"Helena was visited that emperors might be redeemed." ~ The ancient sources on Saint Helena's discovery of the True Cross

Early 9th century illustration from northern Italy of Saint Helena discovering the True Cross.

The feast day of Saint Helena, the mother of Constantine, is commemorated by Catholics on August 18. Aside from her role as matriarch of the Constantinian dynasty, Helena is most remembered today for her finding of the True Cross of Jesus Christ. This discovery took place during Helena's celebrated pilgrimage to the Holy Land near the end of her life, during which time she undertook the task of uncovering the sites associated with Christ's life and passion and the building of commemorative shrines.

Eusebius Pamphilus, Helena's contemporary and bishop of Caesarea Maritima, records many of Helena's deeds during this trek. Curiously, he does not mention her discovery of the True Cross. For this, we must seek another early source, and one even more illustrious than the historian Eusebius: Saint Ambrose of Milan. 

In his eulogy on the death of Theodosius the Great, a man whom he had once barred from the Sacred Liturgy due to his very public sins, Ambrose provides a lovely interlude commemorating Helena. He uses her discovery of the True Cross, along with the nails of the crucifixion, to relay a moral lesson on the difference between the Christian Roman Emperors who are restrained in their actions by the tenets of Christianity, and the pagan emperors who were encumbered by no such restraints:

Blessed was Constantine with such a mother!...The mother, solicitous for her son to whom the sovereignty of the Roman world had fallen, hastened to Jerusalem and explored the scene of the Lord's Passion....

Helena, then, came and began to visit the holy places. The Spirit inspired her to search for the wood of the Cross, She drew near to Golgotha and said: "Behold the place of combat: where is thy victory? I seek the banner of salvation and I do not find it. Shall I," she said, "be among kings, and the cross of the Lord lie in the dust? Shall I be covered by golden ornaments, and the triumph of Christ by ruins? Is this still hidden, and is the palm of eternal life hidden? How can I believe that I have been redeemed if the redemption itself is not seen?"...

And so she opened the ground and cleared away the dust. She found three fork-shaped gibbets thrown together, covered by debris and hidden by the Enemy. But the triumph of Christ could not be wiped out. She hesitated in her uncertainty. She hesitated, as a woman, but the Holy Spirit inspired her to investigate carefully, because two robbers had been crucified with the Lord. Therefore, she sought the middlebeam, but it could have happened that the debris had mixed the crosses one with another and that chance had interchanged them. She went back to the text of the Gospel and found that on the middle gibbet a title had been displayed, 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.' Hence, a sequence of sound reasoning was established and the Cross of salvation was revealed by its title. This is what Pilate answered to the Jews who petitioned him: "What I have written, I have written," that is: "I have not written these things to please you, but that future ages may know them. I have not written for you, but for posterity," saying, as it were: "Let Helena have something to read whereby she may recognize the cross of the Lord."

She discovered, then, the title. She adored the King, not the wood, indeed, because this is an error of the Gentiles and a vanity of the wicked. But she adored Him who hung on the tree, whose name was inscribed in the title...

She sought the nails with which the Lord was crucified, and found them. From one nail she ordered a bridle to be made, from the other she wove a diadem. She turned the one to an ornamental, the other to a devotional, use. Mary was visited to liberate Eve; Helena was visited that emperors might be redeemed. So she sent to her son Constantine a diadem adorned with jewels which were interwoven with the iron of the Cross and enclosed the more precious jewel of divine redemption. She sent the bridle, also. Constantine used both, and transmitted his faith to later kings. And so the beginning of the faith of the emperors is the holy relic which is upon the bridle. From that came the faith whereby persecution ended and devotion to God took its place....

But I ask: Why was the holy relic upon the bridle if not to curb the insolence of emperors, to check the wantonness of tyrants, who as horses neigh after lust that they may be allowed to commit adultery unpunished? What infamies do we not find in the Neros, the Caligulas, and the rest, for whom there was nothing holy upon the bridle? 

What else, then, did Helena accomplish by her desire to guide the reins than to seem to say to all emperors through the Holy Spirit: "Do not become like the horse and mule," and with the bridle and bit to restrain the jaws of those who did not realize that they were kings to rule those subject to them? For power easily led them into vice, and like cattle they defiled themselves in promiscuous lust. They knew not God. The Cross of the Lord restrained them and recalled them from their fall into wickedness. [Fathers of the Church, Vol. 22, Funeral Orations, pp 325-331]

Ambrose's eulogy for Theodosius was written about 70 years after the death of Helena.

Additional details on the discovery of the True Cross are provided by (among others) Hermias Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History, which was written approximately 120 years after the death of Helena: 

...The emperor [Constantine] rejoiced exceedingly at the restoration of unity of opinion in the Catholic Church [following the Council of Nicaea], and desirous of expressing in behalf of himself, his children, and the empire, the gratitude towards God which the unanimity of the bishops inspired, he directed that a house of prayer should be erected to God at Jerusalem near the place called Calvary. 

Click for more info.

At the same time his mother Helena repaired to the city for the purpose of offering up prayer, and of visiting the sacred places. Her zeal for Christianity made her anxious to find the wood which had formed the adorable cross. But it was no easy matter to discover either this relic or the Lord's sepulcher, for the Greeks, who in former times had persecuted the Church, and who, at the first promulgation of Christianity, had had recourse to every artifice to exterminate it, had concealed that spot under much heaped up earth, and elevated what before was quite depressed, as it looks now, and the more effectually to conceal them, had enclosed the entire place of the resurrection and Mount Calvary within a wall, and had, moreover, ornamented the whole locality, and paved it with stone. They also erected a temple to Venus, and set up a little image, so that those who repaired there to worship Christ would appear to bow the knee to Venus, and that thus the true cause of offering worship in that place would, in course of time, be forgotten. And that as Christians would not dare fearlessly to frequent the place or to point it out to others, the temple and statue would come to be regarded as exclusively appertaining to the Greeks. 

At length, however, the place was discovered, and the fraud about it so zealously maintained was detected. Some say that the facts were first disclosed by a Hebrew who dwelt in the East, and who derived his information from some documents which had come to him by paternal inheritance. But it seems more accordant with truth to suppose that God revealed the fact by means of signs and dreams, for I do not think that human information is requisite when God thinks it best to make manifest the same. 

When by command of the emperor the place was excavated deeply, the cave whence our Lord arose from the dead was discovered. And at no great distance, three crosses were found and another separate piece of wood, on which were inscribed in white letters in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin, the following words: "Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." These words, as the sacred book of the Gospels relates, were placed by command of Pilate, governor of Judæa, over the head of Christ. There yet, however, remained a difficulty in distinguishing the Divine cross from the others. For the inscription had been wrenched from it and thrown aside, and the cross itself had been cast aside with the others, without any distinction, when the bodies of the crucified were taken down. For according to history, the soldiers found Jesus dead upon the cross, and they took him down, and gave him up to be buried, while, in order to accelerate the death of the two thieves, who were crucified on either hand, they broke their legs, and then took down the crosses, and flung them out of the way. It was no concern of theirs to deposit the crosses in their first order, for it was growing late, and as the men were dead, they did not think it worth while to remain to attend to the crosses. 

