Page 79 [79]
OCR
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 oneon-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 allnight 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
