NPNF2-01 Eusebius 666
666 37 After the battle of Cibalis the Greeks and the Macedonians, the inhabitants of the banks of the Danube, of Achaia, and the whole nation of Illyrica became subject to Constantine (Soz. 1. 6; cf. Anon. Vales. p. 474; Zos. 2. 20; Oros. c. 28, &c)..
38 Perhaps earlier and perhaps later. It is generally placed in 317 (cf. Clinton, p. 370).
39 Zos. 2. 21. An exhaustive discussion of this is that by Bessell, Gothen, in Ersch u. Gruber, Encykl. I. 75 (Leipz. 1862), 132–33.The same article (p. 133–35) discusses various relations of Goths and Sarmatians with Constantine.
40 According to Sozomen, Licinius withdrew his favor from Christians and persecuted them, because “He was deeply incensed against the Christians on account of his disagreement with Constantine, and thought to wound him by their sufferings; and, besides, he suspected that they earnestly desired that Constantine should enjoy the sovereign rule” (1. 7). In this view of the case, it is easy to see how and why affairs marched as they did. Eusebius (H. E. 10. 9) makes this, like the war against Maxentius, a real crusade in behalf of the persecuted Christians).
41 According to Zos. 2. 27, the final siege and surrender was at Nicomedia.
42 Compare note on Bk. II. ch. 18.
43 For his presence at Rome at this time, compare authorities above, and also law dated July, 326, given in Clinton (p. 380).
44 Crispus was alive and in power March 1, 326, as appears from coins (cf. Eckhel, 8, p. 101–2). Whether he was put to death before the Vicennalia does not appear, but that he was is not probable. For death of Crispus and its date, compare Zos. 2. 29; Vict. Caes.; Soz. 1. 5; Vict). Epit. p. 50; Chron. Pasch.; Eutrop. 10. 6, &c., and discussion under Character.
45 The same year according to Greg. Tur. (1. 34). Cf. Eutrop. and Sidon. 327, and even 328, is the date given by some (cf. Clinton, 5,1, p. 382, and Wordsworth).
46 Disputed, but generally allowed. On this series of deaths, compare the somewhat opposite views of Görres and Seeck in the articles mentioned under Literature for latest views.
47 The date of the beginning of the work is curiously uncertain. Socrates (1. 6) puts it directly after the Council of Nicaea, and Philostorgius in 334, white there is almost equal variety among the modern historians. Burckhardt says Nov. 4, 326; De Broglie, 358 or 329; Wordsworth as early as 325. It is possible that the strangeness which he felt in visiting Rome in 326, and the hostility with which he was met there (Zos. 2. 29, 30), may have been a moving cause in the foundation of this “New Rome,” and that it was begun soon after his visit there. He first began to build his capital near the site of Ilium (Soz. 2. 3; Zos. 2. 30), but “led by the hand of God” (Soz)., he changed his plan to that city whose site he so much admired (Soz)..
667 48 For accounts of the founding of Constantinople, see Soz. 2. 3; Philostorgius, 2. 9; Malalas, 13. 5; Glycas, p. 462–64; Cedrenus, p. 495–98; Theoph. 41–42. Compare Zosimus, 2. 30; Anon. Vales. p. 475–76; Socrates, 1. 16; Orosius, c. 28; Praxagoras, Zononas, Codinus, Nicephoras Callistus, &c).
49 The events and dates of these later periods have to do mainly with theological matters,—the “religious” activity of Constantine, to which Eusebius devotes his attention so fully,—and are treated in the V. C.
50 Cf. Vict). Epit. p. 51, where “bull-necked” is rendered as equal to “scoffer,” “such according to physiognomical writers being the character of stout men,” Liddell and Scott, Lex. p. 1569. But the very proverb on which Victor bases this interpretation would seem to make it refer to energy and obstinate force of character, which is altogether better fitting the word and the physiognomical characteristic).
