Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (review)

Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance. By H. A. Drake. [Ancient Society and History.] (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000. Pp. xx, 609. $68.00.)

Harold A. Drake, professor of history at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has contributed to Constantinian studies since 1976, and the present book is the culmination of many years of engagement with the subject. It is an erudite book, as the ample annotation--as many as 120 endnotes to a chapter--and the fifty-six-page bibliography show. It is also a bold but unsuccessful challenge to much of earlier scholarly work on Constantine, as Drake believes that "the question of Constantine's relationship to Christianity has been misformulated" in the past (p. 9), that "the most basic question of all has gone neglected" (p. 184), and that scholars have followed "a false scent" (p. 187) or "the wrong map" (p. 267; similarly p. 451).

More specifically he holds that Constantine was able to put together a successful coalition (p. 158) by reconciling pagan and Christian monotheists (p. 190) and by finding common ground (pp. 27, 192, 193, 199, 205, and 286). But the Constantine who emerges from all this is far too neutral. Notwithstanding the religiously neutral language which he frequently employed (pp. 195, 243-244, and 381), Constantine very early let it be known which religion he favored. The use of public funds in support of the Church, the exemption of the clergy from civic duties, an ambitious program of building churches, and the employment of Ossius of Corduba as a trusted counselor leave no doubt about it. Only the Christians benefited from Constantine's generosity.

Drake is at pains to show Constantine's efforts to build consensus, not only between Christians and pagans (pp. 241, 290, 315, and 466), but also among contending Christian factions (pp. 265 and 270). While others have seen vacillation in Constantine's behavior, Drake sees "surprising consistency" in the pursuit of peace, harmony, inclusiveness, and flexibility and a policy "that provided a religiously neutral public space" (pp. 270-271; similarly pp. 306 and 439).

A major concern of the author is with questions of tolerance and intolerance. "Intolerance is not a religious but a political issue," he maintains (p. 30; similarly p. 421), and "Christian organization, then, not Christian theology, is the place to look for the answer to intolerance" (p. 75). And Constantine, Drake is certain, was converted to the kind of Christianity that was noncoercive and inclusive (p. 285; similarly pp. 291, 320, and 455). Drake finds the evidence for his conclusion in Constantine's letter to Arius and Alexander and in the Oration to the Saints (p. 302), on which he is a recognized expert, and finds Constantine committed to the principle of noncoercion in matters of religion (pp. 419-420). He admits, however, that "heresy is the one important exception Constantine made from his commitment to a noncoercive approach" (p. 347). It is after Constantine, beginning with his sons, that Christianity took a coercive turn (pp. 403 and 425), and Augustine of Hippo provided the theoretical justification (pp. 401-402).

It is for good reason that Drake titled his book Constantine and the Bishops, not "Constantine and the Church" or "Constantine and Christianity." He emphasizes that there was no single Christianity, no single church, and that the bishops were the real players (pp. 30, 73, 315, and 362). It is true, of course, that the Church was lacking in unity and that there was no uniformity of belief or practice. But the case may be overstated. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome was well recognized, even if his jurisdictional powers were limited.

Most of the bishops, Drake reminds us, were humble men devoted to Christian values (p. 340) or men of "pretended holiness," to use the invidious phrase of Julian the Apostate (p. 341). But it is rightly Athanasius and Eusebius who claim much of...