Constantine the Great: The reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the ChurchFirth, John B. (John Benjamin)
History
Constantine the Great: The reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the Church
Firth, John B. (John Benjamin)
Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600; Constantine I, Emperor of Rome, -337
The hand which wrote this was the hand which had flung unread into the
brazier at Nicæa the incriminating petitions of the bishops. What had
taken place in the interval that he should issue an edict worthy of a
Domitian? The authorities give not the slightest hint. Was there some
great conspiracy afoot, in the meshes of which Constantine feared to
become entangled, but so cunningly contrived that the Emperor could only
be sensible of its existence, without being able to lay hands on the
intriguers? Was paganism restless in the East as we have seen it
restless in Rome, at the triumph of its once-despised and always
detested rival? We do not know. Quite possibly it was, though with the
downfall of Licinius its prospects seemed hopeless. Unless, indeed,
there was some member of the Imperial Family upon whom paganism rested
its hopes and to whom it looked as its future deliverer! Was Crispus
such a prince? Again we do not know. There is not a scrap of evidence to
bear out a theory which has only been framed as a possible explanation
of the dark mystery of his fate.
Eutropius, whose character sketches, for all their brevity, usually
tally well with known facts, calls Crispus a prince of the highest merit
(_virum egregium_). Why then did Constantine turn against him? We may,
perhaps, see the first sign of the changed relationship in the fact that
in 323 the Cæsarship of Gaul was taken from Crispus and given to the
young Constantius, then a child of seven. So far as is known, no
compensating title or command was offered in exchange, which looks as
though Constantine was disinclined to trust his eldest son any longer
and preferred to keep him in surveillance by his side. The father may
have been jealous of the prowess and popularity of the son; the son may
have been ambitious, as Constantine himself had been in his young days,
and have deemed that his services merited elevation to the rank of an
Augustus. According to the system of Diocletian, twenty years of
sovereignty were held to be long enough for the welfare alike of
sovereign and of the Empire. Constantine’s term was running out. The
system was not yet formally abandoned; is it unreasonable to suppose
that Crispus considered he had claims to rule, or that Constantine,
resolved to keep what he had won, became estranged from one whom he knew
he was not treating with generosity or with justice?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account