Z0505071

An examination of Eusebius’ Tricennial oration, “In

Praise of Constantine” as a reflection of the
development of Christian panegyric in the early fourth
century A.D.

This dissertation is a result of my own work. Material from the work of

others has been acknowledged and quotations and paraphrases suitably
indicated. The dissertation is 12, 540 words long.

1
 CONTENTS

Introduction 3

1. Style of the de Laudibus Constantini 6

Basilikos Logos VS de Laudibus Constantini 7

Arrangement and Invention 9

Eusebius’ ‘Encomium’; Adherent or Divergent? 11

Conclusions on Stylistic Development 15

2. Content of the de Laudibus Constantini 17

Christian Political Philosophy in Chapters One through Four 18

Content of a Traditional Topos in Eusebius and Nazarius 25

Conclusions on Content 29

3. Transmission of the de Laudibus Constantini 31

The Effect of Transmission? 34

Conclusion 36

Bibliography 39

2
 Introduction

The intention of this dissertation is to discern whether Eusebius’ Tricennial

oration, ‘In Praise of Constantine’, also known as the de Laudibus Constantini,
reflects a specifically Christian development of imperial panegyric in terms of
style and content.
Given that a significant amount of study of late antique Christian literature
has been devoted to Christian panegyrical homilies and funeral orations by well-
known Christian preachers, it immediately introduces my subject as an area that is
understudied. Eusebius is best known as Church historian, and thus his imperial
orations are often neglected. Yet, he remains one of the first few Christian orators
to offer praise to the first Christian emperor, in a transitional period for the
Christian sect, which no longer found itself persecuted, but privileged.
Moreover, since panegyric falls in to the category of epideictic oratory, the
oratory of praise and entertainment, historians have long regarded it as
untrustworthy since much of it is comprised of insincere flattery. After all,
panegyric, “a speech suitable for public assembly”, (Vickers, 1988, p.53) by the
time of the Romans, had been developed to address a specific outstanding person,
usually the emperor. (Vickers, 1988, p.56) As such, Drake, who in the Seventies
explored the de Laudibus Constantini for historical information about
Constantine, acknowledged that it was probably this distrust of insincere flattery
which had left Eusebius’ imperial panegyric so understudied. (1976, p.47)
However, I intend to examine Eusebius’ oration, not for historical
information about Constantine, but for clues of Christian development in the genre
of panegyric. To do this, I intend to examine classical rhetorical precepts for
composing a speech, namely ‘arrangement’/ style and ‘invention’/ content. In this
examination, I will seek to identify where Eusebius adheres to classical precedent,
and where he diverges from it, and if this reflects Christian influence, or
circumstantial adaptation.
As such, I have developed an experimental hypothesis to guide my
examination. This will help discern if the de Laudibus Constantini is reflective of
development of Christian imperial panegyric in the early fourth century A.D. Thus
the hypothesis states: “the de Laudibus Constantini oration is different, both in

3
style and content, from pagan imperial panegyrics made in the early fourth
century A.D.”
I will test this hypothesis in my first two chapters. Chapter one will serve
to treat the first aspect of my hypothesis, namely, style. In order to do this, I will
contrast the style of Eusebius’ oration against the criteria of Menander Rhetor’s
Basilikos Logos prescribed for an imperial panegyric. Since epideictic became the
predominant form of oratory in late antiquity, but the progymnasmata in schools
only instructed on judicial and deliberative oratory, some form of instruction was
necessary for panegyrists and thus Menander’s treatises appeared. (Russell and
Wilson, 1981, p.xii) Menander’s arrangement for a Basilikos Logos is that of an
encomium, and it is interesting to investigate if Eusebius adheres to this
prescription, or diverges from it. In the process of such an investigation I will seek
to question Christianity’s influence on Eusebius’ stylistic choices.
Following this comparison of style, in my second chapter I will seek to test
the second aspect of my experimental hypothesis, namely the content of Eusebius’
oration. Chapters of Eusebius’ oration whose content comprise a divergence from
classical style will be explored to discern if their divergence is reflective of
Christian development of imperial panegyric. More specifically, I will seek to
outline how these divergent chapters depict a Christian political ideology.
Additionally, I will compare the content of an encomiastic topic,
maintained in Eusebius’ oration, with that of a pagan oration, namely Nazarius’
‘panegyric of Constantine’. This is to discern whether there has been any
Christian influence on the content of a classical topic.
My final chapter will seek to address what can be known as the de
Laudibus Constantini as a whole, as it was recorded for posterity, namely
Eusebius’ two Tricennial orations, “In Praise of Constantine” and the “Christ’s
Sepulcher” orations. The form in which we have these orations today is as a joint
appendix to Eusebius' biography of Constantine (the Vita Constantini).
By conjoining these two Tricennial orations into ‘one’, (Eusebius does not
make distinction between them in their printed form) I intend to briefly survey
whether they work together to depict a Christian political ideology. I intend to
highlight how, when contrasted with one another, the “Christ’s Sepulcher” oration
compliments the themes, and expands upon any ambiguous religious language,
from the “In Praise of Constantine” oration. Moreover, I intend to argue that the

4
transmission of these two orations together creates a new form of Christianised
rhetoric; the sermon-panegyric as Gagé would say. (Drake, 1976, p.39)
Overall, I seek to prove my hypotheses correct. As part of discerning any
differences between the Eusebius’ oration and pagan imperial panegyrics, I intend
to show that they were largely because of Christian influence, since Eusebius
asserted a “Christian political ideology.” (Cameron, 1991, p.130) Thus I will aim
to show how Eusebius’ oration does indeed reflect development of specifically
Christian panegyric in the early fourth century A.D. through style, content and
amalgamation of orations.

5
 Style of the de Laudibus Constantini

In order to begin testing my experimental hypothesis, that the de Laudibus

Constantini (hereafter referred to as the LC) oration is different, both in style and
content, from pagan imperial panegyrics made in the early fourth century, this
chapter will be an examination of its style. By style I mean “arrangement”, the
second precept of the Hellenistic five ‘parts’ for planning and composing a
speech. (Kennedy, 1997, p.5) After all, in ancient rhetorical theory there was a
clear distinction between style and content, for indeed the medium was not the
message. Yet, the choice of ‘medium’ could seriously enhance or damage the
persuasive powers of a composition. (Young, 1997, p.100)
Before testing the stylistic aspect of my hypothesis, it is necessary to
outline the general purposes panegyric served in late antiquity, then, more
specifically, the purposes of imperial panegyric. Understanding the purposes of an
address can throw light on the style it follows. After this I will examine the oration
against a contemporary prescriptive treatise on how to compose imperial oratory.
To begin, by the fourth century A.D., panegyric was a major oratorical
form, as “it performed important cultural, social and even political functions and
(so) should not be dismissed as a quaint artificiality.” (Kennedy, 1983, p.23) It
was the collapse of the Graeco-Roman political and judicial systems in the
classical period that gave rise to panegyric’s application in ethics, politics, and
cultural group cohesion in late antiquity. (Vickers, 1988, p.54/56)
So, given the prominence and diversified functions of epideictic oratory in
the fourth century A.D., what can then be said about the purposes of imperial
panegyrics in this period? Morton Braund (1998, p.55) highlights that Roman
prose panegyric adapted “the Greek framework to its specific context”, which
could vary for imperial addresses from an inauguration, to an imperial birthday,
anniversary, or cultural festival. Each of these contexts are highly specific socio-
political occasions, and so it makes sense that panegyrists should have used their
discretion to adapt general rhetorical technique to suit the individual
circumstances of their address.
Furthermore, the panegyrist’s attitude about his purpose for composing the
imperial address would affect its construction. According to Whitby, (1998, p.1)
he might view himself as a mediator, adviser, propagandist or an intermediate

6
admixture, which would affect the choice and order of topics discussed in their
oration. Additionally, a panegyrist might have a personal agenda to convey in his
imperial oration, or he may be conscious of the demand to satisfy both the
audience and the honorand, which could again affect the type and order of topics
discussed. (Whitby, 1998, p.1)
With these considerations in mind, I intend to use Menander Rhetor’s
prescriptive Basilikos Logos to test how far the LC diverges from or adheres to
this past precedent. Since this treatise was written in either the late third or early
fourth century A.D. (Russell and Wilson, 1981, p. xi) it is of great benefit to this
investigation, since it is recent to the panegyric Eusebius composed. Moreover,
this treatise is especially useful as it provides a useful “yardstick for the evaluation
of imperial works of praise.” (Whitby, 1998, p.3)
Thus, the question to ask is, did Eusebius reach back to Menander’s
classically based schematic layout and stereotyped examples? Or, did he utilize
the changing focus of the Empire under Constantine to attempt a reformed
persuasive style given the influential position Christianity now held? In order to
decide, I will compare Menander’s treatise with the LC.

Basilikos Logos VS de Laudibus Constantini

Menander’s treatise opens with a declaration that “the imperial oration is

an encomium of the emperor”. (1981, p.77) As such, he states that the over-
arching theme of the oration will be amplification of good things relating to the
emperor. To achieve this amplification, he gives examples that would befit the
prooemia for such an imperial address. Following these examples, the prooemia
should come to a close with the orator introducing the encomium. (Menander,
1981, pp.77-9)
Comparing this prescription with Eusebius’ imperial oration, we can
readily acknowledge that it is indeed an encomium; in so far that it is “a speech or
piece of writing expressing praise”. (Oxford English Dictionary, 2010) Indeed, the
term πανηγυρικός and ἐγκώµιον were interchangeable in late antiquity since both
share such a definition.