51 It is hardly necessary to say that the various tales of the remorse of Constantine for the death of Crispus are mythical. The tale of Sopater has been mentioned. That of Codinus (De signo Cp. p. 62–63), also that, “in regret for death of Crispus, he erected a statue of pure silver with the inscription, ‘My unjustly treated son,0’ and did penance besides,” falls into the same category.
52 Seeck (Ztschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1890, p. 73) maintains that it is established (“urkundlich fest”) that Licinius was still living in 336, in which case he would have been more than twenty years old. He maintains also that he was not the son of Constantine, but the illegitimate son of Licinius by a slave woman.
53 On this question compare especially monographs of Görres and Seeck. See under Literature, where other titles, e.g. Hug and Wegnerus, will also be found. In general, the remark of Ludermann (Lipsius, Theol. Jahrb. 1886, p. 108) is valid, “The arguments against Constantine’s Christianity, which are drawn from his moral character, have ever been the weakest.”
54 It seems to have been frequently accepted as such—in the collections of councils, by the editor of Optatus, Ceillier, &c. It first appeared in the edition of Optatus, among the monuments relating to the Donatists gathered by him. These monuments are from one single though tolerably ancient ms. and no source for this is quoted, though the sources of others are given. In itself considered it is a surprise to find it at this stage of Constantine’s life. Still, it is not unlike his later productions, and it is not impossible to think of its having been written in the enthusiasm of a successfully ended enterprise. It would seem (unless there be some confirmatory study of the letter, not now at hand) that a cautious criticism would base nothing on this letter alone).
55 His saying before baptism is discussed in the V. C. 4. 2, notes).
56 “Constantine, being a man of great energy, bent upon effecting whatever he had settled in his mind. …But the pride of prosperity caused Constantine greatly to depart from his former agreeable mildness of temper. Falling first upon his own relatives, he put to death his son, an excellent man; his sister’s son, a youth of amiable disposition; soon afterwards his wife; and subsequently many of his friends.”
“He was a man who, in the beginning of his reign, might have been compared to the best princes; in the latter part of it, only to those of middling character. Innumerable good qualities of mind and body were apparent in him: he was exceedingly ambitious of military glory, and had great success in his wars: a success,however, not more than proportioned to his exertions. After he had terminated the Civil War, he also overthrew the Goths on various occasions, granting them at last peace, and leaving on the minds of the barbarians a strong remembrance of his kindness. He was attached to the arts of peace and to liberal studies, and was ambitious of honorable popularity, which he, indeed, sought by every kind of liberality and obligingness. Though he was slow, from suspicion, to serve some of his friends, yet he was exceedingly generous towards others, neglecting no opportunity to add to their riches and honors. He enacted many laws, some good and equitable, but most of them superfluous, and some severe.”
57 It is curious that there should be no critical edition of the collected works of so considerable a writer. A large portion of his works are, to be sure, included in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. 84, Paris, 1844; but this Opera Universa is neither wholly complete nor in any sense critical, and this seems to be the only attempt at a collection. The works enumerated here are mostly in the edition of Migne, but not all.
668 58 There is of course more or less critical treatment of various letters in critical works on Donatism or Arianism or other special topics. Since writing the above, the exceedingly interesting analysis of sources for early Donatist history, by Seeck, in Briegers’ Ztschr. f. Kirchenges., 1889, has been examined. He has, like Volter and Deutsch before him, admirable critical studies of certain letters. But a systematic critical study of the Constantinian letters as a whole seem to be still lacking).
1 Literally “recently” or “not long since,” and so it is rendered by Tr. 1709, Stroth, Molzberger, Valesius (“nuper”), and Portesius. Christophorson and Cousin avoid the awkwardness by circumlocution or simple omission, while our translator shows his one characteristic excellence of hitting nearly the unliteral meaning in a way which is hard to improve.
2 The assembly referred to was the Council of Nicaea. Constantine’s vicennial celebration was held at Nicomedia during the session of the Council at Nicaea (July 25), according to Hieronymus and others, but celebrated again at Rome the following year. The speech of Eusebius on this occasion is not preserved. Valesius thinks the one spoken of in the V. C. 3. 11, as delivered in the presence of the council, is the one referred to.
