Not like the Da Vinci Code

This book gives an historical overview of the reign of Constantine the Great, the first Roman emperor who converted to Christianity. It also deals extensively with Eusebius of Caesarea, the Christian bishop who became Constantine's biographer (or perhaps panegyrist). The book is boring, tedious and sometimes hard to read. Yet, it's a must for anyone interested in Constantine.

The book might be of special interest for those who wish to counter the current craze around "The Da Vinci Code". Barnes believes, correctly in my opinion, that Constantine was a real Christian and that his conversion took place already before his conquest of Rome. While he certainly used Christianity as an instrument of political power, he seems to have been personally convinced that the Christian message was true. And no, he was not a pagan.

Even more interesting is Barnes' analysis of Constantine's dealings with the Church. It turns out that Constantine wasn't "orthodox" and didn't suppress the "heretical" Arians. Rather, Constantine attempted to mediate between the orthodox and Arian factions within the Church. He simply didn't understand what the fuzz was all about!

At the first ecumenical church council at Nicaea, the Nicene creed was adopted almost unanimously while Arius was excommunicated. But this was not a victory for orthodoxy over Arianism. Rather, Constantine hoped that the Nicene creed would be acceptable to all factions, as indeed it was - even the Arians voted for it, with the exception of two close associates of Arius himself. Of course, the unity achieved at the council proved to be very short-lived, as conflicts between the various factions erupted again shortly afterwards, with Constantine constantly wavering back and forth between orthodox and Arians. Ironically, both the bishop who wrote Constantine's biography, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the bishop who baptized him at his deathbed, Eusebius of Nicomedia, were Arians! So was Constantine's son and main successor, Constantius.

Thus, Constantine was neither the orthodox saint he is imagined to be by traditionalist Catholics, or the orthodox villain of Da Vinci Code fame. The real Constantine was a much more complex person. This Timothy Barnes demonstrates conclusively in his book. The only problem with the book is the author's inexplicable hatred for the orthodox church father Athanasius, which he develops even more in a later book, "Athanasius and Constantius". It's unclear why Athanasius should be considered as worse than avarage relative to other churchmen or imperial officials, or why Constantius (who seems to have been an average despot), should be seen as better...

Yet, I give "Constantine and Eusebius" 4 stars out of 5, not because of its style, but because of its contents and importance.

Since this review is so objective and dispassionate, I guess I have to point out, that I don't *like* Constantine the Great. True, he was probably "better" than other Roman emperors, but that doesn't say much, since the competition wasn't very stiff - I mean, many emperors of Rome seem to have been sociopaths! The problem was the Empire itself, a deeply oppressive system that ultimately couldn't be reformed, only smashed. This was eventually accomplished during the 5th century, at least in the West... But that's another story.