Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| General Characterization. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
§7. General
Characterization.
Before trying to gather into
continuous statement the traits of character which have been examined,
a few general characterizations must be mentioned at least. Beginning
at the bottom, the unfriendly, or hostile, or at the least
unsympathetic, heathen testimonies generalize him as at least
relatively and on the whole both great and good. The general tendency
of heathen testimony is to represent him as admirable in the early part
of his reign, but execrable, or less admirable, in the latter part;
that of Christian writers is to represent a growth of excellence, which
raises him to saintship at the end. This is most natural. Favoring
Christianity was itself a moral fall to a heathen, and bestowing money
on Christians would be robbery. The turning of his character was with
his changing face towards Christianity, and culminated in the overthrow
of Licinius. Licinius fought really as the champion of heathenism. The
adherents of a lost cause are characterizing their victor. It is like
an ex-Confederate characterizing Lincoln or Grant. The point of view is
different. Honest and true men in the South thought Lincoln a curse,
and often in popular verdict his character was “black.” The
popular proverb quoted by Victor (Epit. p. 51),
“Bull-necked for ten years, for twelve a freebooter, and for ten
a spendthrift (immature child),” has just the value of a Southern
popular opinion of Lincoln, or a rural Northerner’s of
“Jeff Davis.” Indeed, the first might summarize at times
the Southern popular verdict of Grant; the second, a frequently
expressed estimate of Lincoln’s conduct in the emancipation of
slaves; and the third, their view of the enormous expenditure for
pensions of Union soldiers, even as it was fifteen years ago. But even
the rather severe Victor, who reports this proverb, finds Constantine
“most excellent (commodissimus) in many
respects,”—in respect of certain laws, in his patronage of
the arts, especially that of letters, as scholar, as author, in the
hearing of delegations and complaints (p. 51). Again,
“Praxagoras, though a heathen, says that in all sorts of virtue
and personal excellence and good fortune, Constantine outshone all the
emperors who preceded him” (Photius, Cod. 62, ed.
Müller, p. 1). And finally, the heathen Eutropius, who
characterizes from his standpoint so admirably,3046
3046 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.” |
though he naturally finds that “in the beginning of his reign he
might have been compared to the best princes; in the latter part, only
to those of middling character,” nevertheless records “that
innumerable good qualities of mind and body were present in him,”
and that he was “deservedly enrolled among the
gods,”—using the meruit which he uses also of
Aurelian, but not generally, and not even of Constantius. On purely
heathen testimony, therefore, Constantine, taken by and large, was
comparatively remarkable and admirable. A moderate Christian
characterization is that of Theophanes (p. 29): “Pre-eminent for
masculine strength of character, penetration of mind, well-disciplined
power of thought; for unbending righteousness, ready benevolence,
thorough majestic beauty of countenance, mighty and successful in war,
great in wars with the barbarians, invincible in domestic wars, and so
firm and unshaken in faith that through prayer he obtained the victory
in all his battles.” Remembering, therefore, that
in order to understand a character in past centuries one must project
himself into his time; remembering again the circumstances of his time
and its practice, we shall, without forgetting any of the acts on which
he has been judged, find him on indisputable testimony superior to most
of the other emperors in character, and as much above the circumstances
of his times as would characterize a man of to-day as of peculiarly
high moral character. In view of this, it is uncritical, and a violence
to historical evidence, to approach one whom, at death, the heathen
thought worthy to be enrolled among the gods, and the Christians
canonized as saint (in the Greek calendar), as other than one who,
taken all in all, was of unusual excellence of character. As in any
synthesis, any organization, subordinate facts must be viewed in their
relation to their center and whole, as by any law of criminal procedure
acts must be judged in the light of general character, so any rational,
legal, scientific, historical estimate of Constantine must be in view
of this fact.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|