3 This oration is the one appended by Eusebius to this Life of Canstantine, and given in this translation (cf). V. C. 4. 46).
4 [In the text it is o logo", “my power of speech, or of description, much desires,” and so throughout this preface: but this kind of personification seems scarcely suited to the English idiom.—Bag.] This usage of Logos is most interesting. Both he and his friend, the emperor, are fond of dwelling on the circles of philosophical thought which center about the word Logos (cf. the Oration of Constantine, and especially the Vicennial Oration of Eusebius). “My Logos desires” seems to take the place in ancient philosophical slang which “personality” or “self” does in modern. In ancient usage the word includes “both the ratio and the oratio” (Liddell and Scott), both the thought and its expression, both reasoning and saying,—the “internal” and “expressed” of the Stoics, followed by Philo and early Christian theology. He seems to use it in the combined sense, and it makes a pretty good equivalent for “personality,” “my personality desires,” &c. The idiom is kept up through the chapter.
5 Constantine II., Constantius, and Constans proved on the whole sorry reflectors of glory.
6 The first had been Caesar more than twenty years; the second, ten; and the third, less than five.
7 Referring to special honors paid after death, as mentioned in Bk. 4.
8 Here there is play on the word Logos. My logos stands voiceless and a-logos, “un-logosed.” If the author meant both to refer to expression, the first relates to the sound, and the second to the power of construction or composition. The interchangeableness of the weaving of consecutive thought in the mind, and the weaving it in expressed words, is precisely the question of the “relation of thought and language,” so warmly contested by modern philosophers and philologians (cf. Müller, Science of Thought, Shedd’s Essays, &c).. The old use of logos for both operations of “binding together” various ideas into one synthetical form has decided advantages.
9 Here there is again the play on the word Logos. For Eusebius’ philosophy of the logos, and of Christ as the Logos or Word, see the second half of his tricennial oration and notes.
10 Compare Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, which doubtless the author had in mind.
669 11 [Khrocutou grafhd, properly encaustic painting, by means of melted wax.—Bag] Compare admirable description of the process in the Century Dictionary, ed. Whitney, N.Y. 1889, v. 2.
12 Kubei", at first used of triangular tablets of wood, brass, or stone, but afterwards of any inscribed “pillars or tablets.” Cf. Lexicons.
13 Whether dexiwz is read or dexio", with Valesius, “present to aid,” covers the idea better than “graciously present” (Molz).
14 Compare discussion of length of reign and life under Life in Prolegomena, p. 411.
15 [Gigantwn. The persecuting emperors appear to be meant, of whom there is more mention hereafter.—Bag.] Refers of course to the mythical Gigantes who fought against the gods. It is used in the same sense in which Aeschylus uses it of Capaneus (THe 424), who defied Zeus in declaring that even his thunderbolts should not keep him out of Thebes.
16 Compare the various wars against Franks, Bructerians, Goths, Sarmatians and others mentioned in Life in Prolegomena. Compare also chapter 8 of this book.
17 [Such seems to be the probable meaning of this passage, which is manifestly corrupt, and of which various emendations have been proposed.—Bag.] Perhaps better paraphrased, “But since the test of blessedness lies not in this, but in his end, we 1ook and find that this.” The key to the idea is found in the remark near the end of chapter II. Cf. also note.
18 This is the account of Diodorus, who says he was taken prisoner and crucified by the queen of the “Scythians” (3. II, ed. 1531, f. 80b). Herodotus says that he was slain in battle, but his head cut off afterwards and dipped in a sack of blood by the queen Tomyris, who had rejected his suit, the death of whose son he had caused, and who had sworn to “give him his fill of blood” (Herod. Bk. I, §§205–214). Xenophon says he died quietly in bed (Cyrop. 8. 7).
19 A malarial fever, but made fatal by drinking at a banquet (cf. Plut. chaps. 75 and 76, Arrian, Bk. 7).
20 Eusebius’ rhetorical purpose makes him unfair to Alexander, who certainly in comparison with others of his time brought relative blessing to the conquered (cf. Smith, Dict. 1P 122).