A more Divine information than could be furnished by man was therefore necessary in order to distinguish the Divine cross from the others, and this revelation was given in the following manner: There was a certain lady of rank in Jerusalem who was afflicted with a most grievous and incurable disease. Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, accompanied by the mother of the emperor and her attendants, repaired to her bedside. After engaging in prayer, Macarius signified by signs to the spectators that the Divine cross would be the one which, on being brought in contact with the invalid, should remove the disease. He approached her in turn with each of the crosses, but when two of the crosses were laid on her, it seemed but folly and mockery to her for she was at the gates of death. When, however, the third cross was in like manner brought to her, she suddenly opened her eyes, regained her strength, and immediately sprang from her bed, well. It is said that a dead person was, in the same way, restored to life. 

The venerated wood having been thus identified, the greater portion of it was deposited in a silver case, in which it is still preserved in Jerusalem: but the empress sent part of it to her son Constantine, together with the nails by which the body of Christ had been fastened....

The above incidents we have related precisely as they were delivered to us by men of great accuracy, by whom the information was derived by succession from father to son; and others have recorded the same events in writing for the benefit of posterity. [Sozomen: Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter 1]

Regular readers of this blog know that Helena is among my favorite saints. Here are a couple other posts about her:

• Helena's role in Constantine's execution of Crispus and Fausta
• Review of Saint Helena and the True Cross by Louis de Wohl

Young Constantine as a Ward (or Hostage) at Diocletian's Court

Constantine slays a lion in this detail from a 17th century tapestry by Peter Paul Rubens.

As part of the series of tapestries by Peter Paul Rubens on the life of Constantine, we find a vignette from the early life of the first Christian Roman emperor showing him slaying a lion with an audience of Roman soldiers looking on.

This is an odd anecdote from the life of Constantine and one that is not commonly known. Was it based on an actual event? Or was it one of those medieval interpolations meant to enhance the reputation of a beloved hero from Christian antiquity? 

Let's take a look at the ancient sources.

We know from several different sources that before rising to the the imperial authority, Constantine the Great spent much of his early life as a guest/hostage at the imperial court of Diocletian at Nicomedia. This is because when founding the Tetrarchy, the senior Augusti, Diocletian and Maximian, sought to bind their most important underlings via family ties. Thus, once named as Praetorian Prefect of the West about AD 292, Constantine's father, Constantius Chlorus, would set aside his common law wife, Helena, and marry Maximian's step-daughter, Flavia Theodora. 

Not long after, Constantius Chlorus was elevated to the position of Caesar of the West under Maximimian. To further cement this bond, Constantius sent his beloved son via Helena—that is, Constantine—to Diocletian's court at Nicomedia. One of the anonymous Latin panegyricists of Constantine mentions that a mosaic in the imperial palace at Aquileia showed the moment of the promising young man's departure for the East where he is handed a plumed helmet by his future wife (and Maximian's daughter), Fausta. [See Barnes, Eusebius and Constantine, p. 9]

When he arrived in the East somewhere around AD 294 at the age of 21 or 22, Constantine had just attained the full flower of his youthful vigor. Here he would receive a classical education, though it is likely that he already possessed a solid foundation to build upon. His martial skills and prowess at arms were also not to be despised. Indeed, if the words of Constantine's biographers are to be believed, he was a young man of shining parts. Firmianus Lactantius, who very likely served as one of Constantine's teachers during this period, would in later years recall him as:

Click for more info.

"A young man of very great worth and well meriting the high station of Cæsar. The distinguished comeliness of his figure, his strict attention to all military duties, his virtuous demeanor and singular affability, had endeared him to the troops and made him the choice of every individual. He was then at court, having long before been created by Diocletian a tribune of the first order." [Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, Chapter XVIII]

It is perhaps not surprising that his admiring biographer, Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, goes even farther in praise of Constantine's physical gifts saying that:

"...even in the very earliest period of his youth he was judged by [his father's imperial colleagues] to be worthy of the highest honor. An instance of this we have ourselves seen, when he passed through Palestine with the senior emperor [Diocletian], at whose right hand he stood, and commanded the admiration of all who beheld him by the indications he gave even then of royal greatness. For no one was comparable to him for grace and beauty of person, or height of stature; and he so far surpassed his compeers in personal strength as to be a terror to them."

But Eusebius assures us that Constantine was no mere imposing meathead with massive biceps and an underdeveloped brain. Rather, he says that Constantine was:

Click for more info.

"...even more conspicuous for the excellence of his mental qualities than for his superior physical endowments; being gifted in the first place with a sound judgment, and having also reaped the advantages of a liberal education. He was also distinguished in no ordinary degree both by natural intelligence and divinely imparted wisdom." [Eusebius, Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Book I, Chapter XIX] 

This decade or so serving in the East would give Constantine ample opportunity to exercise both his intellect and his exceptional physical abilities. He would follow Diocletian and Galerius on numerous military expeditions including campaigns in Syria, in Persia, and along the Danube frontier. By about AD 305, however, it became clear that the exceptional young man was not, in fact, being groomed by the emperors for greater offices. This became unmistakably obvious when Constantine was passed over for promotion to the rank of Caesar upon the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian—a scene described dramatically by Lactantius who was likely an eye-witness. 

It was at about this time, according to Lactantius, that Constantius began to request that his son be permitted to return to him. With the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in AD 305, Constantius had become Augustus of the West. But the hard-fought campaigns in Gaul and Britain had taken their toll on the aging Augustus, and his health began to fail. This awakened a desire in the older man for the companionship of his eldest son. As a subtext, it is likely that the Augustus was also irked that his son had been passed over for promotion. 

Galerius, the newly self-promoted Augustus of the East, however, had his own political ambitions to consider. These ambitions did not include Constantine and, indeed, Galerius considered Constantine to be a distinct threat. Rather than send Constantine off to be with his father, Galerius decided to send Constantine for the proverbial long walk off a short pier. 

