three main questions: How do Panegyric VI, Lactantius, and Eusebius characterise and utilise their respective visions in their narratives? In what ways are they similar and/or different? Are some or all of the accounts related and, if so, how do they contribute to the Christian Vision legend? In Chapter One the vision narrative in Panegyric VI is deconstructed to show that the panegyrist describes the vision as taking place on Constantine’s return march from Massalia and that he is describing a dream-vision that took place at the sanctuary of Apollo at Grand. In Chapter Two it is argued that: Lactantius never resided in Gaul; he places the vision incorrectly in 312 because he did not know the details of the tradition and used Licinius’ dream as a template; and the Christian character of the vision is part of his interpretation. In Chapter Three Eusebius’ account is deconstructed to show that: the vision story derives from Constantine ca. 336; there is evidence that Constantine was reconstructing his past experiences; Eusebius inserted parallels with St. Paul to give the appearance of a conversion narrative; and Constantine’s actual story shows little influence of Christian socialisation. In each chapter the core elements of the narratives are highlighted: each describes a dream-vision, in which a deity appears to Constantine with a promise of victory and a token representation of that promise. In Chapter Four it is argued that Lactantius and Eusebius are describing the same symbol, which is a tau-cross with a loop; and that the panegyrist and Eusebius describe the same vision: they give the same chronology, but the panegyrist avoids referencing a solar halo because it was an inopportune omen of civil war. In conclusion, all three sources describe the same experience from different perspectives: the vision of Apollo was being constantly adapted to incorporate new historical developments. Appended also is an argument for redating Panegyric VI to August 309 on the basis of the narratives of the panegyrist and Lactantius, as well as archaeological investigations at Cologne (Constantine’s bridge over the Rhine) and Deutz (Castellum Divitia). ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As convoluted a topic as the life and reign of the emperor Constantine can be, I have found it far easier to write at length about him than this short note of gratitude, for the simple reason that I have had the pleasure of working with almost every member of the Department of Classics and Religious Studies in some capacity or other over the years, as well as members of various other departments at the University of Ottawa, and faculty at Carleton University and St. Paul University. Whether they realise it or not, each and every interaction, no matter what the subject, contributed enormously to the conceptualisation of my topic, and it pains me that I cannot name everyone here that has been an influence to me. First and foremost, my sincerest gratitude goes to my doctoral supervisor, Professor Pierluigi Piovanelli, who has been a mentor to me ever since my beginnings in the doctoral program, even before I became his student. His consistent attentiveness, sympathy, and constructive criticism, as well as his own academic passion and open-mindedness, motivated me to take this study to the lengths and in the directions that I have. His knowledge and zeal never cease to amaze me; it has been a true pleasure to work with him. This dissertation would not be what it is without him, and whatever mistakes or errors in judgement remain rest squarely with me. Additionally, I must acknowledge the guidance, direction, and encouragement that I have received from Professors Geoffrey Greatrex, Richard Burgess, Dominique Côté, Adele Reinhartz, and Raymond Clark, who were always charitable with their time, knowledge, and assistance. Professors Burgess and Greatrex in particular, as well as Professor Emeritus John Yardley, who stimulated me to put my experience as a former BA English Literature student to use in Classical Studies, consistently challenged me and so profoundly influenced me in ways that defy description. I am grateful also to Professors Emma Anderson, who helped me to formulate my approach to Constantine’s ‘conversion narrative’, Theodore de Bruyn, who iii was a respondent to a preliminary version I presented of my analysis of Lactantius’ dream- theory and offered useful insight, and Karin Schlapbach, who organised that event and invited me to present my research. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the Department of Classics and Religious Studies, the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, and the University of Ottawa, for their financial assistance in the form of an Entrance Scholarship and support while I completed my dissertation. And my thanks go out to Carleton University and St. Paul University as well for access to their resources, in addition to their regular invitations to departmental seminars and events. Last, but certainly not least, I am indebted to my fiancée, Cynthia, and both our families for all the ways in which they have helped me throughout my endeavour. Much the same, I am grateful to my best friend, Rejean Carriere, formerly of the Department of Sociology at the University of Ottawa, whose keen interest in Constantine and Roman history matched my own interest in his specialities, often with fruitful results; and my good friend and comrade-in-arms in the doctoral program, Robert Edwards, who was always ready with stimulating discussion when I desperately needed a break: I hope that I proved to be as good a sounding-board for him as he has been for me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii A NOTE ON THE TEXT vii INTRODUCTION LEGEND AND TRADITION 1 Blurred Vision 10 CHAPTER ONE THE VISION OF APOLLO 20 Weiss and the ‘Pagan’ Vision 23 The Story, As We Have It 28 The Nature of the Vision 38 Conclusion 48 CHAPTER TWO LACTANTIUS AND THE DREAM AT THE MILVIAN BRIDGE 50 Lactantius and the Civil War of 312 56 Lactantius on the Move 71 Preliminary Conclusions 97 What’s in a Dream? 100 A God by Any Other Name 110 Conclusion 118 v CHAPTER THREE EUSEBIUS AND THE VISION OF CHRIST 123 The Vita Narrative 134 Chronology: ‘Vision’ and Report 147 Context: Inherent and Constructed 157 Constantine on the Road to Damascus 167 The Modern Study of Religious Conversion 191 Conclusion 205 CHAPTER FOUR SIGNS OF GOD 209 Reconciling Lactantius and Eusebius 216 Reconciling the Vision of Apollo 255 Conclusion 279 EPILOGUE 284 APPENDIX A: PANEGYRIC 6 – 309 OR 310? 294 APPENDIX B: DEDICATIONS TO CONSTANTINE IN THE SECOND EDITION OF DIVINAE INSTITUTIONES 317 APPENDIX C: PAUL’S VISION(S) IN ACTS 320 ABBREVIATIONS 325 PRIMARY BIBLIOGRAPHY 326 SECONDARY BIBLIOGRAPHY 336 vi A NOTE ON THE TEXT For the sake of conciseness, in the footnotes I have abbreviated the titles of secondary sources where possible. As such, in each chapter initial references to books appear with the main title and some pertinent publication information only, and a shortened title afterward; essays in edited volumes appear with the full title of the essay (thereafter shortened) and a reference to the volume in the same manner as for books, while subsequent mentions of the same volume are to the editors, main title, and page range only; and references to articles are treated in the same fashion as essays, with the titles of academic journals abbreviated according to the system promulgated by L’Année philologique (Paris, 1924–), where available. Full references, including sub-titles, series titles, publication houses, full journal titles, and extraneous information, are provided in the Secondary Bibliography. With respect to primary sources – although one may at times note similarities to abbreviations used by various lexicons, dictionaries, and prosopographies – the system that I have employed is one that I have developed over the years, which generally refers to works by an abbreviation of the author’s common name and of the standard title of the text, in a way that I hope is clear. An explanation of the abbreviations with full titles and references can be found in the Primary Bibliography, together with the principal English translations used. In cases where I refer to alternate English translations, these will be given as secondary sources, and I will also indicate where translations are my own. Additionally, references to the books of the Bible are according to the Göttingen 2nd edition of the Septuaginta, the United Bible Societies 4th edition of The Greek New Testament, and the New Revised Standard Version English translation, using the standard abbreviation system of the NRSV. Finally, in keeping with the scholarly trend, I prefer the terms ‘Before Common Era’ (BCE) and ‘Common Era’ (CE) when giving dates. However, since much of this study concerns people and events in the Common Era, I generally omit this detail, the exception being cases where it adds to the clarity of the discussion (primarily in Chapter Four). In the same spirit as the BCE/CE system, I have also refrained from capitalising ‘god’ when it is used as a noun and not a proper name, such as in the phrase ‘the Christian god’.