21 Toparchs or prefects.
22 Ethnarchs).
670 23 “The pillars of heaven.”—Molz (?).
24 The Bagster translation, following Valesius, divides the tenth chapter, making the eleventh begin at this point.
25 It looks as if there might perhaps be a direct hit at Lactantius here, as having, through “enmity,” described actions intrinsically base in peculiarly elegant diction; but Lactantius’ descriptions are hardly more realistic than Eusebius’ own).
26 [Alluding probably to Ecclesiastes xi. 28, “Judge none blessed before his death; for a man shall be known in his children.” Or, possibly, to the well-known opinion of Solon to the same effect. Vide Herod. 1,32; Aristot. Eth. Nicom. 1,II.—Bag.] Compare also above, chapter 7.
27 The persecuting emperors. Compare Prolegomena, Life.
28 (He was brought up with Diocletian and Galerius. Compare Prolegomena, Life.
29 Constantius Chlorus, Neo-Platonist and philanthropist. Compare following description.
30 The author of the chapter heading means of course Galerius. Maxentius was not emperor until after the death of Constantius.
31 [Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius.—Bag.]
32 For account of these persecutions, see Church History, Bk. 8, and notes of McGiffert.
33 Compare the Church History, 8. 13, and Lactantius, De mort. pers. 15. The latter says he allowed buddings to be destroyed, but spared human life).
671 34 Or the senior Augustus. “Diocletian is thus entitled in the ancient panegyrists and in inscriptions.”—Heinichen.
It was “towards the end of the second century of the Christian era” that there began to be a plurality of Augusti, but “from this time we find two or even a greater number of Augusti; and though in that and in all similar cases the persons honored with the title were regarded as participators of the imperial power, still the one who received the title first was looked upon as the head of the empire.”—Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rm Ant.
35 Compare accounts of martyrs in the palaces, in the Church History, 8. 6).
36 “Is said to have” is added conjecturally here by an earlier editor, but Heinichen omits, as it would seem Eusebius himself did.
37 Other readings are “with the others,” or “with the rest,” but in whatever reading it refers to all the other emperors.
38 The persecution was in 303 or 304. Compare discussion of date in Clinton, Fasti Rom. ann. 303–305. The abdication was in 305.
39 Eusebius uses the terms Augustus, king, autocrat, and Caesar with a good deal of interchangeableness. It is hard to tell sometimes whether king (basileu") means emperor or Caesar. In general, Augustus has been transferred in translations, and king and autocrat both rendered emperor, which seems to be his real usage.
40 Constantine reached him just before his death, though possibly some weeks before. Compare Prolegomena.
41 Diocletian and Galerius.
42 Diocletian. He was on his way to Egypt in the famous campaign against Achilleus in 296–297.
43 Or “psychical,” meaning more than intellectual.
672 44 Rather, perhaps, “self-control.”
45 Eusebius himself speaks in the plural, and other writers speak of plots by both Diocletian and Galerius. Compare Prolegomena.
46 Compare detailed account in Lactantius, De M. P. c. 24.
47 Basileu". The writer of the chapter headings uses this word here and Augustus in the following chapter, but it does not seem to mean technically “Caesar,” and so the rendering emperor is retained.
48 This seems to imply that Constantine reached him only after he was sick in bed, i.e. at York in Britain; but other accounts make it probable that he joined him at Boulogne before he sailed on this last expedition to Britain. Compare Prolegomena.
49 Literally, “than immortality [on earth].”
50 It will hardly be agreed that imperial succession is a law of nature anyway. Rather, “the succession [where it exists] is established by the express will or the tacit consent of the nation,” and the “pretended proprietary right …is a chimera” (Vattell, Law of Nations, Phila., 1867, p. 24, 25). That primogeniture is a natural law has been often urged, but it seems to be simply the law of first come first served. The English custom of primogeniture is said to have risen from the fact that in feudal times the eldest son was the one who, at the time of the father’s death, was of an age to meet the duties of feudal tenure (compare Kent, Commentaries, Boston, 1867, 5,4, p. 420, 421). This is precisely the fact respecting Constantine. His several brothers were all too young to be thought of.
