THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE.

Shannon News, 2 June 1925, Page 4

THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE.

W.E.A. LECTURE. ■ - | Mr. A. Ernest Mander, the lecturei, took as his subject at arecent meeting of the W.E.A. the Emperor Con stantine, often called—or miscalled— Constantine the “Great.” After reviewing the course of Roman history, and the development of Graeco-Roman civilisation in the empire, Mr. Mander pointed out that by the year 320—that is, by the reign of Constantine—the organisation and 'civilisation of the Roman v,orld was in process of rapid decay. An age of increasing chaos succeeds an age of law and order; an age of wicertuntif and distrust succeeds an age of secu ity and confidence; an age of ance succeeds an age of enlighten, ment. The long black night (what w« call the Dark Age) —it begins before, not after, the final crumbling of the By the year 300 .all the lights ot culture, art, philosophy, and scienceall the lights of human intelligence have fizzled out; and the long dark night is upon us." The Struggle for the Throne. In the year 306 there were two joint emperors, one ruling over the Western and the other over the Eastern hall of the Empire. The former was Constantius; and when he died, bis son, Constantine, who was then m Britain commanding the army there, claimed to succeed his father. But there were other claimants: in fact, there were no fewer than six “emperors,” each with his own party of political supporters, and each with his own army behm him. .. The following period, while these six “emperors” struggled for supremacy, made it seem as though the Empire was going to be torn to pieces there and then. It was a period of bloody sordid intrigues, sickening treachery and revolting crimes. After some years of this! Constantine emerged, the only survivor, and proclaimed himself sole emperor of the whole Roman world. The reign of Constantine was important for two things—the founding of Constantinople, and the adoption of Christianity as the established State religion. Constantinople.

The Empire was fast splitting into its eastern and western halves- —a Greekspeaking east, and a Latin-speaking west. What Constantine, did was to found a new city, Constantinople, to be the capital of the Eastern Empire. A well-situated and well laid-out, but gaudy, ornate, “Oriental” city—that was Constantinople. Not Roman, not Greek, hardly Hellenistic essentially an Oriental city, where “Constantine the Vain” was free to throw off the last vestiges of Roman, of European tradition and become an imitation eastern potentate.

Here, in his new capital, Constantine —ignoring all the traditions of the Caesars —surrounded himself with Asi. atic luxury, pomp and ceremony. He created a new nobility, bestowing upon its members all kinds of pompous titles hitherto unknown in Europe; and introducing those ridiculously extravagant forms of address that still survive in European courts ‘ Your Excellency," “Your. Majesty,” “Your Mightiness,” “Your Highness,” and the like.

The State Religion. Mr. Mander then described the Statt Religion, as it had existed from the time of Augustus (B.C. 31) until the time of Constantine, (A.D., 320). It 'was really not a "religion” at all, in the stx-ict sense of the worship and propitiation of supernatural powers. It was really more an expression of patriotism and loyalty. For the Emperor was the living embodiment of the Imperial Ideal; and the formal worship of the Emperor was insisted upon in the same spirit, and for much the same reasons that the Americans today are taught to reverence "Old Glory,” the Stars and Stripes. It was a matter of welding together all the different peoples of the Empire —peoples of different races and breeds* languages, customs and traditions. It was a matter of developing—in Brythons and Spaniards, Berbers and Syrians, Italians, Greeks and Dalmatians —a feeling of unity, a common pride and loyalty, a common national —or rather, imperial—sentiment. The formal worship, the burning of incense before the statue of the emperor, was really equivalent to taking the oath of allegiance, or saluting the flag to-day.

The Real Religions. There were, however, many real religions in the Empire, and it was always the imperial policy not to interfere with them unless they assumed some political (seditious) significance. Mr. Mander described the worship of Cybele and of Isis, the “Queen of Heaven,” religions that had spread outward from Alexandria and obtained a firm footing in Rome long before the time of Julius Caesar. He then described Mithraism, a religion that had originated in Persia and, by the time of Augustus (8.C., 31), had become the most widespread and popular religion in (he Empire. Mithraism was espc rally important be-

cause It was subsequently absorbed by Christianity., ( Mr. Mander then described briefly | the growth of the Christian religion, ( its slow spread over the Empire, and | the nature of its organisation. DurJ ing the first two centuries the new rei ligion made its appeal, almost exclu- ( sively to the poor and oppressed, the I people of the slums and the slaves, } the weary and heavy-laden. To the hopeless it offered hope; to the suffer- • ing it gave comfort and consolation; to the wretched and dispirited it offered a new interest in life, and a new life —an infinitely brighter and happier life—either after the Second Coming of Christ or else beyond the grave. “If you want to form a picture of these early Christians,” said the lecturer, “base it on what you know of such modern sects as the Salvation Army, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Brethren and others, and not upon our modern institutional religions.

The Persecutions. With regard to the persecutions of the early Christians, the point to remember is that the imperial bureaucracy, never attempted to suppress any i eligion on religious grounds. It was only when a religion assumed some political significance that the State interfered with it, Now it is clear that the Roman bureaucracy saw in Christianity nothing but disloyalty and sedition. For one thing, the Christians resolutely refused to burn incense before the statue of Caesar —-a refusal which could, of course, be fully justified from the standpoint of Christianity, but which could not be understood by the Roman bureaucracy as meaning anything other than that the Christians, refusing to “take, the oath of allegiance,” must belong to a seditious organisation. This seemed to be borne out by their being, for the first two centuries, conscientious objectors to military service. In addition, there were, of course, all sorts of wild rumours in circulation about the secret rites and practices of the Christians. Christianity had to meet all that slander and misrepresentation that every new movement, political or religious, always has to encounter. But the point to remember is that'the persecutions were essentially political, rather than religious.

“Success.” However, despite all persecutions, by the time of Constantine the Christians had become the largest, best organised and most powerful party in the Empire. Moreover, theirs had now ceased to be primarily the religion of the poor and oppressed: it had spread into the well-to-do, and even the wealthy, classes. Socially and politically, Christianity had at last become a “success.” And if that social success had cost it its simplicity, its earnestness and its downrightness—well, that was the price that had to be paid for worldly “success.”

This was the position when Con. stantine took the Christians (as it were) under his wing. We cannot believe that he himself was guided by other than selfish and political considerations. His title to the throne was weak; he had gained his position only by war, intrigue and assassination; and the support of this large and powerful party was the one thing that could make his throne secure. It is hardly likely that Constantine ever understood at all what Christianity really meant. Ht had put to death his own son, and also his own wife, with whom he had lived for more than 20 years—and he had committed these and other atrocious crimes after his supposed “conversion” to Christianity. So clearly there was no “change of heart” in this vain, treacherous and unscrupulous scoundrel called, for some reason, Constantine the “Great.” It was a purely political move, to gain for him the support of the most powerful party in his Empire; and in many ways its adoption as the official State Religion, with the Emperor at its head, was a disaster rather than a triumph for Christianity. Mr. Mander then gave an account of some of the incidents in the life of Constantine, drew a verbal “picture” of him, and outlined the closing years of his reign.

At the end of the lecture, Professor T. A Hunter, Director of University Extension Work, gave a brief address (as reported in yesterday’s issue) on the development and prospects of the movement for general adult education.