7
 However, the term ‘encomium’ can also refer to a literary genre composed
of five elements which serve to exhibit the good qualities of a person or thing.
These elements generally included a proem, origins, virtuous accomplishments
and actions of the subject, comparisons to aid praise of the subject and an
epilogue. (Kennedy, 2003) These five elements would form the basis of a lengthy
work, and so ἐγκώµιον differs from ἔπαινος/ praise since ἔπαινος can be made in
a short statement. (Kennedy, 2003, p.81) Despite this difference, the encomium
would still be praiseworthy due to its purpose of exhibiting good qualities in the
subject.
Menander outlines a structure of the imperial oration according to this
latter definition of encomium. He outlines an order for praising the emperor,
beginning with a proem, then moving through his native country/ city, family,
birth, nature, upbringing, accomplishments, actions including courage in wars
waged and peace established, just legislation, temperance and wisdom. If we
pause here for a moment we can identify Menander’s codified structure for
praising the four classic virtues of a ruler, i.e. courage, justice, temperance and
wisdom, under accomplishments and actions. (Morton Braund, 1998, p.57) This
codification acted as a template for orators to readily measure the virtues of an
emperor for the various purposes of imperial panegyric previously outlined.
Returning to Menander’s prescriptions, the address should further mention
Fortune, compare the emperor’s reign with past reigns and close with an epilogue.
The epilogue should praise the prosperity enjoyed under the emperor, offer
prayers for his longevity, and that his throne should pass to his descendents.
(Menander, pp.79-95)
In contrast, Eusebius does not discuss Constantine’s origins, nor indeed
detail the emperor’s accomplishments and actions like the stereotyped examples
of Menander’s encomium. Drake argues that since Menander wrote his treatise
during a period of fleeting emperors, such background material was to serve either
a eulogistic function, or help legitimize the claimant of the throne. (1976, p.38)
Since the occasion of Eusebius’ oration was a celebration of the thirty- year reign
Constantine had so far enjoyed, discussing his background history would have
been irrelevant. Additionally, in late antiquity there was a distinction arising
between panegyric and biography since biographical material was deemed to be

8
historically factual. Since panegyric was generally mistrusted for historical
reliability, later Roman panegyrists tended to veer away from including
biographical material in their oration, and it could be Eusebius is doing likewise.
(MacCormack, 1975, p.31)
Instead, Eusebius’ oration satisfies some aspects of Menander’s
prescriptions; having a proem, praising the emperor’s virtues, comparing
Constantine’s reign with his predecessors’ and closing with a kind of epilogue.
However, can an oration still qualify as the literary genre of encomium if some
elements of what comprises an encomium are absent?
To answer this question, we should return to Morton Braund’s point, that
Roman imperial panegyrics adapted the Greek framework to their specific
context. Consequently, perhaps Eusebius’s address can meet the criteria for the
genre of encomium, albeit in an adapted form. After all, for Menander classical
literature was the basis from which to draw examples for the purposes of
comparison and amplification of the subject of an imperial address. (Young, 1997,
p.103) As such, he adapted the Greek framework to form an example- based
treatise for the Roman Empire whereby praise of an emperor’s virtues came under
specific topoi. These topoi were typically accomplishments/ actions, including
war, declarations of peace and legislative practices.
In the case of Eusebius, the emperor’s virtues are praised, although as part
of a spiritual theme as opposed to under a military or political ‘heading’.
Moreover, this spiritual theme is over-arching and pervades every chapter of
Eusebius’ oration, as opposed to being a lone heading under which Constantine’s
virtues are praised before moving on to other aspects of the emperor’s career and
person. Thus, rather than adhere to Menander’s ‘headings’ for each chapter,
Eusebius adapts some of these formal niceties to suit his religious theme and the
occasion of his oration. Therefore, Eusebius’ address arguably qualifies as an
encomium adapted to fit with his religious theme.

Arrangement and Invention

At this point it must be recognized that a discussion of the style/

‘arrangement’ of an oration will be very closely connected with its content/

9
‘invention’. So despite Young’s point that rhetorical theory made a distinction
between style and content, that does not mean they were not mutually influential
of one another. (1997, p.100) After all, rhetoric is persuasion through language
and oratory is the mode of persuasion, the two sides of the coin.
Consequently, Menander’s treatise provides a running order of topoi,
through which one can praise the emperor, and he provides “model paragraphs,
sometimes offering a piece from the classics” to assist imperial panegyrists.
(Young, 1997, p.102) Therefore, his prescriptions for arrangement are perhaps
equally as advisory of content, or at the very least an indirect influence. Arguably
this was because the ancients felt imitation of great writers from the past was key
to achieving sublimity of style. (Young, 1997 p.101) Therefore, Menander’s
exemplar paragraphs, with famous classical quotes, were perhaps offered as
inspiration and guidance for the writing style of others. After all, epideictic was
largely learned through imitation. (Kennedy, 1983, p.26)
Important to aid this discussion about the interdependent relationship of
style and content is Lausberg’s opinion that late antique arrangement theories
revolved around two poles. He identifies the first as “‘disposition internal to the
discourse’ which is arrangement according to the rules for the ‘parts of speech’”
(1984, cited in Wuellner, 1997, p.52) arising from the orator’s inventio and
iudicium. The second Lausberg calls “‘disposition external to the discourse’, the
type of arrangement determined by the utilitas, where the orator uses his judgment
to modify the order.” (1984, cited in Wuellner, 1997, p.52) Both these types of
arrangement reiterate the point that style and content are interlinked.
I would argue that both Menander’s treatise and Eusebius’s oration fall
into the second category, despite maintaining the typical Hellenistic ‘parts of
speech’. For, in the case of Menander, his treatise reflects the generally changed
position of rhetoric in the Roman Empire by the late third/ early fourth century
A.D. This was a period of social and political upheaval, and with epideictic’s
increased role in the political sphere, prescriptions for the various forms of
epideictic oratory to suit the times was needed. (Russell and Wilson, 1981, p.xv)
For Eusebius, the adapted style of his oration was to suit entirely new
circumstances, even to Menander’s closely dated prescriptions. His oration was
celebrating the longest ruling Emperor since Augustus and the first Christian
emperor in history. Moreover, as one of the first Christian Bishops to offer praise

10
to the Emperor in an official panegyric, Eusebius adapted Menander’s version of
the imperial encomium which no longer accommodated Constantine. (Saylor
Rodgers, 1989, p.234)

Eusebius’ ‘Encomium’; Adherent or Divergent?

To fulfill the purpose of this chapter, it is necessary to outline which

aspects of Menander’s treatise Eusebius’ oration adheres to and/ or diverges from.
As part of this process, I will attempt to account for any divergences by discussing
the circumstances of Eusebius’ address, as stated in Lausberg’s second theory of
arrangement. However, whilst this process requires me to outline the content of
the oration and treatise, I will not dwell too long on it, as this aspect of my
hypothesis will be engaged in detail in my next chapter.
Eusebius’ oration opens with a proem that immediately quotes Homer, and
amplifies the subject by declaring that royal praises will be sung in a newer strain,
which will not involve mundane accomplishments for a mundane audience.
Instead, Eusebius invests the emperor with grandeur by acknowledging his
“godlike virtues and pious acts above his human ones.” (1976, p.83) The audience
is then introduced to the topic to be discussed in the main body of the oration,
which is a lesson about sovereignty, including the “Highest Sovereign”, “the holy
escort”, the “model sovereignty” and its “counterfeit”. (1976, p.83)
At this point, Eusebius has adhered to Menander’s model by including a
proem, which quotes Homer and amplifies the emperor’s virtues, so investing him
with grandeur. However, the Homeric quote itself does not serve the purpose of
investing grandeur as Menander prescribed, but to make the audience attentive.
After all, given that Eusebius’ oration was delivered in the royal palace at
Constantinople, where the listeners was probably more in touch with Greek
classical literature, quoting Homer was a suitable opening for such an audience.
Additionally, Eusebius concentrates on emphasizing the lesson to be
learned in the main body of the oration, regarding sovereignty, in both its earthly
and divine forms. As such, Eusebius’ oration is introduced as one that is split
across the earthly and heavenly realms, praising both the “Highest Sovereign” and
the “model sovereign”, Constantine. (1976, p.83) Consequently, the virtues
Eusebius praises in the proem are not the four classical virtues, but the emperor’s