51 The verdict was not confirmed at once. Galerius refused him the title of emperor, and he contented himself with that of Caesar for a little. Compare Prolegomena.
52 But he has done this himself in his Church History. Compare also Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum.
53 The Franci, Bructeri, &c.
54 [Eusebius here speaks of a second expedition of Constantine to Britain, which is not mentioned by other ancient writers; or he may have been forgetful or ignorant of the fact that Constantine had received the imperial authority in Britain itself, Constantius having died in his palace at York). a.d. 306. Vide Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chap. 14.—Bag.] It seems to be a part of the confusion about his crossing to Britain in the first place.
673 55 Referring to the unsuccessful expeditions of Severus and Galerius.
56 Compare chapters 36 and 37; also Lactantius, De M. P. chap. 44.
57 Galerius.
58 Severus).
59 This last phrase has exercised the ingenuity of translators greatly. This translation does well enough, though one might hazard “was easily overcome by death,” or “was an easy victim to death.”
60 Note here the care Eusebius takes to throw off the responsibility for the marvelous. It at the same time goes to show the general credibility of Eusebius, and some doubt in his mind of the exact nature and reality of what he records.
61 This very circumstantial account has met with doubters from the very beginning, commencing with Eusebius himself. There are all sorts of explanations, from that of an actual miracle to that of pure later invention. The fact of some, at least supposed, special divine manifestation at this time can hardly be denied. It is mentioned vaguely by Paneg. 313, and on the triumphal arch shortly after. It is reported as a dream by Lactantius about the same time with the erection of the arch, and alluded to in general, but hardly to be doubted, terms by Nazarius in 321. Moreover, it is witnessed to by the fact of the standard of the cross which was made. As to the real nature of the manifestation, it has been thought to be as recorded by Constantine, and if so, as perhaps some natural phenomenon of the sun, or to have been a simple dream, or an hallucination. It is hardly profitable to discuss the possibilities. The lack of contemporary evidence to details and the description of Lactantius as a dream is fatal to any idea of a miraculous image with inscriptions clearly seen by all. Some cross-like arrangement of the clouds, or a “parahelion,” or some sort of a suggestion of a cross, may have been seen by all, but evidently there was no definite, vivid, clear perception, or it would have been in the mouths of all and certainly recorded, or at least it would not have been recorded as something else by Lactantius. It seems probable that the emperor, thinking intensely, with all the weight of his great problem resting on his energetic mind, wondering if the Christian God was perhaps the God who could help, saw in some suggestive shape of the clouds or of sunlight the form of a cross, and there flashed out in his mind in intensest reality the vision of the words, so that for the moment he was living in the intensest reality of such a vision. His mind had just that intense activity to which such a thing is possible or actual. It is like Goethe’s famous meeting of his own self. It is that genius power for the realistic representation of ideal things. This is not the same exactly as “hallucination,” or even “imagination.” The hallucination probably came later when Constantine gradually represented to himself and finally to Eusebius the vivid idea with its slight ground, as an objective reality,—a common phenomenon. When the emperor went to sleep, his brain molecules vibrating to the forms of his late intense thought, he inevitably dreamed, and dreaming naturally confirmed his thought. This does not say that the suggestive form seen, or the idea itself, and the direction of the dream itself, were not providential and the work of the Holy Spirit, for they were, and were special in character, and so miraculous (or why do ideas come?); but it is to be feared that Constantine’s own spirit or something else furnished some of the later details. There is a slight difference of authority as to when and where the vision took place. The panegyrist seems to make it before leaving Gaul, and Malalas is inaccurate as usual in having it happen in a war against the barbarians. For farther discussion of the subject see monographs under Literature in the Prolegomena, especially under the names: Baring, Du Voisin, Fabricius, Girault, Heumann, Jacutius Mamachi, Molinet, St). Victor, Suhr, Toderini, Weidener, Wernsdorf, Woltereck. The most concise, clear, and admirable supporter of the account of Eusebius, or rather Constantine, as it stands, is Newman, Miracles (Lond. 1875), 271–286.
