Philip Michael Forness, AlexandraHasse-Ungeheuer, Hartmut Leppin Introduction: Expanding the Discourseon Good Christian Rulership Bad rulers make spectacularfigures. InfamousRoman emperors – Caligula (r.37–41), Nero (r.54–68), and Commodus (r.177–192) – have always attracted the attention of both scholars and abroader audience. Good rulers, on the other hand,are likable yet also boring and not mediagenic. On first glance, it mayseem to be adull, repetitive task to investigategood Christian rulers. Yetwhether aruler was considered good or bad depends on the individual perspective and the sources: manyRomans thought highlyofNero, and manyarguablyhated Trajan (r.98–117). This volume, therefore, does not address individual rulers but rather conceptsofgood rulership. The individual studies thatfollow expose many similarities in the ideas of good Christian rulership across awide rangeofcultures. But significant differences also emerge in relation to the intended audience of the sources, the time and location in which they were produced, and the individual backgrounds and intellectual tradi- tions of their authors. By attendingtothe historicalcontextsofthese views, this vol- ume reveals that the first millennium wasatime in which ideas of good Christian rulership took root and flourishedacross the cultures of Europe and the wider Med- iterraneanworld. This introduction seeks to provide afoundation for the contributions that follow and highlight how these studies point towards productive areas for future research. Section 1serves as an introduction to the roots of Christian thought on good rulers with an emphasis on the challengeofConstantine I’s(r. 306–337) turn to Christianity and the development of thoughts on good Christian rulership within the Roman Em- pire until Heraclius(r. 610 – 641). Section 2summarises the contributions in this vol- ume which reach well beyond the Roman Empire and expose the wealth of ideas of good Christian rulership that developed in avariety of cultures and linguistic com- munities. Section 3takes stock of the overall contribution of this volume by examin- ing similarities and differences related to sourcematerial, royal titulature, models of good rulership, and virtues. The essaysincluded in thisvolume cover awiderange of scholarly disciplines thathavedifferent standardsfor both citations and the spelling of proper nouns. We havesought consistency within each individual essay on these mattersrather than privileging the standardsofone field of study. While thisallows forsome minor divergences, it respects the establishednorms of each discipline represented in the volume. Abbreviations formodern editions,journals, series, and reference worksfollow the conventions of MillenniumStudies, while abbreviations forpremodern works come from Brill’sNew Pauly,G.W.H.Lampe’s APatristic Greek Lexicon,and the Theologische Real- enzyklopädie. OpenAccess. ©2021PhilipMichael Forness, Alexandra Hasse-Ungeheuer, Hartmut Leppin, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriva- tives 4.0 International License. https:// doi.org/10.1515/9783110725612-002 2 Philip Michael Forness, AlexandraHasse-Ungeheuer,Hartmut Leppin 1Traditions of the Good Christian Rulerinthe RomanEmpire Roman emperors have playedanoutsized role in the conceptualisation of good Christian rulership. The legacyofConstantine Iasthe first Christian ruler of the Roman Empire proved importantinawide rangeofcultures.Understandingthe de- velopment of the ideas of Christian rulership within the Roman Empire provides one importantfoundation for approaching the studies thatfollow.Therefore, this section first investigates views on Roman emperors in Christian sources before Constantine as well as the foundations of Christian thought on good rulership. It then examines some of the new questions posed by Constantine’sconversion and the measures taken to address themuptothe reign of Heraclius. Finally, it brieflysummarises non-Roman traditions that also proved influential. 1.1 Christian Views on the RomanEmperor beforeConstantine Most Christians took the existing monarchical order in the RomanEmpire for grant- ed. Manycriticised individual rulers, but their Kaiserkritik did not necessarilyreflect disapproval of the monarchical order as such. Paul, for example, exhortedhis audi- ence to be subjecttothe higher powers (Rom 13:1), which were monarchical at that time. If Paul had to instruct aChristian community in Rome to be obedient, there must have been Christians who wereless convinced. But this still does not mean that they questioned the political order as such. The book of Revelation, which is highlycritical of Romanrule, does not establish an alternative model to the political order as such. It rather announces that the end of the wicked world is near.Even Christian martyrs, who stated openlybefore Roman authorities that they obeyed a higher ruler in all matters they defined as religiouslyrelevant,werenevertheless eager to underline that they otherwise felt loyal to Roman rule, behavedorderly, and paid taxes. Christians who confronted political authorities did not demand a new political system. They rather rejected certain practices connected with the impe- rial order,such as swearing an oathinthe name of the emperor or performing asac- rifice.