11
“godlike virtues” and accomplishments, since the earthly sovereign is praised in
conjunction with his God.
Drake made the fair observation that Eusebius does not mention
Constantine’s origins because he has been on the throne for thirty years, and such
a topic would be more typical of an imperial address at an inauguration or funeral,
rather than at a celebration of a lengthy reign. (1976, p.38) Instead, it is replaced
with four chapters outlining Constantine’s God, “the Supreme Sovereign” who
rules through his “Only- begotten Logos” and is the “author” of the Tricennial
festivities. Eusebius outlines similarities between the Logos and the emperor, and
that Constantine’s earthly monarchical rule reflects religious monotheism. This is
followed by a philosophical passage about man’s inherent logic coming from the
Logos who makes mankind suitable for heaven. (Eusebius, 1976, pp. 84-90)
Consequently, Menander’s topic of origins has been replaced with a topic
conveying Eusebius’ religious theme. As a result, there is little to compare this
with in Menander’s treatise, except perhaps his instructions to talk about the birth
of an emperor as divine, and that a divine sign appeared at the birth. (Menander,
1981, p.81) Accordingly, both texts view amplification of the emperor to the
height of the divine as perfectly reasonable. Moreover, in the case of Eusebius, it
is not just a one- off comparison to flatter the emperor; it is a recurring subtheme.
Likening Constantine to the divine Logos would endow him with a sense of pious
duty to his empire. Moreover, monarchy is referred to as a reflection of
monotheism. In contrast is polyarchy, which is reflective of polytheism, and so
anarchy. This would imply to Constantine the benefits of remaining faithful to the
Supreme Sovereign.
Eusebius’ brief, abstract philosophical passage in chapter four concentrates
on the Logos bringing humanity to the “heavenly one” (Eusebius, 1976, p.88), and
on top of the prior comparisons between the emperor and Logos, this perhaps
reflects a personal agenda. Bishops never before had an occasion to praise an
emperor, especially considering the persecution Christianity suffered at the hands
of many of them. However, given that the personal religion of Constantine was
that of Christianity, it is possible that Eusebius had inserted this passage as a
means to convey the strong government under this Christian emperor. It was, after
all, unusual to discuss so extensively, the religion of an emperor. (MacCormack,
1975, p.63) However, if it assisted amplifying Constantine’s reign it would be

12
suitable for an occasion praising his thirty- year rule. Additionally, it gave
Eusebius an opportunity to trumpet to the emperor how Church-State relations
benefited his government.
Next is ‘accomplishments’, which chapter five of Eusebius’ oration
adheres to quite well. Here Constantine is told he will share in God’s kingdom as
a reward for his piety. Following this is a list of all the virtues of the emperor as
well as the passions he is lord of. This is contrasted to an impious sovereign,
enslaved by temptation so much that their sovereignty is voided.
Menander states that accomplishments are qualities of the emperor’s
character which are not involved with competitive actions. Eusebius has adhered
to this prescript by making a statement of the emperor’s inherent virtues outside of
any competitive context. Moreover, the contrast with the impious sovereign
adheres to Menander’s over-arching point that comparisons should be made
throughout the address to amplify the subject.
Following this, I want to group together the topoi of ‘actions’, ‘Fortune’
and the ‘complete comparison’ to contrast with Eusebius’ chapters six through
nine. Eusebius discusses the length of the emperor’s reign in great detail in
chapter six, using Pythagorean number symbolism. This chapter is, by design,
unique to the context of Eusebius’ oration since no other emperor has ruled for so
long since Augustus. Moreover, the reference to the “Saving Sign” is a unique
symbol of Constantine’s reign and empire, and so cannot be prescribed by a
rhetorician like Menander. Only the brief sentences at the end of this chapter
might compare to actions of ‘war’ which Menander lists under the topic of
‘actions’. Eusebius states that by the “Saving Sign”, Constantine “has won
victories over his godless foes and barbarians, and now over the demons
themselves…” (1976, p.94) As part of Eusebius’ religious theme, lengthy praise
for actions of war would not be entirely appropriate. However, turning it into a
religious victory through the aid of the Supreme Sovereign, Eusebius gives quite
an abstract chapter some grounding in a topic the royal court would have been
used to hearing praised. Moreover, chapter seven begins with a depiction of the
emperor as an “invincible warrior” of God over polytheistic evils, which again
allows his oration to return to concepts the audience would have been used to, and
probably expecting to hear. However, the subject of war is an example offered by
Menander as a way to outline the emperor’s virtues of courage and wisdom. This

13
is not the purpose for mentioning any war-like actions in Eusebius’ oration, but to
illustrate Constantine’s constant service to his God.
Menander’s peaceful actions compare well with Eusebius’ chapters seven
and eight, where the emperor imitates the Saviour by teaching piety to the godless,
and making them law- abiding citizens again. Moreover, Eusebius states that the
emperor’s actions to abolish polytheism have led to peace. However, the virtues
praised in chapters seven and eight are much less focused on the specific virtues
of temperance, justice and wisdom, as Menander’s treatise would prefer. The
oration is very much connected with piety, and any additional virtues displayed by
the emperor are from God. As such, Menander’s topic of Fortune, is, for Eusebius,
instead bound up with the fortune the Supreme Sovereign bestows on Constantine.
However, both link the emperor’s prodigy with fortune, although Menander’s
‘Fortune’ is a personified concept, and in Eusebius it is an act of generosity on
God’s part.
The section of Menander’s treatise regarding a ‘complete comparison’
between the present emperor’s reign with past reigns is the only specifically
designated topic in Eusebius’ oration, for it begins with a simple statement that
this comparison is about to take place. However, unlike Menander’s prescript,
Eusebius does not treat the past emperors kindly, but heavily criticizes them as
tyrants and persecutors, who were consequently engaged in constant war. This
section reiterates the gift of the Saving Sign, given to Constantine to defeat
enemies who attacked the Supreme Sovereign. As a Bishop of the church who
lived through the years of the ‘Great Persecution”, it is unlikely Eusebius could
have ever adhered to Menander’s prescript to look back on such rulers favourably.
As far as Eusebius’ oration goes, chapter ten appears to be its closing
epilogue. Unlike Menander’s prescript which outlines a general theme of praise
for every aspect of life under the emperor including prosperity, peace, increased
piety towards God, safety etc. Eusebius is extremely concerned with the “Saving
Trophy” and its eradication of polytheism, which in turn has brought the empire to
know the “God over all.” (1976, p.100) Furthermore, Eusebius does not offer a
prayer for the emperor’s safety, that he be blessed with a long reign or to hand his
throne to his children. This is most likely because he has declared that the
Supreme Sovereign keeps the emperor safe, and because he has already mentioned

14
the long reign Constantine has enjoyed, along with his sons, and that it will be
longer in God’s kingdom.

Conclusions on Stylistic Development

What can thus be concluded about the style of Eusebius’ oration? Is it so

different as to be described as development away from classical conventions of
arrangement into a distinctive Christian style? Or is it different in the sense that it
is simply an adaptation of standard practice to suit Eusebius’ specific social and
political as well as cultural and religious circumstances?
Ultimately, I think that the extent to which Eusebius has seemingly
adhered to Menander’s style is more striking than any divergences, given that he
includes a proem, amplificatory comparisons of the emperor’s virtues and reign,
as well as an epilogue of sorts.
However, it is true, and must be kept in mind, that given the change in
social and political circumstances between the composition of Menander’s treatise
and Eusebius’ oration, that it may have been Eusebius’ “familiarity with
established practice rather than reference to (Menander’s) standard scheme”
(Whitby, 1998, p.2) that influenced him. This is a plausible conclusion to draw,
especially as Eusebius rarely employs any version of the stereotyped examples
Menander provides in the model paragraphs for his topoi.
Nevertheless, any divergence, whether from Menander’s encomiastic
treatise, or the definition of encomium more generally, is perhaps more reflective
of the fact Roman panegyrists typically adapted the Greek framework to suit their
circumstances. Accordingly, despite the short time period between Menander’s
treatise and the Tricennial celebrations, the needs of epideictic orators had
changed again. No longer was praise owed to fleeting emperors assuming the
throne and dying, but to a long-lived, Christian emperor celebrating his lengthy
and peaceful reign. Therefore, by the time of Eusebius’ oration Lausberg’s second
theory on style would have been in action all the more. This was largely due to the
metamorphosis of the Roman Empire and imperial monarchy under Constantine,
which meant imperial panegyrists, pagan and Christian alike, had to structure their
material according to these new circumstances. (Saylor Rodgers, 1989, p.234)

15
 Moreover, this metamorphosis brought a new era of imperial support for
Christianity. In these circumstances prominent Christian preachers like Eusebius
moved to demonstrate affinity between Christianity and the political system of the
empire. (Cameron, 1991, p.130) This is reflected in their ability “to accommodate
themselves to the modes of discourse that already prevailed.” (Cameron, 1991,
p.121) Thus Eusebius’ replacement of typical encomiastic topoi with chapters on
philosophy and religion, and the interdependent relationship of the emperor and
Supreme Sovereign, is not a radical change, but adaptation of a traditional
prescriptive treatise to suit the contemporary political system of the empire under
Constantine.
As such, the LC does not reflect stylistic development of Christian
panegyric. Instead, the content of the adapted topoi, employed by Eusebius to suit
the occasion of his oration, must be analyzed, along with his presentation of
traditional encomiastic topoi, in order to decide whether development of Christian
panegyric lies there.