62 [From the Bretagnic lab, to raise, or from labarva, which, in the Basque language, still signifies a standard.—Riddle’s Lat. Dict. voc). Labarum. Gibbon declares the derivation and meaning of the word to be “totally unknown, in spite of the efforts of the critics, who have ineffectually tortured the Latin, Greek, Spanish, Celtic, Teutonic, Illyric, Armenian, &c., in search of an etymology.”—Decline and Fall, chap. 22, note 33.—Bag.] Compare the full article of Venables, in Smith and Cheetham, Dict. 1 (1880), 908–911, with its references and cuts.
63 Thus rather than “on.” Compare cuts in article of Venables. “It [the monogram of Christ] is often set within a crown or palm branch.”—Wolcott, Sacred Archaealogy, p. 390.
64 [Ciazomenou tou r kata to mesaitaton. The figure would seem to answer to the description in the text. Gibbon gives two specimens, and as engraved from ancient monuments. Chap. 20, note 35.—Bag.] The various coins given by Venables all have the usual form of the monogram . Compare also Tyrwhitt, art). Monogram, in Smith and Cheetham; also the art). Monogramme du Chris’t, in Martigny, Dict. d. ant. (1877), 476–483].
65 That this was no new invention of Constantine may be seen by comparing the following description of an ordinary Roman standard, “… each cohort had for its own ensign the serpent or dragon, which was woven on a square piece of cloth, elevated on a gilt staff, to which a cross-bar was adapted for the purpose …under the eagle or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning emperor.” Yates, art). Signa militaria, in Smith, Dict. Gr. and Rm Ant. (1878), 1044–1045.
674 66 “Which in its fill extent was of great length.”—Bag., according to suggestion of Valesius of a possible meaning, but better as above, meaning the part below the cross-bar. So Valesius, Christopherson, 1700. Molzberger.
67 “Medallions.”—Venables.
68 Both Socrates (5. 17) and Sozomen (7. 15) relate that symbols of the cross found in a temple of Serapis, on its destruction by Theodosius, were explained by the Christians of the time as symbols of immortality. Cf. also Suidas (ed. Gasiford, 2 (1834), 3398), s. 5,Stauroi; Valesius on Socrates and Sozomen; Jablonski, Opuscula, 1, p. 156-. The study of the pre-christian use of the cross is most suggestive. It suggests at least that in some way the passion of our Lord was the realization of some world-principle or “natural Law.”
69 Compare the Church History, 8. 14.
70 Maxentius, made emperor by an uprising of the Praetorian Guards in 306.
71 “For” seems to express the author’s real meaning, but both punctuation of editors and renderings of translators insist on “but.”
72 Various readings of text add “lawfully married” women, and send them back again “grievously dishonored,” and so Bag., but Heinichen has this reading. Compare note of Heinichen).
73 This chapter is found almost word for word in the Church History, 8. 14.
74 1709, Molz. &c., add “nor anywhere else,” but Bag. is undoubtedly fight in translating simply “ever before.” The chapter is found substantially and in part word for word in the Church History, 8. 14.
75 “Because the soothsayers had foretold that if he went out of it, he should perish.” Lact). De M. P.
76 Bag. adds “and numberless ambuscades,” following Valesius and 1709. The word so rendered is the word for “companies of soldiers.” The rather awkward “multitude of heavy-armed soldiers and myriads of companies of soldiers” may be rendered as above, although “larger bodies of soldiers and limitless supplies”suggested by the translation is perhaps the real meaning. He had both “men and means.”
675 77 At Sigusium, Turin, Brescia, and Verona.
78 The Milvian, the present Ponte Molle.
79 The present Ponte Molle is nearly 2 1/2 kilometers (say 1 1/2 miles) from the Porta del Popolo (at the Mons Pincius). The walls at that time were the ones built by Aurelian, and are substantially the same as the present ones. This Pons Milvius was first built 100 years b.c., and “some part of the first bridge is supposed to remain” (Jenkin, p. 329). Compare Jenkin, art). Bridges, in Enc. Brit. 4 (1878), 329, for cut and description.
