Page 79 [79]
RITE OR METAPHOR?
As was observed by Johannes Straub, this passage must be read in the broader
context of what Eusebius says about Constantine’s view of his place in the
Church.® What we can infer from the Vita Constantini is that the emperor
regarded himself as a person chosen by God to lead the Church. He not only
“conducted matters ... in the manner of a church of God” in his palace, he
even acted “like [oid ttc] a universal bishop appointed by God." It should
not be surprising, then, that Constantine is said in the above-quoted passage,
V.C. 4.22.1, to have a close and intimate relation with God, to whom he
HÓVOG LOvw ... Mpoowpirget, “talked one-on-one” in private. This intimacy
enjoyed by the emperor with God was, no doubt, meant by Eusebius as
a sign of Constantine’s saintly piety. In fact, Eusebius seems to echo passage
2.163 from Philo’s De vita Mosis, which talks about Moses’ tac mpdc 8edv
Opiriac, dc idtaGwv uövog uövw SteAéyeto, “conversations with God held one¬
on-one in private.””° The allusion is all the more likely, considering that the
parallel between Constantine and Moses plays an important role in the Vita
Constantini.”
However, regardless of Constantine’s image as a pious (not to say perfect)
Christian, we cannot forget that he was baptized on his deathbed, which
meant that during his lifetime he was not yet a full member of the Church.
This is surely why Eusebius does not say that the emperor was a pétoxoc iep&v
ôpyiwv, “participant of the sacred dpyta,” but that he behaved oid ttc, “as if he
were” one. If we are right in interpreting such participants as full Christians,
then precisely what made Constantine comparable to them? Kneeling and
praying to God in private? Certainly not, as Tertullian instructs catechumens
preparing for baptism to pray orationibus crebris, ieiuniis et geniculationibus
et pervigiliis, “with frequent prayers, fastings, bendings of the knee, and all¬
night vigils.””? If it was not words and gestures, what else could it be?
As we remember from the discussion of H.E. 2.1.13, a baptized (i.e.,
illuminated) person had ipso facto a fuller understanding of God and faith
than a non-baptized one. It is thus tempting to assume that this quantitative
difference, or rather the lack of it, provides a basis for Eusebius’s comparison
of Constantine to a “participant of the sacred dpyia.” In fact, this explanation
would be a perfect match for Eusebius’s hagiographical image of Constantine.
8 Johannes Straub, Constantine as KOINOZ EITIZKOIIOZ. Tradition and Innovation in the
Representation of the First Christian Emperor’s Majesty, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967),
48-50.
© V.C. 4.17 and 1.44.1; trans. Cameron and Hall.
7 See also Erik Peterson, Herkunft und Bedeutung der Movoc mpdc¢ wovov-Formel bei Plotin,
Philologus 88 (1933), 30-41, passim.
7! On Moses as a type of Constantine in Eusebius’ V.C., see Averil Cameron - Stuart G. Hall,
Eusebius. Life of Constantine, Oxford, Clarendon Press 1999, 34-39.
72 Bapt. 20.1; trans. Ernest Evans.
+ 77 +
Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 77 6 2020. 06.15. 11:04:14