16
 Content of the de Laudibus Constantini

This chapter will test the second aspect of my experimental hypothesis,

that the LC is different in content to that of pagan imperial panegyrics of the early
fourth century A.D.
In order to undertake this test, I intend to examine the content of chapters
one through four of the LC where adaptation of Menander’s traditional
encomiastic topic of ‘origins’ has taken place. Upon closer inspection, this
adaptation is not radical, but reflects a change of emphasis from Menander’s
concern with the emperor’s earthly origins to Eusebius’ concern with the
emperor’s divine origins.
Kennedy highlights that a rhetorical topic is the locus for an argument,
(Kennedy, 1980, p.82) and I believe it is through the topic of Constantine’s divine
origins that Eusebius argues for a “Christian political ideology.”1 (1991, p.130)
Baynes asserted that, in the LC, is “clearly stated the political philosophy
of the Christian Empire” and “the basis of that political philosophy is to be found
in the conception of the imperial government as a terrestrial copy of the rule in
Heaven”. (1955, p.168) Although I feel Baynes’ assertion is well-reasoned,
fundamental to his position is that the empire was Christian at the time of
Eusebius’ oration, and this, quite simply was not the case.
Moreover, even though political philosophy is concerned with legitimate
government, which Baynes argues is Eusebius’ concern since he emphasises the
mimesis of Constantine’s earthly rule with heavenly rule, I believe the LC is better
understood as a Christian political ideology. After all, ideologies talk of how
things should be, and I feel this is what Eusebius is attempting to depict in his
innovative oration, which comes during a time of dramatic transition for
Christianity from a persecuted sect to the privileged religion.
If Eusebius’ oration indeed advances a “Christian political ideology”
(Cameron, 1991, p.130) then this would certainly confirm a different content to
pagan panegyrics of the same period. After all, Eusebius’ alteration to the
emphasis of the traditional encomiastic topic of origins does not simply reflect the

1
A political ideology is comprised of two dimensions, including goals as to how society should be
arranged, and methods of the most appropriate way to achieve this ideal arrangement. (Mullins,
1972)

17
metamorphosis of the empire under Constantine, and how this topic became
redundant, for both pagan and Christian orators, in light of this emperor’s
circumstances. It also reflects Eusebius’ ingenuity in preserving the persuasive
medium of encomium, in order to stealthily introduce to his audience the personal
religion of the emperor.
Such a subject was not usually the focus of imperial panegyrics since they
had a certain official state value of which the emperor’s religion was not a
concern. (MacCormack, 1975, p.63) Yet, for Eusebius, it is precisely the
emperor’s personal religion that is of paramount concern for constructing his
Christian political ideology. Eusebius utilises Constantine’s religion as a subject
of praise for the benefits it has conveyed on all, and in the last and most pro-
Christian years of Constantine’s reign Eusebius exploited this opportunity to
ensure Christianity’s lasting presence in state affairs.
With all this in mind, I first intend to examine selective excerpts from
chapters one through four, which will demonstrate that Eusebius more accurately
creates a Christian political ideology in the LC, as opposed to a political
philosophy of the Christian empire. This is because these examples depict his
ideological goals and methods. I say ‘selective excerpts’ because I want to show
how Eusebius exploits ambiguous religious language alongside his few explicit,
yet subtle, Christian references, to support my opinion.
Following this, I will compare a traditional encomiastic topic that Eusebius
maintains with that of a pagan panegyric delivered to Constantine, namely
Nazarius’ panegyric of Constantine. After all, if it was through praise of
Constantine’s divine origins that Eusebius could introduce discussion of the
emperor’s personal religion, and so build a Christian political ideology, it is
necessary to outline how he thus “Christianised” the content of a traditional
encomiastic topic.

Christian Political Ideology in Chapters One through Four

Toda believes it is wrong to consider Eusebius the author of a Christian

political ideology, and believes such an assertion might emerge as a result of the
influence of Byzantine studies. (2009, p.19) He states “since Byzantine studies
would like to set the starting point of the Byzantine empire at the time of

18
Constantine the Great, it would be ideal to be able to show that the Byzantine
empire launched precisely at this time together with a new [Christian political]
idea (or ideology).” (Toda, 2009, p.19)
However, orations to Byzantine emperors seem to reflect the Christian
political ideology Toda so rigorously denies. Indeed, in such imperial orations
“the emperor is eulogized as the ideal Christian ruler, as God’s representative on
earth. He is compared with biblical paradigms…and with the idealized Christian
emperor Constantine.” (Dennis, 2001, p.239) Consequently, using this hindsight,
and looking at the content of the LC, it would not be unreasonable to assume that
Eusebius might have created this Christianized imperial ideology, along with a
political orthodoxy that would prevail to the end of the Byzantine empire. This is
what I intend to argue in this section.
To begin, the lesson Eusebius declares to be the intention of his oration
needs to be recalled, namely that of sovereignty in all its forms. I believe that
Eusebius explores the close personal relationship of the emperor and his God
throughout this concept of sovereignty. In this process, Eusebius employs such a
tactical vocabulary in order to outline a Christian political ideology.
In Constantine’s case, a lesson on sovereignty was extremely suitable,
since he was the sovereign who re-established an empire-wide belief that
monarchy equaled stable government and a peaceful empire. (Vogt, 1963, p.38)
However, Eusebius takes this belief one step further, by accounting for this
stability as a result of Constantine’s relationship with his God.
This lesson on sovereignty begins at the opening of chapter one, where
Eusebius declares that the Tricennial festivities are “a celebration of the Supreme
Sovereign”. (1976, p.84) Eusebius distinguishes this Sovereign from the emperor,
“the sovereign who is present”, who praises the “divine teaching,” (1976, p.84)
using a biblical allusion to Acts 7:49 and Isaiah 66:1: “the Supreme Being, whose
kingdom’s throne is the vault of the heavens above, while the earth is footstool for
His feet.” (1976, p.84)
How does this brief excerpt depict the relationship of Constantine and his
God? First, Eusebius immediately employed the stylistic trope of antonomasia
when he imposed an imperial epithet on a divine entity. (Kennedy, 2003, p.192)
By doing so, Eusebius has been able to introduce the emperor’s personal God to
his audience, since it complies with the lesson on sovereignty he promised to

19
outline. Moreover, utilizing such antonomasia as Supreme Sovereign does not
betray the identity of this God, and ensures that discussion of the controversial
subject of the emperor’s religion remains inoffensive.
As for the biblical allusion to Scripture, it is an interesting choice.
Typically, biblical quotation was to strengthen one’s argument and not for
ornamentation, since the Bible was deemed stylistically inferior. (Young, 1997,
p.103) However, Eusebius’ allusion to Acts/Isaiah provides a striking metaphor,
evoking a vivid image for the audience of the magnitude of the Supreme Being
Constantine praises. Moreover, it clarifies the distinction between the heavenly
Supreme Sovereign and the “present”, earthly sovereign. As such, Eusebius’
lesson and vocabulary of sovereignty allows the relationship of the emperor and
his God to become both a subject and means of praise, since it depicts their
metonymy, and thus Christianizes the office of emperor.
A final note about this excerpt is that it illustrates the type of prose in
which Eusebius will communicate to his audience. When Eusebius states that
Constantine will “join in praise of the divine teaching,” (1976, p.84) I feel this is
testament that Eusebius’ oration is not simply an imperial, Roman, prose
panegyric, but more specifically an oration of philosophical prose dressed up with
the necessary imperial praises. After all, Eusebius’ introduction to the topic of
divine origins seems reflective of protreptic in that his exploitation of ambiguous
epithets such as ‘sovereign’, serve to introduce to, and subsequently persuade, his
audience that Constantine’s personal God is worthy of praise, for this Supreme
Sovereign is “the cause” of Constantine’s empire. (Eusebius, 1976, p.84)
Moreover, considering protreptic was aimed at those who were not yet
dedicated to the philosophy being expounded, (Schenkeveld, 1997, p.205)
Eusebius would have adhered to the stylistic virtue of clarity. (Rowe, 1997, p.123)
This virtue meant that even the most uneducated listener could understand the
content of an orator’s speech. (Rowe, 1997, p.123) As such, exploiting the lesson
and vocabulary of sovereignty to describe Constantine’s God, and to outline the
closeness of their relationship, allowed Eusebius to persuade his audience, who
were likely substantially pagan, that Constantine’s God offered political benefits.
This is where I can support my disagreement with Baynes’ position, for his
recent proponent, Dagron, says: “…Eusebios had to respond to…a Roman
universalitas which had previously been political and was now religious.” (Cited

20
in Toda, 2009, p.15) If Dagron’s statement were true at the time of Eusebius’
oration, then the emperor’s personal religion would have become a fine subject to
praise without ambiguity. However, Constantine never made Christianity the state
religion, nor did it become the official state religion for another fifty years. This is
why I feel Eusebius compiles subtle Christian references with vague religious
terminology to praise the emperor and his God. Perhaps this was to help secure
Christianity’s place as the state religion in the future? Perhaps it was to keep with
Constantine’s policy of religious tolerance for all? (Drake, 1976, p.79) Perhaps
given his apologetical past, Eusebius was attempting to induce conversion using
such protreptic? (Drake, 1976, p.50) But, given the present time, perhaps it was
also to avoid offending a still largely pagan populace? I feel it was largely a
combination of all these factors, and I thus disagree with Baynes’ assertion that
Eusebius conveys a political philosophy of the Christian empire. Rather, I feel
Eusebius depicts how the empire should be. He has done this by showing some of
his Christian ideological goals, namely an empire-wide appreciation of the
Supreme Sovereign who has provided stability under a Christian emperor.
Another excerpt outlining the metonymy of Constantine and his God, and
which serves to create a Christian political ideology, is from chapter three. Here
Constantine is described as growing “strong in his model of monarchic rule,
which the Ruler of All has given…” (Eusebius, 1976, p.87) This ‘gift’ of
monarchy “excels all other kinds of constitution and government. For rather do
anarchy and civil war result from the alternative, a polyarchy…For which reason
there is One God, not two…” (1976, p.87)
Thus, Eusebius’ topic of divine origins outlines how Constantine’s very
form of government, monarchy, originates from God, for it is modeled on God’s
oneness, and so reflects monotheism. This cannot be taken as conclusive
verification that Constantine’s God was the Christian God, for at this time pagan
philosophical schools had done a lot of groundwork for monotheism. (Frede,
1999, p.41) Yet, pagan philosophers, such as Aristotle, whose writings may point
towards monotheism, do not necessarily believe in only one god, but more so in a
supreme god over numerous subservient gods. (Frede, 1999, p.44) Consequently,
Eusebius’ emphasis on the one and only-ness of God, against a plurality of gods,
subtly divulges further information about the identity of Constantine’s God from
whom so many political benefits flow.