Lactantius provides some details about Galerius's efforts to provide Constantine with a one-way ticket to Elysium, along with an explanation of why these efforts ultimately failed:

"He laid repeated snares for the life of that young man because he dared not use open violence lest he should stir up civil wars against himself and incur that which he most dreaded—the hate and resentment of the army. Under pretense of manly exercise and recreation, he made him combat with wild beasts, but this device was frustrated. For the power of God protected Constantine, and in the very moment of jeopardy rescued him from the hands of Galerius. [Lactantius: On the Deaths of the Persecutors, Chapter XXIV]

Some additional detail comes from the summary of Praxagoras of Athens's work, History of Constantine, which identifies one of the wild beasts in question as a lion: 

"[Galerius] who happened to be there, determined to lay a plot against the youth and set him to fight with a savage lion. But Constantine overcame and slew the beast, and having discovered the plot, took refuge with his father, after whose death he succeeded to the throne." [Synopsis of Praxagoras of Athens's History of Constantine the Great (otherwise lost) included in the Bibliotheca of Photius 9th century, AD]

Full image of Ruben's tapestry shown in detail above.

The Latin manuscript known as Anonymous Valesianus, tentatively dated to the late 4th century AD, elaborates further on Galerius's attempts to have Constantine snuffed out using a method similar to that which King David used to destroy Uriah the Hittite: 

"Galerius first exposed him to many dangers. For when Constantine, then a young man, was serving in the cavalry against the Sarmatians, he seized by the hair and carried off a fierce savage, and threw him at the feet of the emperor Galerius. Then sent by Galerius through a swamp, he entered it on his horse and made a way for the rest to the Sarmatians, of whom he slew many and won the victory for Galerius." [Anonymous Valesianus, Part I:2]

Following these near approaches to death, the young Constantine understood that if he didn't remove himself from the East, Galerius would eventually succeed in having him cut down. Most of the extant sources agree that Galerius finally decided to allow Constantine to return to his father, but Lactantius and Anonymous Valesianus opine that Galerius only acquiesced in order to have Constantine arrested on the road by the troops of his Caesar, Severus, as he traveled through Italy. 

To save himself, Constantine rode at break-neck speed, outpacing the messengers from Galerius to Severus. Multiple sources mention that to frustrate his pursuers, Constantine had all the post horses slain at each station, depriving them of fresh mounts. 

He would eventually reach his ailing father and spend over a year in his company. Some sources say that he joined Constantius in his war against the Picts. All agree that when Constantius I Chlorus passed from this life in York, Constantine was present and would immediately afterwards be acclaimed emperor by his father's soldiers.

Constantine is a favorite subject of mine, so if you found this article to be interesting and would like to read more about the first Christian Roman Emperor, see below:

• Constantine — Military Hero and Christian Emperor
• Death of Constantius I, the father of Constantine the Great ~ Primary Accounts
• Constantine's Vision of the Cross ~ Early Accounts and Backstory
• October 28, AD 312 ~ Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge
• Constantine's Execution of Crispus and Fausta
• Was Constantine a Sincere Christian? ~ In his own words: The Oration of Constantine to the Saints

More...

Was Constantine a Sincere Christian? ~ In his own words: The Oration of Constantine to the Saints

At 43 feet in height, the replica of the Colossus of Constantine in Rome is truly impressive.

Most visitors to Rome over the years have marveled at the famous fragments of the Colossus of Constantine. Largely destroyed and dismantled in antiquity, this massive work of marble, wood and bronze once stood in the Basilica of Maxentius. Significant chunks of the Colossus are now located in a courtyard at the Capitoline Museum in Rome where my wife and I visited them on our honeymoon a few decades back. 

In 2024, a magnificent replica of the Colossus was erected nearby in the garden behind the Capitoline Museum. While the sheer size of the work has drawn considerable attention, the fact that it does not display any obvious Christian iconography and, indeed, seems to portray the emperor as Zeus-like, has led some folks to assume that the replica is evidence that Constantine's Christianity was somehow insincere. 

My wife with Constantine's
tremendous head in 2000.

How close this modern replica resembles the original is a matter of conjecture, as its creators exercised some significant interpretive license with regard to the design. This matter is dealt with in considerable detail in an excellent post on the NumisForms site entitled: Designing a Colossus. So I'll not get into much detail on that question here. Suffice it to say that the decision by the Factum Foundation to portray Constantine as Zeus was based on "conjecture, maybe not even particularly well informed conjecture."

The point of this post is to contradict the facile confirmation bias that many experience when seeing this version of the Colossus. The most common immediate reaction is: "See? Constantine was a pagan and portrayed himself as such." 

Well, sure. Up through about AD 306 Constantine was a pagan. Beyond that, he reportedly even had a vision of Apollo a few years before his more famous vision of the Cross. But after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine began the process of becoming a Christian. It is not known when exactly he became a catechumen, but after about AD 312 when he and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan, his affinity for Christianity becomes increasingly evident.

By AD 324, following his defeat of Licinius, it is absolutely evident that Constantine is a Christian. Anyone who doubts that can read the words he himself spoke in his Oration to the Saints. The text of this lecture was preserved by the bishop Eusebius Pamphilus who knew Constantine personally and also wrote his well-known ancient biography, Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine. The entire oration is a profession of Constantine's faith and a defense of Christianity. In it, you will find the emperor praying emphatically:

"Do thou, O Christ, Savior of mankind, be present to aid me in my hallowed task! Direct the words which celebrate your virtues, and instruct me worthily to sound your praises." [Oration to the Saints, Chapter 11]

You will also find Constantine presenting evidence for the truth of Christianity, not only from the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament, but also from pagans such as the Erythrean sibyl and from the Roman poet, Virgil, author of the foundational epic of Rome, the Aeneid. 

The emperor goes on to condemn those pagans who have persecuted Christians, even going so far as to ridicule pagan beliefs, saying: 

"What, then, have you gained by these atrocious deeds, most impious of men? And what was the cause of your insane fury? You will say, doubtless, these acts of yours were done in honor of the gods. What gods are these?...You will allege, perhaps, the customs of your ancestors and the opinion of mankind in general, as the cause of this conduct. I grant the fact: for those customs are very like the acts themselves, and proceed from the self-same source of folly. You thought, it may be, that some special power resided in images formed and fashioned by human art; and hence your reverence, and diligent care lest they should be defiled: those mighty and highly exalted gods, thus dependent on the care of men!" 

[Oration to the Saints, Chapter 22]

Finally, in an echo of his contemporary and sometime confidant, Lactantius, Constantine gives a brief catalog of the dreadful ends suffered by those emperors who persecuted Christians most severely: 

"To you, Decius, I now appeal, who has trampled with insult on the labors of the righteous: to you, the hater of the Church, the punisher of those who lived a holy life: what is now your condition after death? How hard and wretched your present circumstances! Nay, the interval before your death gave proof enough of your miserable fate, when overthrown with all your army on the plains of Scythia, you exposed the vaunted power of Rome to the contempt of the Goths.

You, too, Valerian, who manifested the same spirit of cruelty towards the servants of God, hast afforded an example of righteous judgment. A captive in the enemies' hands, led in chains while yet arrayed in the purple and imperial attire, and at last your skin stripped from you, and preserved by command of Sapor the Persian king, you have left a perpetual trophy of your calamity. 

