In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes  Introduction 1. On the history of the text, see esp. Pasquali; Barnes, “Panegyric, History and Hagiography ”; Av. Cameron and Hall, Eusebius, pp. 1–53. 2. Av. Cameron, “Form and Meaning”; cf. Singh. 3. This brief survey does not cover some early witnesses to Constantine in the immediate aftermath of his reign, including Libanius, on whom see the contrasting opinions of Wiemer, “Libanius on Constantine”; and Malosse, but also Athanasius and Firmicus Maternus, on whom see Lenski, “Early Retrospectives.” 4. Jul. Caes. 328D–329D. Bleckmann, “Constantinus Tyrannus,” offers a fuller survey of negative depictions of Constantine in pagan sources. 5. Jul. Or. 7.22 (227D); Caes. 335B, 336A. Earlier in his life, Julian had praised Constantine’s munificence; see Jul. Or. 1.6 (8A–B); cf. Aur. Vict. Caes. 40.15. 6. Jul. Or. 7.22 (228B); Ep. ad Ath. 270C–D; Caes. 336B. Amm. 21.10.8 claims Julian also criticized Constantine before the senate of Constantinople as “an innovator and disturber of ancient laws and of customs received of old.” On this passage, see Lizzi Testa. If we can believe Sid. Ap. Ep. 5.8.2, Constantine came in for critique for his family murders already with a savage epigram penned by his Praetorian Prefect Ablabius. 7. Bastardy: Zos. 2.8.2, 9.2. Military shortcomings: Zos. 2.31.2, 34.1–2. Administrative reforms: Zos. 2.32.1–33.1, 38.2–4. Constantinople and truphē: Zos. 2.32.1, 38.1. See also Van Dam, Remembering Constantine, pp. 34–40; Al. Cameron, Last Pagans, pp. 654–58. 8. Zos. 2.7.1–2.29.5. 9. Zos. 2.29.2–4. See also Zosimus’s critique of Constantine’s murder of Licinius, 2.28.2. Philostorgius (2.4, 4a–b), who had access to Eunapius, is equally critical of Constantine’s family murders. 10. On anti-Constantinianism, see Aiello, “Costantino ‘eretico’”; cf. Bleckmann, “Constantinus Tyrannus.” 11. Eutr. 10.2.2, 5.1, 6.1–3 (esp. Licinius . . . se dedidit et contra religionem sacramenti Thessalonicae privatus occisus est), 7.1, 8.1 (esp. Multas leges rogavit, quasdam ex bono et aequo, plerasque superfluas, nonnullas severas). 12. Jer. Chron. s.a. 306: Constantinus ex concubina Helena procreatus; s.a. 323: Licinius Thessalonicae contra ius sacramenti privatus occiditur . . . Crispus, filius Constantini, et Licinius iunior, Constantiae Constantini sororis et Licinii filius, crudelissime interficiuntur; s.a. 328: Constantinus uxorem suam Faustam interficit; s.a. 337: Constantinus extremo vitae suae tempore ab Eusebio Nicomedensi episcopo baptizatus in Arrianum dogma declinat. On the relationship between Eutropius and Jerome through the Kaisergeschichte, see Burgess, “Common Source”; 290 Notes to Pages 2–5 cf. Burgess, “Date of the Kaisergeschichte.” In the same tradition, see also Epit. 41.11–16, as well as the unrelated DRB 2.1 and Amm. 16.8.12. 13. Oros. 7.28.26. 14. Soz. 1.5.1–5, with Schoo, pp. 80–83; Bidez and Hansen, p. li, on Eunapius as the target of Sozomen’s refutation. See also Evagr. HE 3.40–41 with Van Dam, Remembering Constantine, pp. 39–43, for a Christian critique of Zosimus. 15. Soz. 2.34.1–2. 16. Actus beati Silvestri papae (CPL 2235), for the text of which see De Leo. On the history of the legend, see Aiello, “Costantino, la lebbra, e il battesimo”; G. Fowden, “Last Days of Constantine”; Amerise, Il battesimo di Costantino; Liverani, “St. Peter’s”; Lieu, “Constantine,” pp. 298–301; Van Dam, Remembering Constantine, pp. 19–32. 17. For the text, see Pohlkamp; Fried, pp. 148–50. For translations, see Edwards, Constantine and Christendom, pp. 92–115; Fried, pp. 151–53. Fried attempts to re-date the document to the tenth century and to place it in a Frankish context, without, however, convincing. Miethke sidesteps the question of dating but offers an excellent catalog of the uses to which the legend has been put. 18. See also Berger, “Legitimation und Legenden,” and Lieu, “Constantine,” on the reception and use of Constantine in Byzantium, and especially the legendary lives of Constantine that begin to appear in the eighth century. The essays in Braschi and Di Salvo offer an interesting window into Slavic representations of Constantine. 19. For the text, see Bowersock, On the Donation of Constantine. For analysis, see Ginzburg , pp. 54–70. 20. Burckhardt. On the influence of Burckhardt’s historiography, see Lenski, “Introduction ”; Leppin. More on modern assessments of Constantine at Heinze and especially SchlangeSch öningen. 21. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs, vol. 1, pp. 42–188...