21
 Toda, in his refutation of a claimed Christian political ideology created by
Eusebius, argues that Constantine’s imitation of the rule of the one and only
Supreme Sovereign could not mean that Constantine was also one and unique.
After all, his three sons were due to reign in shared power after him, and so
Eusebius’ claim of a single monarchy reflecting God’s rule could not reflect the
establishment of an prescriptive, future Christian political ideology. (Toda, 2009,
p.18) Consequently he feels Eusebius’ passage on monarchy is purely laudatory.
However, I feel Toda misunderstands Eusebius’ intention here. Although
immediately prior to the discussion of monarchy, Eusebius declares that
Constantine’s God relieves him “from the burden of sole rule” by “appointment of
the Caesars” (1976, pp.86-7), this was not intended to contradict Eusebius’ point
of sole rule on earth as in heaven. Instead, it was to reiterate the fulfilment of a
biblical prophecy in Daniel 7:18 which Eusebius quotes directly: “the Saints of the
Most High shall take up the kingdom.” (1976, p.87)
Therefore, Eusebius believes that Constantine is not pluralizing the rule of
the empire, but with his “bounty of years and offspring the most God-beloved
ruler, made his leadership of the peoples on earth to be…blooming as if just now
beginning to bear.” (1976, p.87) I would interpret this to mean that he views
Constantine’s reign as eternal by ruling through his sons. Additionally, given
Eusebius’ emphasis on Constantine’s divine origins, Drake argues he could lend
legitimacy to others, namely his sons’ rule. (1976, p.38) Moreover, upon coming
to this excerpt on monarchy, one might even argue that Eusebius, who was
extremely literal-minded in regards to number symbolism, (Young, 1997, p.121)
was arguing that Constantine and his rule are one and unique. After all, when
Constantine died, his ‘triad’ of sons, Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans,
ruled as ‘one’. As such, this is reflective of one of Eusebius’ political ideological
methods to achieve arrangement of the empire in imitation of the heavenly rule.
To further expound how Eusebius advances a Christian political ideology,
it is important to examine how Eusebius describes the Logos. Additionally, it is
also important to examine how Eusebius portrays the relationship of Constantine
and the Logos. I feel it is in this process that Eusebius not only outlines
Constantine’s divine origins, but also his divine mission, as both the ideal ruler
and God’s representative. (Dennis, 2001, p.239)

22
 In chapter one, Eusebius echoes the language of the Nicene Creed when
describing the Supreme Sovereign’s Logos as “the Only- Begotten Logos of
God.” (1976, p.85) This language would have resounded in Constantine’s mind
since he presided over the Council of Nicea, the first ever ecumenical council.
Therefore, such a statement by Eusebius might serve multiple purposes in his
oration. The first might be to please the sovereign by reiterating his involvement
in developing a standard creed of faith within the Church. As such, it would act as
a subtle reminder of Church-State relations.
Second, it serves to reference a philosophical concept shared by pagan
philosophy and Christianity where the Logos is understood in similar terms.
Stoicism understood the Logos as the active reason and divine animating principle
of the universe. (Stead, 1994, p.46-7) Additionally, Eusebius describes the Logos
of Constantine’s God as “Pre- Existing” and the “Governor of this entire cosmos.”
(1976, p.85) However, the effect of declaring the Logos “Only- Begotten” of “His
Father” adds a specifically Christian dimension to the oration, for it avoids
platonic references to ‘hypostases’. (1976, p.85) Moreover, descriptive
terminology of the Logos’ role, such as “great high priest”, “co-ruler from ages
that have no beginning to ages that have no end”, “dedicated…to the glory of His
Father, petitions for the salvation of everyone” and “mediates”, (1976, p.85)
reiterates this Christian dimension.
As such, whilst Eusebius has been accused of ambiguity, omitting titles
such as Christ from the LC, (Drake, 1976, p.48) such descriptions of the role of
the Logos sounds strikingly human. Consequently, in the brief philosophical
passage about the Logos in chapter four, amidst ideas reminiscent of the seminal
logos of the Stoics, there is an allusion to the incarnation: “He even came himself-
yes, the Father of his children did not shrink from contact with mortals. Tending
his own seeds and renewing the commitments made from above, He preached to
all to partake of the heavenly kingdom.” (Eusebius, 1976, p.88) Such a description
would immediately contravene any pagan philosophical ideas of the Logos, for
ultimately, the idea of the divine becoming human was one of the main reasons
Christianity was so heavily criticised by pagan philosophy. (Trigg, 1998, p.99)
Given this description of the Logos, it seems Eusebius is recounting Christian
salvation history in order to emphasise how Constantine’s God cares for the
peoples of the empire, and, by exploring the metonymy of the Logos and emperor,

23
Eusebius will outline the goals his Christian political ideology. This goal is that
the emperor imitates God’s saving Logos.
Furthermore, Eusebius intertwines the relationship of the emperor and the
Logos by describing Constantine as “friend” of the Logos, who “supplied from
above by royal streams and confirmed in a divine calling, rules on earth for long
periods of years.” (Eusebius, 1976, p.85) This description again reminds the
audience of Constantine’s divine origins, having been called to his rule. This
seemingly makes the position of emperor into a religious vocation, somewhat
similar to the depiction of Byzantine emperors in panegyrics of the following
centuries. Moreover, Eusebius appears to introduce the concept of ‘divine right’,
for although the traditional topic of origins was concerned with legitimising an
emperor’s right to rule, Eusebius’ topic of divine origins would make it
unquestionable.
Moreover, this divine confirmation has again been identified as resulting
in Constantine’s lengthy rule. This seems to mirror the descriptions of the Logos’
endless rule with His Father, which reveals a metonymy between these three
figures, perhaps like the divine Trinity, ruling eternally? Given the descriptions of
Constantine’s divine mission, such metonymy with God and the Logos would
have been justified. After all, the Holy Spirit is nowhere mentioned throughout the
oration, perhaps because the Holy Spirit only became an explicit topic of
theological reflection later in the fourth century? Or perhaps it was because belief
in the Holy Spirit had no common ground with pagan belief and would thus be too
alienating? Or perhaps Eusebius has actively substituted Constantine in its place,
as the earthly reinforcement/ equivalent of heavenly rule?2 Such substitution
would have remained inoffensive and accessible to all audience members since
Middle Platonism and Stoicism “present as the image of the ideal king someone
endowed with the divine logos...” (Toda, 2009, p.16)
A final demonstration of the metonymy of the Logos and emperor in their
divine roles can be seen in chapter two, where the same biblical epithet is applied
to them both. The Logos “keeps all the rebellious powers…at a distance, just as
the good shepherd keeps wild beasts from his flock.” (Eusebius, 1976, p.86) The
emperor, in turn, seeks to emulate the Higher Power “just as the good

2
See ch.1:3 (4), ch.2:2 (5-7), ch.2:4 (3-6), ch.3:3 (6) of LC for examples of Constantine acting in
role the Holy Spirit in chapters 1-4.

24
shepherd…makes sacrifice by leading…that human flock he tends to knowledge
and reverence of Him.” (Eusebius, 1976, p.86)
This biblical epithet might have been chosen as a result of Origen’s
influence on Eusebius’ learning. Origen believed that “Christ is good shepherd to
those who have fallen so far as to have become brutish.” (Trigg, 1998, p.98) By
brutish, Origen meant ignorant, and since Eusebius describes Constantine’s
mission as bringing humanity to know God, then this would have been an
appropriate mimesis used for Constantine.
Moreover, Christians present would have acknowledged this biblical
epithet and thus the emperor’s mimesis. However, pagan audience members were
unlikely to discern the reference, although again, this simile evokes a striking
mental image, and so could work to encourage the audience to praise
Constantine’s God through Constantine’s imitation of the Logos’ noble actions.
As such, Eusebius depicts his Christian political ideology here via moral means,
which is reflective of epideictic’s role in ethics in late antiquity. (Vickers, 1988,
p.56)
Interestingly, however, and Christians would have noted it whilst pagans
would again have missed the reference, is that Eusebius is actually placing a
divine epithet on the emperor. This the emperor would have recognised, but, since
this divine epithet reflects the status of the Son of God whom he worships, it
would have adhered with the pagan tradition of the emperor-cult whilst not falling
in to it. However, it reinforces my claim that the emperor is implied as assuming a
role in the divine Trinity, and so Eusebius effectively depicts the Christianised
role of the emperor and depicts a Christianised form of rule. All this is part and
parcel of Eusebius’ goals and methods for creating his Christian political
ideology.

Content of a Traditional Topos in Eusebius and Nazarius

In this section I will briefly compare the topic of ‘actions’ in Eusebius’ and
Nazarius’ orations. I have chosen this topic because it forms the bulk of Nazarius’
oration, and thus provides a fair yardstick in a limited examination as to whether
the LC’s content differs from this pagan imperial panegyric by outlining a
Christian political ideology.