80 (Ex 15,4 Ex 15, is identically taken from the Septuagint with the change of only one word, where Eusebius gains little in exchanging “swallowed up in” for plunged or drowned in.
81 “Heavy armed and light armed.”
82 (Ex 15,5 Ex 15,
83 “Godless,” or if aneu is to be read, “destitute of his aid,” as Bag. Much conjecture has been expended on this reading. Heinichen has aqeei.
84 (Ps 7,15, Ps 7,16, Septuagint translation.
85 This matter is discussed in the Prolegomena.
86 (Ex 15,10 Ex 15,
87 (Ex 15,1, Ex 15,2, Ex 15,11, Septuagint version. This whole chapter with the last paragraph of the preceding are in the Church History, 9. 9.
676 88 Compare Prolegomena under Character, and also for other accounts of the universal joy under Life.
89 Compare the Church History, 9. 9.
If it be true, as Cruse says, that in this inscription there are traces of the Latin original, it gives a strong presumption that Eusebius was quoting a really existing inscription and accordingly that it is genuine. If so, of course the probability of the vision of the cross is greatly increased).
90 “Oratories,” or chapels.
91 Variously rendered, but seems to say that the smaller buildings were enlarged and the larger ones enriched. The number of buildings which Constantine is claimed to have erected in Rome alone is prodigious. One meets at every turn in the modern city churches which were, it is said, founded or remodeled by him. For interesting monograph which claims to have established the Constantinian foundation of many of these, see Ciampini in Prolegomena, under Literature.
92 (So usually rendered literally, “to those who came to him from without,” but it might rather mean “foreigners.” His generosity included not only the worthy poor citizens, but foreigners and beggars.
93 The word used is the koinwnia, familiar in the doctrine of the “communion” or “fellowship” of the saints. It has the notion of reciprocity and mutual sharing.
94 The popular proverb that at the end of his life he was a spendthrift, as given by Victor, represents the other side of this liberality. Compare Prolegomena, under Character.
95 Constantine, like Eusebius himself, would be a distinct “tolerationist” in modern theological controversy. One may imagine that Eusebius entered into favor with Constantine in this way. It commends itself to our feeling; but after all, the unyielding Athanasius was a greater man than Eusebius.
96 Compare Prolegomena, under Life and Works.
97 [This passage in the text is defective or corrupt.—Bag.] What is given is substantially the conventional translation of Valesius, Heinichen, Molzberger, and with some variation, 1709 and Bag. It is founded, however, on a conjectural reading, and reluctating against this, a suggestion may be hazarded—“an excessive philanthropy for the folly of the insane, even to the point of sympathy for them.”
677 98 Some read “unbroken” or “perfect.”
99 There is long discussion of whether Maximian or Maximin is intended. To any one who compares the order of narration in the Church History, 9. 9, 11, the discussion will seem idle, though it is curious that the one most jealous and greedy of power should have been mistaken for one of the abdicators. It seems as if there had been some confusion in the mind of Eusebius himself.
100 Unburnt offerings, meat offerings).
101 Licinius married in 313 Constantia, sister of Constantine.
102 Thus generally following the Church History (10. 8).
103 This rendering of Bag. is really a gloss from the Church History, 10. 8. Compare rendering of McGiffert. Molzberger renders “and left him in complete possession of the portions of the kingdom which had fallen to his lot.”
104 Perhaps “synods or councils and conferences on economic matters.”
105 Compare Church History, 10. 9.
106 Compare Church History, 10. 9, and the same for the following chapters, in parts or whole).
107 [Galerius Maximian. The description of his illness and death in the next chapter is repeated from the author’s Ecclesiastical History, Bk. 8, c. 16.—Bag.] Compare translation of McGiffert, p. 338, and note; also Lactantius, De M. P. c. 33.
108 Compare edict in the Church History, 8. 17.
109 Licinius.
NPNF2-01 Eusebius 666