And thou, Aurelian, fierce perpetrator of every wrong, how signal was your fall, when, in the midst of your wild career in Thrace, you were slain on the public highway, and filled the furrows of the road with your impious blood!" [Oration to the Saints, Chapter 24]

Click for more info.

Of course, he could not leave out his contemporary and one-time mentor/captor, Diocletian. In this passage, Constantine provides his own witness of Diocletian's vicious character and unstable psyche, attributes which are echoed by Lactantius in his own work, On the Deaths of the Persecutors: 

"Diocletian, however, after the display of relentless cruelty as a persecutor, evinced a consciousness of his own guilt and owing to the affliction of a disordered mind, endured the confinement of a mean and separate dwelling. What then, did he gain by his active hostility against our God? Simply this I believe, that he passed the residue of his life in continual dread of the lightning's stroke. Nicomedia attests the fact; eyewitnesses, of whom I myself am one, declare it. The palace, and the emperor's private chamber were destroyed, consumed by lightning, devoured by the fire of heaven. Men of understanding hearts had indeed predicted the issue of such conduct; for they could not keep silence, nor conceal their grief at such unworthy deeds; but boldly and openly expressed their feeling, saying one to another: What madness is this? And what an insolent abuse of power, that man should dare to fight against God; should deliberately insult the most holy and just of all religions; and plan, without the slightest provocation, the destruction of so great a multitude of righteous persons?" [Oration to the Saints, Chapter 25]

Interestingly, Lactantius also reports fire destroying parts of the imperial palace in Nicomedia on two separate occasions 15 days apart. He claims that the fires were set by Diocletian's junior emperor, Galerius, in an effort to frame the Christians for the deeds. [see On the Deaths of the Persecutors, Chapter 14]

Constantine wrapped up his oration with a ringing profession of his faith in Jesus, urging his hearers to pray fervently to Christ:

"It becomes all pious persons to render thanks to the Savior of all, first for our own individual security, and then for the happy posture of public affairs: at the same time intreating the favor of Christ with holy prayers and constant supplications, that he would continue to us our present blessings. For he is the invincible ally and protector of the righteous: he is the supreme judge of all things, the prince of immorality, the Giver of everlasting life." [Oration to the Saints, Chapter 26]

After reading the entirety of Constantine's oration, it becomes impossible to maintain the position that the first Roman emperor to tolerate Christianity formally in law did not truly believe Christian doctrine or remained partially pagan to the end of his life. 

Although he was unbaptized until shortly before his death, Constantine was clearly a believing Christian catechumen with a zeal for bearing witness to the faith even publicly with his own lips.  

“Constantine can not be overcome!” ~ Constantine enters Rome in triumph after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, October 28, AD 312

Ruben's fanciful rendering of Maxentius plunging to his death at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. 

When Constantine entered Rome on October 28, AD 312 after crushing the superior forces of Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, it marked the end of one era and the beginning of another. There are several accounts of the battle and its aftermath recorded in ancient times, and two in particular stand out as being written by immediate contemporaries who certainly spoke with the participants. One of those who recorded the battle was Lactantius, a scholar who had served at the court of Diocletian and later became the tutor of Constantine’s son, Crispus.

Here is his account as drawn from his invaluable work, On the Deaths of the Persecutors (Chapter XLIV):

Click for more info.

And now a civil war broke out between Constantine and Maxentius. Although Maxentius kept himself within Rome, because the soothsayers had foretold that if he went out of it he should perish, yet he conducted the military operations by able generals. In forces he exceeded his adversary, for he had not only his father’s army which deserted from Severus, but also his own which he had lately drawn together out of Mauritania and Italy.

They fought and the troops of Maxentius prevailed.

Other ancient accounts give additional details. Zosimus, a pagan historian hostile to Constantine writing in the early 6th century, indicates in his New History that the forces of Maxentius at the start of the campaign numbered some 170,000, while those of Constantine were about 98,000. Eusebius, writing in Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, says that Maxentius positioned his forces throughout Italy to ambush the army of Constantine as it made its way south. An anonymous panegyricist who wrote soon after Constantine’s victory says that Constantine was able to successfully fight through these ambushes, winning battles at the towns of Susa, Turin and Verona before approaching Rome. 

However, when he reached Rome, Constantine was faced with the task of besieging the huge city with an army still likely inferior in numbers to his opponent – a losing proposition when facing an entrenched enemy. Thus, he stood outside the city stymied. It is in this sense that we should understand Lactantius’s claim above that the forces of Maxentius prevailed, at least at first. Considering the situation from a military perspective, the prospects of Constantine were indeed grim upon reaching Rome. It should be recalled that Maxentius had easily defeated the previous attempts by Severus and Galerius to remove him from Rome. In both cases, Maxentius was able to bribe the soldiers of his opponents and his efforts were so successful that both emperors were to forced to flee in successive campaigns. In the case of Severus, his whole army defected to Maxentius and he was ignominiously captured and put to death. No doubt, Maxentius hoped to thwart Constantine’s attack using similar tactics while remaining safely ensconced in the Eternal City.

It was then that something wholly unexpected and incredible happened. Lactantius continues:

At length, Constantine with steady courage and a mind prepared for every event, led his whole forces to the neighborhood of Rome and encamped them opposite to the Milvian bridge. The anniversary of the reign of Maxentius approached—that is, the sixth of the kalends of November—and the fifth year of his reign was drawing to an end. 

Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ. Having this sign, his troops stood to arms. 

A bronze follis of Constantine showing the labarum or Christian standard
topped by the chi-rho on the reverse side.

This is, of course, the chi-rho symbol indicating the first two letters of the word "Christ" in Greek. Here Lactantius is describing the theophany experienced by Constantine and this account is certainly the earliest to record the event. It should be noted that this telling of the story is less detailed than the account of Eusebius of Constantine's vision of a cross in the heavens. However, the accounts do not conflict. Eusebius also records the dream, saying that Constantine experienced the dream on the night following the vision and that the dream served to explain what he had seen in the heavens—a cross with the words, “By this sign, thou wilt conquer.” 

Lactantius describes what happened next:

The enemies advanced but without their emperor [Maxentius], and they crossed the bridge. The armies met and fought with the utmost exertions of valor, “neither this side or that marked by flight.”

In the meantime a sedition arose at Rome and Maxentius was reviled as one who had abandoned all concern for the safety of the commonweal. And suddenly, while he exhibited the Circensian games on the anniversary of his reign, the people cried with one voice, “ Constantine cannot be overcome!” Dismayed at this, Maxentius burst from the assembly, and having called some senators together, ordered the Sibylline books to be searched. In them it was found that:

“On the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish.”

Led by this response to the hopes of victory, he went to the field. The bridge in his rear was broken down. At sight of that the battle grew hotter. The hand of the Lord prevailed, and the forces of Maxentius were routed. He fled towards the broken bridge, but the multitude pressing on him, he was driven headlong into the Tiber.