25
 At the offset, I must outline the different contexts of both orators, for
although both offer praise to Constantine their respective orations are fifteen years
apart, and the political situation changed in that time. As such, their respective
contexts must be born in mind when analysing the similarities and differences of
their orations.
When Nazarius spoke, Constantine was ruling alongside Licinius, with
whom relations had cooled. (Nixon and Saylor Rodgers, 1994, p.338) By the time
of Eusebius’ oration, Constantine was sole ruler. Additionally, their locations and
audiences differed, for Nazarius’ oration was delivered at Rome, but not in the
presence of Constantine, (Nixon and Saylor Rodgers, 1994, p.338) whereas
Eusebius’ oration was delivered at the royal palace of Constantinople with the
emperor present. Moreover the orators’ occasions differed, as Nazarius was
commissioned to speak for the Quinquennalia of Constantine’s sons, Crispus and
Constantinus, (Nixon and Saylor Rodgers, 1994, p.338) and Eusebius to celebrate
Constantine’s Tricennalia.
Yet, in spite of these different contexts, there are similarities in the
religious motifs of praise offered to Constantine for his victories and divine aid in
warfare. What needs to be remembered, however, is that orators, of any religious
affiliation, would have had similar details of an emperor’s career to praise.
Therefore, it is unsurprising that the same subjects might arise in their panegyrics
if the emperor was, for example, known for his skill in warfare. Therefore, I will
outline some such similarities in both Nazarius’ and Eusebius’ orations. However,
I will also point out how these depictions differ in regards to the religious and/or
political intentions of the orator as indicated by the language surrounding these
shared examples.
Both orators frequently refer to Constantine’s God in relation to
Constantine’s ‘actions’. The question is, with what purpose do the orators employ
reference to Constantine’s God? Is it simply a means to praise the emperor, or
does it serve an ideological aim of the orator?
To begin, both orators refer to Constantine as dealing with the impiety of
past tyrannical rulers, in contrast to his own virtue of piety. Nazarius describes
Constantine’s victory in warfare as “so happy and bloodless that you would not
believe that they struggled in a dangerous war but only that punishment was
demanded from the impious.” (1994, p.351) Moreover, Constantine’s God

26
“protected [his] piety…shattered the impious insanity of the tyrant…aided your
invincible army…” (1994, p.352) This same army “let it be known that they had
been divinely sent” (1994, p.357) and their “shields were aflame with something
dreadful.” (1994, p.358) As such, given all this, it is Constantine’s piety that
Nazarius recognizes as the “root of repose, the seedbed of civil benefits, the
standing crop of public tranquillity and the nourishing sustainer of peace.” (1994,
p.354)
Similar to Nazarius, Eusebius refers to Constantine as “the most God-
fearing sovereign” (1976, p.94) whom God has “given power to purify human
life” (1976, p.94) and “to teach [humanity] to live piously.” (1976, p.97) To
achieve this, Constantine has been given God’s “own Saving Sign” (1976, p.94)
and is put forth as “an invincible warrior.” (1976, p.97)
Whilst the above motifs highlight the corresponding religious content of
the two orations, this overlap is actually quite minimal given the scope of the topic
of ‘actions’ in both orations. However, this overlap is telling, as it suggests to me
that Nazarius’ oration, (which largely refers to Constantine’s liberation of Rome
from Maxentius to a Roman audience, (1994, p.334)) utilises references to
Constantine’s God for an apologetical purpose; (Nixon and Saylor Rodgers, 1994,
p.354) to highlight that Constantine was the moral victor and thus deserved
victory over Maxentius.
As such, further references to religious content in Nazarius’ oration serve
only to glorify the emperor and not to celebrate or promote a religious political
ideology. For example, Constantius I leads Constantine’s divinely sent army as a
reward for his piety, and in Nazarius’ version of this account, Constantius replaces
Christ (Nixon and Saylor Rodgers, 1994, p.359) and seems to reiterate the
emperor-cult where a dead emperor became deified. Moreover, Constantine is
praised as “winning over god, since [his] glory has overstepped human
boundaries.” (Nazarius, 1994, p.360) This would seem to imply that Constantine
has a power over his God, and such a statement would be more typical of a
seculariser (Nixon and Saylor Rodgers, 1994, p.359) who wanted to find any
means to praise the imperial sovereign, rather than promote a religious, political
agenda.
In contrast, the remainder of Eusebius’ topic of ‘actions’ serves to qualify,
more clearly, the identity of Constantine’s God in anti- Platonic terms. After all,

27
he describes Constantine’s God as having “established…matter…” (Eusebius,
1976, p.91) Moreover, this God “provided quality in matter…fashioning form out
of the formless.” (Eusebius, 1976, p.91) Since Platonists did not believe that God
created matter, but that matter was eternal, and the cause of disorder in the world,
this declaration was certainly loaded. Its purpose seems to be to outline the
identity of Constantine’s God rather than utilise Him as a means of praise at this
instance.
Additionally, Eusebius refers to Aristotle who said “the world and all that
is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning, middle and end give
the number of ‘all’, and the number they give is the triad.” (1976, p.164)
Consequently, it makes sense that Eusebius includes the idea of the triad after
outlining a rendition of the Judaeo-Christian creation story. (1976, p.92) After all,
within this creation story Eusebius reiterates the roles of the Supreme Sovereign
as “World-Creator”, the Logos as “Universal Common Saviour” and Constantine
as the “victorious sovereign”, (Eusebius, 1976, pp.92, 94) who are and arguably
the components of this Aristotelian ‘triad’.
To further supplement these anti- Platonic qualifications of Constantine’s
God, Eusebius outlines all the gods of polytheism, whom Constantine has
defeated by razing temples to the ground. (1976, p.96) He lists Aphrodite, Pluto,
Mortality, Death and Zeus (1976, p.95) among them, so, by process of
elimination, further works towards identifying Constantine’s God.
As such, I feel Eusebius’ topic of ‘actions’ differs from that of pagan
imperial panegyrics of the time period, for, although they also make similar
references to Constantine’s religion, it is not the under girding crux of their
orations, as Nazarius has shown. His praise to Constantine’s God was purely
laudatory and secularised, as seen in the praise of Constantine’s father as divinely
sent aid. Thus, his oration does not concentrate on the nature of Constantine’s
religion, as in the LC. Eusebius, however, further implies the identity of
Constantine’s God under the topic of ‘actions’, and does so by intertwining the
activities of this God, in creation and salvation, alongside Constantine’s divine
mission to oust polytheism. These intertwined activities of the emperor and his
God are reflective of Eusebius’ perceived methods for creating the ideal Christian
empire, reflecting the heavenly example. As such, Constantine’s political career,

28
unequivocally bound with his religion, is conveyed as a Christian political
ideology.

Conclusions on Content

In conclusion, I feel the LC is decidedly different in its content to that of

pagan imperial panegyrics of the early fourth century A.D. After all, in my
examination of chapters one through four of the LC, which demonstrated an
adaptation of Menander’s traditional encomiastic topic of ‘origins’, I
demonstrated how Eusebius’ emphasis of Constantine’s divine origins enabled his
promulgation of the emperor’s personal faith, a subject controversial in an
imperial panegyric.
However, this adaptation, I believe, was key to enable Eusebius’ creation
of a Christian political ideology throughout his oration. My position contrasts with
Bayne’s belief that Eusebius advances a political philosophy of the Christian
empire. However, my view stands firm because Eusebius’ ideology acts as a
would-be/ should-be manifesto for the Roman empire, which was not yet wholly
Christian, to adopt, rather than a declaration of a Christian empire which did not at
this time exist.
In an examination of the content of Eusebius’ first four chapters in the LC,
I identified the various goals and methods Eusebius advanced in his Christian
political ideology. First, through a tactically ambiguous language, Eusebius made
his ‘manifesto’ universally accessible, thus reflecting the style of protreptic
seeking to convert the listener. After all, his lesson on sovereignty involved
placing this imperial epithet on Constantine’s God. Indeed, such an epithet would
have been a synonym to both the pagan and Christian audience member for their
respective ideas of the supreme god.
Moreover, this imperial vocabulary allowed Eusebius to praise both the
Supreme Sovereign and present sovereign side by side. Thus, by manipulating a
shared vocabulary for describing God and Constantine, Eusebius was able to
depict their close relationship as the cause of bountiful benefits enjoyed by the
empire, such as Constantine’s long and peaceful reign. As such, the goals of
Eusebius’ political ideology can be identified, an example of which is the model

29
of Constantine’s single monarchic rule as reflective of the monotheistic heavenly
rule. Thus Eusebius establishes a standard for Christian monarchy.
Continuing with inoffensive and ambiguous references to Constantine’s
God, Eusebius can successfully ‘get away’ with his discussion of the emperor’s
personal religion. Yet, I believe this works all the more to promote Eusebius’
Christian political ideology. For, as a manifesto of how the empire should be, i.e.
Christian, Eusebius’ close association of the tolerant and peaceful emperor with
his God’s Logos, who protects his flock from evil forces, evokes for audience an
image of how imperial rule should are for the people.
On top of this depiction of a Christian political ideology in chapters one
through four, my comparison of the topic of ‘actions’ in both Eusebius’ and
Nazarius’ orations highlights how pagan orators, despite utilising divine
references to aid their praise of the emperor, do intend to promulgate a new
religious political ideology.
By contrast, Eusebius’ concern with the relationship of Constantine and
his God permeates even this topic of ‘actions’, which typically involved praise of
the emperor’s military exploits. Nazarius devotes the majority of his oration to
this task, whereas Constantine’s military acts in the LC are outlined in his divinely
ordained mission against polytheism. Thus, a Christian political ideology emerges
in that the emperor’s office is depicted as a religious vocation, serving the empire
by establishing peace.
Given all this evidence, I feel the strongest testament to the Christian
political ideology, at the heart of Eusebius’ personal agenda in the LC, is seen in
imperial panegyrics to Byzantine emperors. Here Eusebius’ ‘manifesto’ seems to
have won the vote, and Eusebius’ combined Christianised imperial ideology and
political orthodoxy are brought to fruition in the sole rule of devout Byzantine
emperors for a further one thousand years.