¹ Very few reflections on good rulership have survivedfrom pre-Constantinian Christians; the emperors werefar from the Lebenswelt of most.² Yetwedoknow CandidaR.Moss, AncientChristian Martyrdom.DiversePractices,Theologies,and Traditions,Cum- berland 2012; Nicole Hartmann, “Martyrium”.Variationen und Potenziale eines Diskurses im Zweiten Jahrhundert (EarlyChristianity in the Context of Antiquity 14), Frankfurt am Main 2013. Foundational studies on this topic include Stefan Rebenich, Monarchie,RAC 24,2012,1112–1196; id. (ed.), Monarchische Herrschaft im Altertum (Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 94), Munich 2017.But see also the earlier and still importantstudy: Francis Dvornik, Early Christian Introduction: Expanding the DiscourseonGood Christian Rulership 3 that both Christians and non-Christians hated some of the most notorious Roman emperors such as Nero and Domitian(r. 81–96). But not all odious pre-Constantinian Roman emperors earned the ire of Christians.Commodus,for example, had arepu- tation as someone who favoured Christians.³ Hippolytus (fl. c. 200) attributes this tendencytothe influenceofCommodus’sconcubine Marcia (d. 193).⁴ Before Con- stantine, Christians likelyremained close to the political mainstream and mainly criticised emperors when they engaged in persecutions. In this time, Christians also knew how to praise an emperor fittingly.Apologies addressed to emperors, for example, use the typical encomiastic formulae. In his Plea for the Christians,the second-century apologist Athenagoras praises Marcus Aurelius (r.161– 180) and Commodusasideal rulers: And accordingly,with admiration of your mildnessand gentleness, and your peaceful and be- nevolent dispositiontowards everyone, individuals live in the possession of equal rights;and the cities,according to their rank, shareinequal honour;and the whole empire, under your in- telligent sway, enjoysprofound peace.⁵ Thus, there was certainlycommon ground between Christian and non-Christian in- terpretations of good rulership in the first centuries. Although the Roman emperors werenot Christians,their reigns could still be presented as God-given. EarlyChristians would not have expected aRoman emperor to become aChris- tian. Tertullian (c. 160/70–after 220) rejects this idea explicitly: But even the emperors would have believed in Christ,ifeither emperors had not been necessary to the world or if it had been possible for Christians tootobeemperors.⁶ Tertullian had good reasons to do so. As pontifex maximus and as aman who was revered as agod, the Romanemperor was acentral figure in the Roman religious sys- tem thatChristians defined as pagan. Couldanyone have anticipated thatanemperor would abandon these pillars of his rule? There was,therefore, no specificallyChris- tian concept of rulership at the time thatConstantine turned to the Christian God and Byzantine Political Philosophy.Origins and Background (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 9), vol. 2, Wash- ington, D.C.1966,esp. 558–610. Hipp., ref. 9.12.10 –12; Euseb., hist.eccl. 5.21. Hipp., ref. 9.12.10 –12. Διόπερ τὸ πρᾶον ὑμῶνκαὶἥμερον καὶ τὸ πρὸς ἅπαντα εἰρηνικὸνκαὶφιλάνθρωπον θαυμάζοντες οἱ μὲνκαθ’ ἕνα ἰσονομοῦνται, αἱ δὲ πόλεις πρὸς ἀξίαν τῆς ἴσης μετέχουσι τιμῆς, καὶἡσύμπασα οἰκου- μένη τῇὑμετέρᾳ συνέσει βαθείας εἰρήνης ἀπολαύουσιν (Athenag., 1.2; translation slightlymodified from that of B.P.Pratten). Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo,siaut Caesares non essent necessarii saeculo,aut si et Christianipotuissent esse Caesares (Tert., apol. 21.24;translation by Alexander Souter). 4 Philip Michael Forness, AlexandraHasse-Ungeheuer,Hartmut Leppin whom he perceivedasagodofvictory.Atthis moment,who could have had the slightest idea what it meant to be aChristian emperor?⁷ 1.2 Sourcesfor Christian Thought on Good Rulership To conceptualise rule by aChristian emperor,non-Christians might have referred to other emperors’ preference for gods such as Sol Invictus,aspromoted by Aurelian (r.270 – 275) and by Constantine Ihimself to acertain degree. ForChristians, howev- er,Constantine’sunforeseen turn presented areal challengeand led to arangeof new questions. What should they hope for from aChristian ruler?Would he support churches financially?