Drawing from earlier sources, Zosimus provides some additional details, claiming that Maxentius had erected a pontoon bridge over the Tiber which was divided into two parts held together by pins. This structure was purposely built as part of a stratagem to lure the Constantinian army over the bridge, as the pins were meant to be withdrawn once the enemy was on the bridge, precipitating the whole into the river. Both Aurelius Victor and Eusebius confirm that this stratagem had been put into place in the hopes of destroying all or part of Constantine’s army. However, the “engine of destruction” ended up being turned on Maxentius when Constantine refused to cross the pontoon bridge and offered battle on the far side of the Tiber.

Zosimus also mentions a most peculiar prodigy that took place before the battle, saying that Constantine’s decision to hold his ground was made because a great flock of owls had suddenly descended upon the walls of Rome. Seeing that Constantine refused to cross the river, Maxentius advanced and set his army in ranks to give battle. But his formations had hardly been arranged when Constantine’s cavalry attacked and a furious fight ensued. At this moment, Zosimus says that the morale of Maxentius’s troops failed because few among them were willing to risk their lives for a man they considered a tyrant. (See Zosimus, New History, Book II, Chapter 16.)

Lactantius concludes his account as follows:

This destructive war being ended, Constantine was acknowledged as emperor with great rejoicings by the senate and people of Rome. And now he came to know the perfidy of [Maximin] Daia, for he found the letters written to Maxentius and saw the statues and portraits of the two associates which had been set up together. The senate, in reward of the valor of Constantine, decreed to him the title of Maximus (the Greatest), a title which Daia had always arrogated to himself.

We can reconstruct some of what happened in Rome after the defeat of Maxentius from other sources. The anonymous panegyricist mentioned above says that the body of Maxentius was retrieved from the Tiber and hacked to pieces, his head placed on a spear and paraded around the city. Constantine then made a triumphal procession through Rome, concluding with a visit to the imperial palace and a speech in which he restored to the Senate their former privileges. Eusebius tells us that Constantine embellished Rome with monuments and inscriptions celebrating his victory, including a statue of himself with the cross beneath his hand which bore an inscription in Latin, saying: 

“By virtue of this salutary sign, which is the true symbol of valor, I have preserved and liberated your city from the yoke of tyranny. I have also set at liberty the Roman senate and people, and restored them to their ancient greatness and splendor.” [see Eusebius: Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Book I, Chapter 40]

One can imagine that for the people of Rome, jaded by centuries of imperial superlatives making similar claims of liberation, change, glorious restoration and perpetual felicity, these words may have rung somewhat hollow. But for Rome and the Romans, the events of October 28, AD 312 were truly revolutionary. Nothing would ever be the same again.

For more posts on the reign of Constantine, see:

• Constantine — Military Hero and Christian Emperor
• Constantine's Vision of the Cross ~ Early Accounts and Backstory
• September 18, AD 324 -- Constantine defeats Licinius at the Battle of Chrysopolis
• Maxentius and His Ill-Fated Reign ~ The last pagan emperor to rule from Rome or a usurper and "inhuman beast"?

Maxentius and His Ill-Fated Reign ~ The last pagan emperor to rule from Rome or a usurper and "inhuman beast"?

Background: The four original Tetrarchs: Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius and Constantius I.
Foreground left: Constnatine the Great. Foreground right: Maxentius.

Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius, more commonly known as simply Maxentius, ruled in Rome as a usurper from AD 306 until AD 312. His reign came to an abrupt end when he drowned in the Tiber after being defeated at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge by Constantine the Great.

As usurpers go, Maxentius had some impressive familial connections. He was the son of the emperor Maximian Herculius, who was raised to the status of co-Augustus by Diocletian in AD 286. He was also the son-in-law of the emperor Galerius, whom Diocletian would create Caesar in AD 293 and name as his successor as primary Augustus in AD 305. Finally, he was the brother-in-law of Constantius I, the Caesar of the West, who had married his half-sister, Theodora, the daughter of Maximian. Constantius I was, of course, the father of Constantine the Great.

Though he was connected to three imperial families within Diocletian’s Tetrarchy, Maxentius was apparently not well-liked by anyone. Aurelius Victor, a likely pagan writing in the mid-4th century about 50 years after the events, mentions that Maxentius “was dear to no one at all, not even to his father or father-in-law, Galerius.” [See Epitome De Caesaribus, Chapter 40]

Agreeing with this assessment is Lactantius, a well-educated convert to Christianity who served both at the court of Diocletian in Nicomedia and later under Constantine as tutor for the latter’s son, Crispus. In his polemical work of history entitled, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, Lactantius gives the following reason for why neither Maximian nor Galerius had any love for Maxentius:

Click for more info.

“Now Maximian Herculius had a son, Maxentius, married to the daughter of Galerius, a man of bad and mischievous dispositions and so proud and stubborn withal, that he would never pay the wonted obeisance either to his father or father-in-law, and on that account he was hated by them both.” [Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, Chapter 18]

Later, in the same chapter, Lactantius elaborates on the above, putting words directly into the mouth of Galerius as part of a fascinating dialogue in which Galerius and Diocletian discuss the immediate future of the empire and who shall succeed to the imperial college upon the resignation of Diocletian and Maximian:

“What is to be done?” said Galerius, “for that Maxentius deserves not the office. He who, while yet a private man, has treated me with contumely, how will he act when once he obtains power?”

Diocletian and Galerius eventually ended up setting aside both Maxentius and Constantine, young men with hereditary claims to the empire, in favor of two lackeys of Galerius, namely, Maximin Daia and Severus. This decision would have repercussions which would eventually result in the complete dissolution of the Tetrarchy. Less than a year after this decision, Constantine would be declared emperor by his father’s army at York upon the death of Constantius I in Britain in AD 306. This act was eventually ratified by Galerius, making Constantine a formal member of the Tetrarchy which now included Galerius and Severus as the Augusti, or senior emperors, and Maximin Daia and Constantine as Caesars, or junior emperors.

On the outside looking in, Maxentius began seeking ways to acquire that which he felt had been wrongfully denied to him. Zosimus, a pagan historian writing in the early 6th century, claims that Maxentius was incensed at the good fortune of Constantine and decided to take matters into his own hands. Taking advantage of the newly imposed and extremely unpopular taxes of Galerius on the City of Rome, Maxentius plotted a coup with the assistance of two tribunes of the Praetorian Guard, and a swine merchant. The conspirators assassinated the prefect of Rome, Abellius, and had Maxentius declared Emperor. [See Zosimus, New History, Book 2, Chapter 9]

A bronze follis showing the
fleshy profile of Maxentius.
Click the image to enlarge.