30
 Transmission of the de Laudibus Constantini

Not only does the title, de Laudibus Constantini, refer to a single oration
by Eusebius, but it can collectively refer to two conjoined orations which he
delivered separately to Constantine between 335 and 336 A.D. The second oration
is known as “Christ’s Sepulcher” and shall be referred to as the SC throughout this
chapter.
These orations have come down to us as a single appendix to Eusebius’
Vita Constantini. There is no demarcation between the two, but it is widely held
that chapters 1-10 refer to the oration delivered to Constantine at Constantinople
on 25th July 336, whilst chapters 11-18 refer to the oration delivered at the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher in September 335.
In this chapter I am interested in a brief exploration of the effect of
grafting together of these two orations in print, and transmitting them as an
appendix to a panegyrical biography of the emperor. After all, texts tended to
survive because of public demand, (Hägg and Rousseau, 2000, p.18) and yet it
was unusual for performance pieces to survive since, according to Kennedy, they
were typically recited extempore, rather than written down. (1980, p.110) As such,
I believe Eusebius’ motive for publishing the two conjoined orations in question,
without demarcation, and appending them to an idealized biographical history of
Constantine, was to depict all the more clearly his Christian political ideology.
(MacCormack, 1975, p.31)
After all, the LC is full of ambiguous religious language, supplemented by
subtle biblical allusions. The addition of the SC on to the LC (despite the earlier
date of the SC) reflects Eusebius’ desire to clarify more fully the Christian
political ideology of his imperial panegyrics, for the SC is explicitly Christian in
its content.
There is no conflict between this more overt Christian content in the SC
with the more ambiguous content of the LC. I believe this is because the two
orations are not as independent as their respective occasions might suggest, for
both are largely reflected in the content of Eusebius’ Theophany. (Schott, 2008,
p.156) As such, I intend to compare explicitly Christian references from the SC
with some of the more subtle examples I outlined in the previous chapter. This is

31
to highlight how I feel the attachment of the SC to the LC was for the purpose of
elucidating all the more clearly, and for posterity, a Christian political ideology.
First of all, whilst the SC is an imperial oration, it differs from the
basilikos logos arrangement I covered in such detail in chapter one. It does not
follow the style of an encomium, for Constantine is only mentioned at the
beginning and end of the speech, whilst the saving Logos is mentioned in the main
body of the oration. (Drake, 1976, p.38) The purpose for this ‘divergence’ is
because the oration is an “imperial composition about the Universal sovereign”.
(Eusebius, 1976, p.103) Moreover, Eusebius declares the oration to be an
interpretation of the greatest sovereign’s (Constantine’s) “reasons and motives for
[his] devout deeds”, (1976, p.104) such as building the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher where his oration is being delivered.
The style of the SC is thus very much affected by the explicit nature of its
Christian content. The style it takes is that of the sermon, which evolved from the
classical oratorical style of the diatribe. (Drake, 1976, pp.38-9) This style involved
the role of an imaginary opponent, which, in Eusebius’ case, is the provoking
reason for outlining Christian salvation history and its impact on the present,
(Cameron, 1991, p.122) including Constantine’s current building program.
(Drake, 1976, pp.38-9)
An aspect of Eusebius’ rendition of Christian salvation history in the SC,
involves a description of the establishment of Constantine’s sole rule. This
description compliments and clarifies Eusebius’ ideological depiction of
monarchic government in the LC.
In the LC, I outlined Eusebius’ declaration that the emperor is strong in his
model of monarchic rule that has been given to him by the Ruler of All. This form
of government is argued by Eusebius to be better than all other forms of
government for it reflects the heavenly rule of One God. (It was as a consequence
of the polyarchy, demonstrated by the Tetrarchy, that anarchy ensued under the
persecutors. (Eusebius, 1976, p.87))
Similarly, in the SC Eusebius outlines that at the same time as Christ
defeated polytheistic evils, “a single sovereign arose for the entire Roman Empire
and a deep peace took hold”. Eusebius thus concludes that “together, at the same
critical moment, as if from a single divine will, two beneficial shoots were

32
produced for mankind: the empire of the Romans and the teachings of true
worship.” (1976, p.120)
This declaration in the SC makes clear that it was the Christian God who
gave the model rule of monarchy to Constantine. Moreover, as Christ defeated
polytheism, which is represented by the past superstitious emperors of the
polyarchy, peace came with the divinely ordained emperor Constantine, as stated
in the LC, and as the result of divine will in the SC. This further establishes a clear
Christian political ideology whereby monarchy reflects the rule of the One True
God, and imitation of this rule results in peace on earth.
Another aspect of central importance to any rendition of Christian
salvation history is the role of the saving Logos. In the LC I highlighted how the
Logos was depicted in the terms of the Nicene Creed as well as described in
remarkably human terms. However, these human-like descriptions are fairly
unsubstantiated by any biblical exegesis, and only chapter four of the LC seems to
delve in to any kind of depth as to the role of the Logos. It is in this passage that a
subtle reference to the incarnation appears, and begins to contravene pagan
understandings of the Logos.
Building on this is the main body of the SC, which, from chapters 12-15
outlines a lecture on the role of the saving Logos in more explicit Nicene terms.
The Logos proceeds from the Father, and descended among men as they became
enslaved to polytheism. The incarnation took place because humanity had become
accustomed to understand deity in that way, and so He died to convince mankind
of His truth. (Drake, 1976, p.34) This depiction of the role of the Logos in the SC
serves to support my conclusions drawn about the Logos in the LC, whereby the
Logos becomes incarnate for humanity’s salvation. Thus, Eusebius’ understanding
of philosophical concepts is only within Christian terms, despite any ambiguity for
the benefit of pagan listeners to the LC.
Drake summarized the effect of the Logos’ role in salvation history as
having established peace in the Roman empire, spreading His teaching and
destroying the persecutors. (1976, p.34) All this, combined with the building of
churches, is a testament to the Logos’ power in the present age. Eusebius claims
Constantine testifies to the power of the Logos, and this is demonstrated by his
erection of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. (Drake. 1976, p.34)

33
 The effect of setting the LC and SC side by side in this way, not only
clarifies more clearly the Christian political ideology Eusebius expounded in the
LC, but serves to add a new dimension to it, for the two orations together imply a
role of the Christian emperor in salvation history. After all, both orations reflect
the coinciding roles of the Logos and emperor in establishing peace and correct
worship, and the emperor’s role in testifying to the power of the Logos by erecting
churches such as the Holy Sepulcher.
It is this closing reference to the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher
in the SC that has a prominent role in the propaganda of Eusebius’ Christian
political ideology. In the LC, Eusebius makes especial mention of the cult of
Aphrodite and that Constantine subsequently “ordered the entirety [of Aphrodite’s
temple], with its cult objects, to be razed to the foundations.” (1976, p.98)
Consequently, the dedication of the new basilica in Jerusalem serves as a poignant
backdrop to this excerpt from the LC, as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher was
constructed on the foundations of this aforementioned temple of Aphrodite.
(Schott, 2008, p.162)
Thus, the “juxtaposition of temple ruins and the new Christian basilica
serves to justify the Christian colonization of Jerusalem.” (Schott, 2008, p.162)
Subsequently, Constantine’s monumental building project in the SC depicts the
construction of a Christian, imperial presence in Jerusalem, which visibly
conquers and replaces pagan and Jewish pasts, with the evolving teaching of true
worship in the Christian present. (Schott, 2008, p.162)

The Effect of Transmission?

What effects does this transmission of the oratio de Laudibus Constantini

have upon understanding the “In Praise of Constantine” oration as reflective of the
development of Christian panegyric in the early fourth century A.D.?
I would argue that it challenges the very genre of panegyric in the late
antique world. For, although both the LC and SC are imperial orations, they test
the bounds of late antique prescriptions for panegyrics. The SC, as a sermon of
Christian salvation history, praises Constantine only in so far as it takes the
emperor’s Church building program as its point of departure to elucidate a lesson
on Christ. Likewise, the LC introduces the emperor’s personal religion,

34
controversial in imperial panegyrics, in order to justify praise of Constantine’s
God.
Gagé has thus described the conjoined LC and SC orations as a sermon-
panegyric, (Drake, 1976, p.39) which I feel is apt in relating the genre of the
oratio de Laudibus Constantini. Such a hybrid certainly reflects Christian
development of panegyric in the fourth century A.D., as it serves to advance
Eusebius’ Christian political ideology for the empire.
However, taking the “In Praise of Constantine” oration alone, does such a
distinctive development of Christian panegyric remain? I believe it does, for
Eusebius’ Theophany proves the interconnectedness of the content of the two
Tricennial orations, and as such supports my claim that the “In Praise of
Constantine” oration is a distinctively Christian panegyric by merit of the
Christian political ideology it advances.

