Constantine\u27s Conversion: Betrayal at the Hands of the Biographers

Many think of Constantine the Great as an innovator who intentionally established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Others imagine Constantine as a skilled politician, regardless of his religious sincerity. In fact we have good reason to hold either opinion, for these narratives are often what Constantine\u27s biographers record. This paper aims to show a more nuanced picture of this emperor involving a complex public image and a religious policy of tolerance with an ultimate goal of concord. Betrayal comes into play as Constantine\u27s eulogists and critics alike privilege an image of the emperor beneficial to their own purposes, to the detriment of this complex image and tolerant policy. Nowhere are the stakes higher for the biographers than in Constantine\u27s conversion story. From this event the biographers establish a foundation to structure their tales of Constantine\u27s legacy. For the Christian biographers, this legacy is a character and public image defined by Christian piety, which frames Constantine as model for a new age of rulers. For traditionalist biographers, this legacy is a character defined by shocking depravity, which establishes Constantine as a scapegoat for the decline of the Empire. Our first task, then, is to explore the public image and policy of Constantine himself by examining his public image, including his building program, portraiture, imperial art, inscriptions, and court culture. Each reveals an emperor who, despite his personal convictions, walked a delicate line between pleasing Christians and pagans. Nearly all of his public interactions can be read positively from either religious perspective, suggesting a religiously ambiguous if not neutral public image. Even in instances of favor toward Christian interests, his actions suggest religious tolerance rather than a radical agenda to supplant tradition. In Constantine\u27s own time, this religiously neutral space was not only one of mutual accommodation, but one of mutual influence. Borrowings and influences occurred mutually and often between the Christian and the pagan world, creating a shared world of iconography that Constantine could exploit to literally appeal to both audiences at once. Deliberately ambiguous iconography and public interactions resulted not only in support for himself as emperor, but also in the growing unity of Church and State. From this position of unity, there was hope of concord for the Empire. But in part thanks to his polarizing biographers, and in part thanks to the nature of the ancient world, Constantine\u27s careful concessions and policies would largely pass away with his death. The debate over Constantine\u27s image as perceived by his contemporaries rages in scholarship today. Scholars such as Barnes and Drake have both contributed to this paper, but they themselves may never see eye to eye. The arguments here are deeply indebted to the works of Digeser, Fowden, Elsner, Alföldi, and Straub, but the reader should not assume that other scholars support the idea that Constantine\u27s image should be read with a double perspective, nor that he practiced a policy of tolerance while desiring concord. The debate over Constantine\u27s image and policy is a long one, but far from conclusive. Further research, fresh perspectives, and open minds are needed to reach a better understanding of the elusive legacy of Constantine the Great