Angered at this usurpation, Galerius ordered his creature Severus to deal with Maxentius. But Maxentius had an ace up his sleeve. He recalled his father to Rome—the retired Maximian Herculius who had ruled as Diocletian’s colleague for twenty years. Maximian had retired unwillingly and had been cooling his heels in southern Italy, so as soon as this opportunity arose for him to regain the purple, he responded eagerly. When Severus arrived in the vicinity of Rome, his army promptly defected to their previous patron and Severus was handed over to be killed. A further campaign by Galerius himself ended in similar ignominy, as the Eastern Augustus fled from Italy before his army could defect to Maxentius and Maximian as well.

Fortune had certainly favored Maxentius to this point, but his situation was still precarious. Not helping matters was that neither he nor his father were men of particularly high character. Maximian soon tired of playing second fiddle and attempted regain his preeminent position by a public denunciation of his upstart son. Lactantius describes the scene:

“He called an assembly of the people of Rome and of the soldiers, as if he had been to make an harangue on the calamitous situation of public affairs. After having spoken much on that subject, he stretched his hands towards his son, charged him as author of all ills and prime cause of the calamities of the state, and then tore the purple from his shoulders. Maxentius, thus stripped, leaped headlong from the tribunal and was received into the arms of the soldiers. Their rage and clamor confounded the unnatural old man and, like another Tarquin the Proud, he was driven from Rome.” [Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors, Chapter XXVIII]

Though the soldiers and the people resoundingly rejected the father on this occasion, it wasn’t long before they wearied of the son as well. Zosimus commented that Maxentius “conducted himself with cruelty and licentiousness towards all the inhabitants of Italy, and even to Rome itself.” [New History, Book II, Chapter 14]. Eutropius, writing in the later 4th century, says that Maxentius was “spreading death among the nobility by every kind of cruelty.” [Breviarium, Book X, Chapter 4]

Maxentius’s unpopularity at home probably excited a revolt of the African provinces against his rule under an elderly usurper named Alexander in AD 308. As the loss of Africa meant the cutting off of Rome’s grain supply, Maxentius was forced to act, sending an army to crush the rebellion in short order. But he won no love by this victory, going overboard in punishing Africa, as reported by Aurelius Victor:

Click for more info.

“Maxentius, the inhuman beast, made more abominable by his excessive lust, had ordered Carthage, the glory of the world, along with the loveliest parts of Africa to be ravaged, pillaged and burned.” [De Caesaribus, Chapter 40]

Later in the same chapter, Aurelius Victor gives another reason why the people and the nobility came to despise Maxentius:

“He had oppressed them so much that on one occasion he permitted the praetorians to massacre the common people, and was the first, through a most reprehensible edict issued under the pretext of obligatory state taxation, to compel the senators and farmers to contribute money for him to squander.”

An anonymous Latin panegyricist provides a few more details, claiming that Maxentius had used the wealth of Rome to hire henchmen whose purpose was to strip every Roman citizen of his goods, saying:

Click for more info.

“The riches collected from the entire world over the course of 1,060 years that monster had given to gangs of men hired to rob citizens. What is more, indiscriminately granting other men’s wives and the heads of the innocent along with their possessions he bound the murderers in devotion even to death; all who either plotted against him or openly attempted anything for their freedom he afflicted with punishments and subdued by armed force. And while he enjoyed the majesty of the city which he had taken, he filled all Italy with thugs hired for every sort of villainy.” [Nixon: In Praise of the Later Roman Emperors]

Considering Maxentius's misrule, as reported in a multiplicity of ancient sources, it is perhaps not surprising that Constantine was aroused against Maxentius, and that the senate and the people of Rome celebrated when Constantine drew near in AD 312. As reported by Eusebius who knew him personally, Constantine could no longer endure the oppression of Maxentius, saying, “that life was without enjoyment to him as long as he saw the imperial city thus afflicted.” [Eusebius, Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Book I, Chapter 26].

What followed was Constantine’s epic campaign to re-take Rome—a campaign that succeeded where those of Severus and Galerius had failed. This effort culminated with the dramatic Battle of the Milvian Bridge on October 28, AD 312.

In more modern times, attempts have been made to rehabilitate the memory of Maxentius. Some have sought to eulogize him as the last pagan emperor to rule from Rome. He is also occasionally lauded as the builder of the so-called Basilica of Maxentius in Rome and is given credit for rebuilding parts of the city that had fallen to neglect while Diocletian ruled the empire from Nicomedia. Others have found reason to praise Maxentius following the amazing discovery of what may have been his imperial insignia, saying that they represented, "the greatness of Maxentius, buried by his loyal people to save something that belonged to him." 

The imperial insignia discovered in Rome in 2006.
Borrowed from: Romeinen Weblog.

Given what the ancients, both pagan and Christian, had to say about him however, it seems clear that the only things truly great about Maxentius were his vices and his atrocities.

"I myself have witnessed the end of those who harassed the worshipers of God" ~ Constantine's letter to Shapur II of Persia

A decorative gilt silver plate showing Shapur II hunting, mid-4th century AD (left).
A colossal bronze bust of Constantine I, early 4th century AD (right).  

Among the remarkable documents found inserted into the 4th century AD work known as the Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine by Eusebius Pamphilus, one of the most intriguing is a letter penned by Constantine himself to Shapur II, the young king of Persia.

The reliability of this document is fairly well established. A detailed scholarly discussion of the authenticity, dating, and purpose of this letter may be found in this excellent article by David Frendo. In his Vita of Constantine, Eusebius introduces the letter as follows:

The king of the Persians also having testified a desire to form an alliance with Constantine, by sending an embassy and presents as assurances of peace and friendship, the emperor, in negotiating this treaty, far surpassed the monarch who had first done him honor, in the magnificence with which he acknowledged his gifts. Having heard, too, that there were many churches of God in Persia, and that large numbers there were gathered into the fold of Christ, full of joy at this intelligence, he resolved to extend his anxiety for the general welfare to that country also, as one whose aim it was to care for all alike in every nation. 

Click here for more info.

What follows is the text of Constantine's letter, or at least excerpts from it that Eusebius felt were particularly edifying for his predominantly Christian audience. It is thought that Constantine wrote this letter at the height of his power in AD 325 after defeating Licinius and attaining dominion over the entire Roman Empire. Shapur II, meanwhile, would have been somewhere between the ages of 15 and 20. That may well explain the occasionally avuncular tone that Constantine seems to employ in the letter:

By keeping the Divine faith, I am made a partaker of the light of truth: guided by the light of truth, I advance in the knowledge of the Divine faith. Hence it is that, as my actions themselves evince, I profess the most holy religion; and this worship I declare to be that which teaches me deeper acquaintance with the most holy God; aided by whose Divine power, beginning from the very borders of the ocean, I have aroused each nation of the world in succession to a well-grounded hope of security; so that those which, groaning in servitude to the most cruel tyrants and yielding to the pressure of their daily sufferings, had well near been utterly destroyed, have been restored through my agency to a far happier state. This God I confess that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts in the height of his glory. 