35
 Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that my mini- investigations of the style and

content of the LC, as well as the amalgamation of the Tricennial orations, have
served to prove that the LC does reflect development of Christian panegyric in the
early fourth century A.D.
My conclusions on stylistic development highlighted that the LC largely
adhered to the prescriptive pagan treatise of Menander for composing a basilikos
logos. Eusebius’ imperial panegyric largely followed the arrangement of an
encomium, and any divergences from the stereotyped examples of Menander’s
topoi for said encomium are more likely to reflect change- in- the- times, as
opposed to the intentional development of a Christian style of panegyric.
Instead, I believe that Eusebius’ accommodation, to the already prevailing
stylistic model for an imperial oration, reflects his understanding that this existing
mode of discourse could enhance his argument. As such, to truly discern
specifically Christian development of Eusebius’ panegyric, it was necessary to
turn to the content of the LC, the ‘message’ of his oration.
In examining the content of the LC, it became apparent that Eusebius’
adaptation of the traditional topic of ‘origins’, into specifically divine ‘origins’,
was reflective of a concrete move away from the content of pagan panegyrics.
This was because, adapting this traditional topic allowed for a distinctive Christian
element to come to fore; a discussion of the Christian God whom the emperor
worshipped.
Such a discussion of the emperor’s personal religion, whether Christian or
not, was not a subject for an imperial oration. However, Eusebius’ tactical
employment of an ambiguous religious vocabulary, supplemented by subtle
biblical references, served to intertwine praise to the emperor and his deity, whilst
utilizing the subject of the emperor’s God to create a Christian political ideology.
By examining the content of chapters one through four of the LC, the
adapted topic of divine ‘origins’, I identified various goals and methods Eusebius
advanced in his Christian political ideology. Considering ideologies take the form
of a ‘manifesto’, declaring how things should be, Eusebius’ oration declares the
close, personal relationship of Constantine and his God to be the source of his
empire, and its peace and stability. As such, the ideological goal is set, that the

36
stable rule of earthly monarchy should reflect heavenly rule, so peace and stability
in the empire follows. The methods to achieve this ideological arrangement of the
empire are depicted, for example, in Eusebius’ mimetic description of the roles of
both the Logos and emperor. The emperor, who desires to imitate the Higher
Power, imitates the role of the Logos as good shepherd of the flock, bringing them
to know God. Such empire- wide piety results in peace, unlike anarchy under
polytheism.
Consequently, I feel that the content of Eusebius’ topic of divine origins,
although ambiguous, is necessary to be so in order to promote a Christian political
ideology. Manifestos do not intend to offend or alienate people; they attempt to be
inclusive and conducive to ‘converting’ the hearer to agree with its ideological
program. This is Eusebius’ intention, and so he exploits ambiguous religious
terminology to access the minds of all audience members. Moreover, this common
ground, tread by ambiguous religious language, is supplemented with subtle
Christian truths, which serve to identify the Christian God as the personal God of
Constantine from whom all political benefits flow.
Additional to this examination of an adapted encomiastic topic, I examined
the topic of ‘actions’ in Eusebius’ and Nazarius’ orations. Indeed there were some
overlaps in both orators’ religious motifs used to describe the emperor’s virtues
and the divine aid received in battle. However, this overlap was negigable in
contrast to the over all topic of ‘actions’ in each oration. This thus demonstrated
that, pagan orators, despite using religious references, do so only to aid praise to
the emperor and not to promote a new religious political ideology, which is the
intention of the Christian Bishop, Eusebius.
Therefore, my examination of the content of the LC, of both its unique
adapted topic of divine ‘origins’, as well as in its traditional encomiastic topic of
‘actions’, reflects specifically Christian development of imperial panegyric in the
early fourth century A.D. After all, what pagan panegyrist has as their motive the
promotion of a Christian political ideology?
Finally, I briefly compared the transmission of Eusebius’ two Tricennial
orations, for they were both conjoined into one in print. As such, any examination
of the “In Praise of Constantine” oration has to take into account this unmarked
addition of the “Holy Sepulcher” oration. Together, I believe these orations reflect
a hybrid genre of sermon-panegyric, which certainly depicts a development of

37
specifically Christian panegyric. However, I also believe that alone, the “In Praise
of Constantine” oration reflects distinctively Christian development of panegyric
in the early fourth century A.D. After all, Eusebius’ Theophany depicts shared
content from both the LC and SC orations, and so highlights that they were never
meant to be understood apart. Therefore, the subtle Christian political ideology
expounded in the LC is made explicit by the SC, and together in print they are a
testament to one of the first Christian orator’s attempts to establish a lasting
Christian empire. This became the case a few short years after publication of these
orations, and evidence of their influence remains in the imperial panegyrics to the
Christian Byzantine emperors for the following one thousand years.

38
 Bibliography

Baynes, N.H. (1955) ‘Eusebius and the Christian Empire’ in Baynes, N.H.
Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. London: The Athlone Press

Cameron, A. (1991) Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire, The Development of

Christian Discourse. Berkley and LA: University of California Press

Dennis, G.T. (2001) ‘Imperial Panegyric: Rhetoric and Reality’ in Nagy, G. Greek
Literature in the Byzantine Period. London: Routledge

Drake, H. A. (1976) In Praise of Constantine, A historical Study and New

Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Orations. Berkeley: University of California
Press

Eusebius (1976) ‘On Christ’s Sepulchre’ in Drake, H.A. (trans.) In Praise of

Constantine, A historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial
Orations. Berkeley: University of California Press

Eusebius (1976) ‘In Praise of Constantine’ in Drake, H.A. (trans.) In Praise of

Constantine, A historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial
Orations. Berkeley: University of California Press

Frede, M. (1999) ‘Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy In Later Antiquity’ in

Athanassiadi, P. and Frede, M. (eds.) (1999) Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity.
New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Hägg, T. and Rousseau, P. (eds.) (2000) Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late
Antiquity. USA: University of California Press

Kennedy, G.A. (1980) Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition
from Ancient to Modern Times. London: Croom Helm Ltd.

Kennedy, G.A. (1983) Greek Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors. Princeton:

Princeton University Press

Kennedy, G.A. (1997) ‘Historical Survey of Rhetoric’, in Porter, S.E. (ed.)

Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C. – A.D. 400.
The Netherlands: Brill

Kennedy, G.A. (trans.) (2003) Progymnasmata, Greek Textbooks of Prose

Composition and Rhetoric. USA: Society of Biblical Literature

MacCormack, S. (1975) ‘Latin Prose Panegyrics: Tradition and Discontinuity in

the Later Roman Empire’ in Dorey, T.A. (ed.) Empire and Aftermath, Silver Latin
2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Menander Rhetor, ‘Basilikos Logos’ in Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G. (eds.)
(trans.) (1981) Menander Rhetor. Oxford: Oxford University Press

39
Morton Braund, S. (1999) ‘Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric:
Cicero, Seneca, Pliny’ in Whitby, M. (ed.) The Propaganda of Power, The role of
Panegyric in Late Antiquity. USA: Brill Publishing

Nazarius, (1994) ‘Panegyric of Constantine’ in Nixon, C.E.V. and Saylor

Rodgers, B. (trans.) (eds.) In Praise of Later Roman Emperors, The Panegyrici
Latini. USA: University of California Press

Nixon, C.E.V. and Saylor Rodgers, B. (1994) In Praise of Later Roman

Emperors, The Panegyrici Latini. USA: University of California Press

Rowe, G.O. (1997) ‘Style’ in Porter, S.E. (ed.) Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in
the Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C. – A.D. 400. The Netherlands: Brill

Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G. (eds.) (trans.) (1981) Menander Rhetor. Oxford:
Oxford University Press

Schenkeveld, D.M. (1997) ‘Philosophical Prose’ in Porter, S.E. (ed.) Handbook of

Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C. – A.D. 400. The
Netherlands: Brill

Schott, J. (2008) Christianity and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press

Stead, C. (1994) Philosophy in Christian Antiquity. UK: Cambridge University

Press

Trigg, J.W. (1998) Origen, Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge

Vickers, B. (1988) In Defense of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Vogt, J. (1963) ‘Pagans and Christians in the Family of Constantine the Great’, in
Momigliano, A. (ed.) The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century. Oxford: The Clarendon Press

Whitby, M. (ed.) (1999) The Propaganda of Power, The role of Panegyric in Late
Antiquity. USA: Brill Publishing

Wuellner, W. (1997) ‘Arrangement’, in Porter, S.E. (ed.) Handbook of Classical

Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 300 B.C. – A.D. 400. The Netherlands: Brill

Young, F. M. (1997) Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture.

U.K.: Cambridge University Press

40
 INTERNET SOURCES:

Mullins, (1972) Revision Power and Politics p.2 [Online] Available at:
http://www.sociology.org.uk/revgpp4.pdf (Accessed: 29 May 2010)

Oxford English Dictionary. (2010) [Online] Available at:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/encomium?view=uk (Accessed: 19
March 2010)

Saylor Rodgers, B. (1989) ‘The Metamorphosis of Constantine’ The Classical

Quarterly, 39 (1) pp. 233-246 JSTOR [Online]. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/639255 (Acessed: 11 April 2010)

Toda, S. (2009) ‘On the so-called “Political Theology” of Eusebius of Caesarea’,

Hitotsubashi Journal of Arts and Sciences, 50(1), [Online]. Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/10086/18056 (Accessed: 20 March 2010)

41