For any who like to make the case that Constantine's didn't actually have an affinity toward Christianity or only pretended to when it suited his purpose, the intro to this letter may prove somewhat baffling. Even more confusing to this view will be what follows, wherein Constantine vehemently denounces the sacrifice of animals — a traditional practice of both the Roman pagans and the Persian Zoroastrians:

This God I invoke with bended knees, and recoil with horror from the blood of sacrifices, from their foul and detestable odors, and from every earth-born magic fire: for the profane and impious superstitions which are defiled by these rites have cast down and consigned to perdition many, nay, whole nations of the Gentile world. For he who is Lord of all cannot endure that those blessings which, in his own loving-kindness and consideration of the wants of men, he has revealed for the use of all, should be perverted to serve the lusts of any. His only demand from man is purity of mind and an undefiled spirit; and by this standard he weighs the actions of virtue and godliness.  

For his pleasure is in works of moderation and gentleness: he loves the meek, and hates the turbulent spirit: delighting in faith, he chastises unbelief: by him all presumptuous power is broken down, and he avenges the insolence of the proud. While the arrogant and haughty are utterly overthrown, he requires the humble and forgiving with deserved rewards: even so does he highly honor and strengthen with his special help a kingdom justly governed, and maintains a prudent king in the tranquility of peace. 

Constantine then proceeds to denounce those of his predecessors on the Roman imperial throne who persecuted the Christians, including one who met his end at the hands of the Persians themselves some 60 years before. Here Constantine refers to Valerian who, after spending two years persecuting Christians throughout the Roman Empire, was defeated and taken prisoner in AD 259 by Shapur II's great-grandfather, Shapur I:

I cannot, then, my brother believe that I err in acknowledging this one God, the author and parent of all things: whom many of my predecessors in power, led astray by the madness of error, have ventured to deny, but who were all visited with a retribution so terrible and so destructive, that all succeeding generations have held up their calamities as the most effectual warning to any who desire to follow in their steps. Of the number of these I believe him to have been, whom the lightning-stroke of Divine vengeance drove forth from hence, and banished to your dominions and whose disgrace contributed to the fame of your celebrated triumph. 

Interestingly, in a rhetorical flourish that mirrors the style of the emperor's contemporary and sometime adviser, Lactantius, Constantine next emphasizes his personal experience with those rulers who have dared to oppress the Christians. In this passage, one can almost hear the echo of Lactantius's work entitled On the Deaths of the Persecutors, written sometime prior to AD 320:

Click for more info.

And it is surely a happy circumstance that the punishment of such persons as I have described should have been publicly manifested in our own times. For I myself have witnessed the end of those who lately harassed the worshipers of God by their impious edict. And for this abundant thanksgivings are due to God that through his excellent Providence all men who observe his holy laws are gladdened by the renewed enjoyment of peace. Hence I am fully persuaded that everything is in the best and safest posture, since God is vouchsafing, through the influence of their pure and faithful religious service, and their unity of judgment respecting his Divine character, to gather all men to himself. 

Constantine then makes clear the true intention of his letter: the protection of those Christians living within the borders of Persia:

Imagine, then, with what joy I heard tidings so accordant with my desire, that the fairest districts of Persia are filled with those men on whose behalf alone I am at present speaking, I mean the Christians. I pray, therefore, that both you and they may enjoy abundant prosperity, and that your blessings and theirs may be in equal measure; for thus you will experience the mercy and favor of that God who is the Lord and Father of all. 

It is interesting to speculate on the sources of intelligence information that Constantine was able to draw upon with regard to the interior workings of the Persian kingdom. No doubt, much of his data was provided by those very Christians who he mentions as filling up the fairest districts of Persia. The emperor closes his missive with an exhortation that the young king of Persia take special care of Constantine's beloved Christians. Though couched in diplomatic and affectionate language, it is easy to detect the implied threat:

And now, because your power is great, I commend these persons to your protection; because your piety is eminent, I commit them to your care. Cherish them with your wonted humanity and kindness; for by this proof of faith you will secure an immeasurable benefit both to yourself and us.

We can only imagine the impact that such a letter might have had on the Persian court. With a young, inexperienced king on the throne, they must have felt themselves in position to do nothing other than to knuckle under to the powerful, warlike Roman Emperor who now ruled unopposed on their western frontier. That said, when another decade had gone by and Shapur II sat more confidently on his throne, the Persians resumed the sporadic border raiding that came to characterize much of their relationship with the Roman Empire through the centuries. It was likely as a result of this that Constantine began to mobilize a great campaign against Persia during the last years of his life—a campaign which never came to fruition but was cancelled after his death in AD 337.

It is also interesting to note that shortly after the death of Constantine, a general persecution of Christians was put into effect in Persia with bloody results and at least 16,000 slain according to the near-contemporary Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen. Perhaps Shapur II and the Persian court recalled Constantine's letter and felt that with his death, they now had free hand to eliminate a potential threat. The Christians of Persia, once tolerated when they were persecuted by the pagan Romans, were now viewed as no better than potential collaborators with the Christianized Roman state.

Constantine's Execution of Crispus and Fausta

A cameo on the ornate cover of the Ada Gospels believed to show the family
of Constantine. A possible identification is, from left: Fausta, Constantine,
Constantius II, Crispus, Constantine II. [From Pohlsander, p. 95] 

As the emperor who brought Christianity out of the catacombs and into the palace, Constantine had many admirers in his own time. However, he had just as many detractors. The same holds true in our own time: for every plaudit Constantine receives from a modern commentator, one can expect to see an equal number of condemnations.

The event most commonly brought up by Constantine’s detractors when attacking his character are the scandalous executions of his second wife, Fausta, and his eldest son, Crispus. It is noteworthy that most of Constantine’s contemporary Christian biographers exclude this incident completely when recounting his life. Constantine’s detractors, however, are not so shy. Here are some examples.

The Arian Christian historian Philostorgius, writing in the early 5th century AD, asserts that “Constantine was induced by the fraudulent artifices of his step-mother to put his son Crispus to death.” [Epitome of Philostorgius's Ecclesiastical History, Book II, Chapter 4, ]

Crispus was the product of Constantine’s first marriage to a woman named Minervina about whom little is known. Constantine’s second wife, Fausta, was Crispus’s step-mother. It should also be noted that Fausta was the daughter of the western emperor, Maximian Herculius, and the sister of the Maxentius, self-proclaimed Augustus at Rome. Both Maximian (via suicide following an abortive attempt to reclaim imperial power) and Maxentius (via death in battle) met their ends due to the actions of Constantine.

The early 6th century pagan historian, Zosimus, fills in some more details, “His son Crispus, who had been honored with the rank of Caesar…came under the suspicion of being involved with his stepmother Fausta; Constantine destroyed him without any regard to the laws of nature.” [Zosimus, Historia Nea, 2.29, as translated by Hans A. Pohlsander.]

As a hostile critic of Constantine, one would expect Zosimus to put the scandal in the worst possible light. That said, a Christian chronicler, Zonaras, writing much later in the 12th century, basically corroborates him, adding additional detail either from his own speculation or sources unknown to us: 

“His (Crispus’s) stepmother Fausta was madly in love with him but did not easily get him to go along. She then announced to his father that he (Crispus) loved her and had often attempted to do violence to her. Therefore, Crispus was condemned to death by his father, who believed his wife.” [Zonaras, Epitome, 13.2, as translated by Hans A. Pohlsander.]

Given the above accounts and what we know about the dynastic situation in Constantine’s household, along with the moral legislation put into effect by Constantine at about the same time, it is possible to conjecture what the actual course of events might have looked like.

In AD 324, Constantine was able to vanquish the last of his rivals, Licinius, for complete control of the Roman Empire. During this campaign, the young Crispus played a signal role having defeated the naval forces of the Licinians in two major battles. These victories formed the vital prelude to the climactic Battle of Chrysopolis where Licinius was decisively defeated by Constantine. It is no surprise, then, that following the victories, Crispus—already named a Caesar or junior emperor—was at the height of his power and well-positioned to be Constantine’s heir apparent.

A medallion showing Crispus as Caesar.

Fausta, however, had borne three sons of her own by Constantine. All of them were too young to take up the purple in the year 326, the eldest, Constantine II, being only 10. In order for Fausta’s sons to succeed to the imperial throne and not be subject to their illustrious older brother, something would have to happen to Crispus. Perhaps unsurprisingly, something did. If we combine the claims of Philostorgius, Zosimus and Zonaras, it is relatively straightforward to conclude that Fausta conspired to accuse Crispus of rape. The credibility of the accusation might be enhanced if young Crispus (himself a married man with a child) actually allowed himself to be seduced by the empress.

In April of AD 320, Constantine had promulgated a law with regard to rape and the various parties involved. This new law, "added the voice of imperial authority to the cause of private morality, which was thus translated into the realm of public concern. Adultery and elopement, like rape, were species of theft from husband and father but also offenses against morality which husband and father had no business to ignore, whatever their personal inclinations.” [Dixon: Reading Roman Women, page 52]

The punishment for rape under Constantine was very severe—it was actually softened in AD 349 by Constantius II to capital punishment. According to Judith Evans Grubbs, “The original penalty may have been summum supplicium (‘the supreme penalty’), a particularly atrocious and degrading form of death such as condemnation ad bestias [that is, to be torn apart by wild beasts] or burning.” [Grubbs: Law and Family in Late Antiquity, page 186]

Events came to a head sometime in AD 326. Perhaps Fausta accused Crispus directly to her husband of attempting to rape her. Perhaps Crispus, knowing himself guilty of adultery and incest, could not convincingly refute the charge. In any event, Constantine evidently believed the accusation and found himself forced to inflict the penalty of his own laws upon his beloved son. Anything less would have been supremely un-Roman, hearkening back to stories such as the rape of Lucretia by Sextus Tarquin—an event which led to the overthrow of the last Roman king—and the pitiless but legendary resolution of Manlius Torquatus, who enforced Roman law even to the point of executing his own son.

Compared to an ignominious death by fire or in the arena, Constantine’s supposed mandate of death by poison to his first-born appears almost merciful, though details are lacking.

A gold solidus showing the bust of Fausta on the obverse. The reverse shows
Fausta holding two of her children, probably Constantine II and Constantius II.

What then happened to Fausta is equally mysterious. On April 25, AD 326 at Nicomedia, Constantine amended the historical Julian Law on Adultery. Within this law, is the following statement:

“The husband above all ought to be the avenger of the marriage bed, since to him the former Emperors of olden time granted the right to accuse his wife even on suspicion and not be bound by the bond of inscription within the statutory time limits.” [Pharr: The Theodosian Code, Book IX, Title 7.2]

Whether this law was promulgated before or after Fausta met her fate is unknown. What is known is that Constantine’s mother, Helena, who had herself raised Crispus, severely rebuked her son for his precipitate action. Charles Odahl describes the circumstance as follows:

“When Constantine entered the city [of Rome], Helena approached him in mourning, and reproached him for the death of her grandson. With her imperial resources, she may have been able to gain some damnatory evidence that Fausta had deceived him; or, at the very least, she convinced Constantine that he had acted too swiftly and needed to investigate the case more deeply.” [Odahl: Constantine and the Christian Empire, p. 183]

It seems that Constantine did receive some sort of evidence implicating his wife. But Fausta’s crime had been more than conspiracy, seduction or adultery—it was treason. According to another of Constantine’s laws, “since a person convicted in a case of this kind is not protected by the privilege of any high rank from a very severe inquisition, he also must be subject to torture if he should not be able to prove his accusation by other clear evidence.” [Pharr: The Theodosian Code, Book IX, Title 5.1]  Thus, Fausta would have been subject to torture if credibly accused.

Perhaps the evidence was so strong that Fausta admitted her scheme before torture could be applied. Once convicted, there could be only one possible punishment for such a crime—death by the sword—and as before, Constantine could not exempt even his own wife from the just penalty lest he be accused of holding his own family above the law. Perhaps any desire Constantine had to save his wife dissipated once he recalled that Fausta had previously betrayed both her father and her brother, and had now played him for a fool and had her stepson judicially murdered. As in the case of Crispus, however, it seems that Constantine chose not to expose the mother of his sons to death by beheading. Instead, according to Zosimus, he had Fausta placed in a superheated sauna where she perished of hyperthermia.

But Fausta had achieved her ends. She had very effectively removed Crispus, clearing the path to imperial power for her own sons, while at the same time insulating them from implication in the crime. The names of both Crispus and Fausta were effectively erased from Roman biographies, historical works, coins and inscriptions after AD 326. Rumors were bandied about that the reason Constantine became a Christian was because Christian bishops promised that he could be cleansed from his sins via baptism. Sozomen effectively refutes this gossip as “the invention of persons who desired to vilify the Christian religion.” [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Chapter 5].

The depth of grief felt by Constantine and Helena at this horrific family tragedy can only be guessed. As Odahl posits, there may be clues in that Helena began her epochal pilgrimage to the Holy Land shortly thereafter, and Constantine himself redoubled his munificence toward building and enhancing Christian shrines and churches throughout the empire after these events.

An excellent brief biography of Crispus may be found in Hans Pohlsander’s article entitled: Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End.

An equally excellent survey of Roman laws on rape may be found in Nghiem L. Nguyen's article, Roman Rape: An Overview of Roman Rape Lawsfrom the Republican Period to Justinian's Reign.