IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY IN THE MAKING: EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA ON CONSTANTINE AS 'BISHOP' FEW historical sources from Late Antiquity have attracted so much scholarly attention as Eusebius' Life of Constantine, and few passages have been at the centre of so extended a debate as those in which Constantine is referred to as 'bishop', for they seem to encapsulate the Byzantine vision of imperial authority in its relation to Christianity. 1 The first of the two passages in question stands in Book I, in the context of Constantine's actions on behalf of the church following his defeat of Maxentius: As dissensions had arisen in various lands, he [Constantine] acted like a universal bishop appointed by G o d {old T I ; KOIVOS k-rriaKOiros £K deoii Kadeo- Ta.fj.4vos) and convoked councils of the ministers of God. He did not disdain to be present at their meetings and to become one of the bishops (KOLUOJVOS TOiV eTTLOKOTTOVfJidvOJV €yeV£TO*). The second passage appears in Book IV, which presents a sequence of episodes in evidence of the emperor's piety and devotion: It was, therefore, not so absurd, when he happened to invite bishops to his table, to claim to be a bishop himself, using within our hearing approximately the following words: 'You are indeed bishops in all which is internal to the Church (TCOV etaw TT/J 'fiocATjai'aj). But I have been appointed bishop by God for all outside the Church (rav CKTOS)'.3 The boldness of these statements went against the sensibilities of many scholars who used it as ammunition to cast doubt on 1 For the history of the debate see F. Winkelmann, 'Zur Geschichte des Authentizitatsproblems der "Vita Constantini"', Klio 40 (1962), 187—243, repr. in his Studien zu Konstanlin dem Grossen und zur byzantinischen Kirchengeschichte. Ausgewahlte Aufsdtze, ed. W. Brandes, J. F. Haldon (Birmingham, 1993); J.-M. Sansterre, 'Eusebe de Cesaree et la naissance de la theone "cesaropapiste"', Byzantion 42 (1972), 131—95, 532-94; D. De Decker, G. Dupuis-Masay, 'L' "episcopat" de l'empereur Constantin', Byzantion 50 (1980), 118—57. An excellent recent study of Byzantine imperial ideology is G. Dagron, Empereur et pretre. Etude sur le 'cesaropapisme' byzantm (Paris, 1996). 2 Eusebius, Life of Constantine (henceforth VC) I 44. 1-2, ed. F. Winkelmann (Eusebius Werke, vol. 1/1: Uber das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, Berlin, 1975) p. 38. 25-39. 2 - Translation of this passage from F. Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Background, vol. 2, (Washington, D.C., 1966), p. 752. Translation of the whole work by E. C. Richardson, NPNF, vol. 1 (New York, 1890, repr. Grand Rapids, 1976). 3 VC IV 24, p. 128. 19-22, transl. Dvornik, pp. 752-53. © Oxford University Press 1998 [Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Vol. 49, Pt. 2, October 1998] 686 NOTES AND STUDIES Eusebius' authorship of the Life of Constantine. This question, at least, has been laid to rest and Eusebius' reputation as a trustworthy author restored since the fortuitous identification of a papyrus, written not much later than 320, which contained a fragment of the same letter by Constantine to the provincials that is rendered in full in Book II, 26-29 of the Life of Constantine.'* It remains remarkable, to my mind, that no scholar has expressed puzzlement over the fact that Constantine is likened to a bishop at all—instead of a priest, for example—and that consequently the debate has gravitated towards the question of the definition and limitation of this imperial episcopate. Equally debated has been the date and purpose of the composition of the Life of Constantine and the role of the laws and letters which it incorporates. Did Eusebius begin to plan this work in 325, s in 335,6 or in 337?7 While much scholarly energy has been expended in going over the same ground, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the literary aspects of the Life of Constantine. Storch's attempt to analyse the VC as a work of panegyric was more successful than his affirmation that Eusebius' description of Constantine, because of his intimate association with the emperor, corresponded exactly to his patron's view of himself.8 Such assertions have become untenable since Barnes' meticulous study has proved that Eusebius' personal contact with the emperor was limited to only four occasions, and public ones at that. 9 Barnes has also considerably advanced the debate about the Life of Constantine by arguing that the text was subjected to significant transformations, traces of which are still noticeable in the duplications and internal inconsistencies of the narrative. Eusebius' original intention had been to compose a panegyric in the traditional vein. But over the subsequent period, Eusebius reworked this original core into a biography intended to highlight Constantine's religious role, supported by full citations of the emperor's laws and his letters on behalf of the Church, while at the same time 4 A. H. M. Jones, T. C. Skeat, 'Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in Eusebius' Life of Constantine', Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5 (1954), 196-200. s T. D. Barnes, 'Panegyric, History and Hagiography in Eusebius' Life of Constantine', in The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. R. Williams (Cambridge, 1989), p. 113. 6 H. Drake, 'What Eusebius Knew: The Genesis of the Vita Constanttni', Classical Philology 83 (1988), 20-38 7 T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge/London, 1981) p. 263. 8 R. H. Storch, 'The "Eusebian Constantine"', Church History 40 (1971), 145-559 Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, pp. 265-67. NOTES AND STUDIES 687 carefully avoiding any offence to his successors. After Eusebius' death in 339, the work was published by a redactor who introduced some very minor changes and added chapter headings.10 The following essai is intended as a contribution to the ongoing debate over the Life of Constantine. I propose a reading which sheds new light on the references to Constantine as 'bishop' and at the same time presents a further argument in favour of the conceptual unity of the work. I begin by showing that an important leitmotiv in the Life of Constantine is Eusebius' representation of Constantine in comparison to Moses. I then explore the connotations of the Moses typology in Late Antiquity. Moses, it will emerge, served in particular as the model of the perfect bishop. Constantine's claim to be an episkopos is thus entirely consistent with, and elucidated by Eusebius' overall scheme in the Life of Constantine. I Eusebius establishes a direct connection between Constantine and Moses in three respects: 1. Constantine's youth resembles that of Moses. He was brought up among his enemies at the court of Diocletian,11 just as Moses was raised at the court of Pharaoh. Eusebius adds that while the story of Moses may appear to be like an ancient myth, God has worked even greater marvels through Constantine in the present. By establishing this relation between Constantine and Moses right at the beginning of his narrative, Eusebius gives it particular weight and introduces it as the underlying theme of his work. The Moses comparison is expressly resumed soon thereafter, when Constantine's flight to his father's deathbed in York is said to be in imitation of Moses' flight from Pharaoh. 12 2. Constantine is to his enemies what Moses was to Pharaoh. His victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, which established him as the uncontested ruler over the western empire, resembles Moses' crossing of the Red Sea. This comparison is played out in great detail, down to Constantine's triumphant entry into the city of Rome which was accompanied by the spontaneous 10 G. Pasquali, 'Die Composition der Vita Constantini des Eusebius', Hermes 45 (1910), 368-86. 11 VC I 12. 1-2, p 21. 3-21, trans, p 485 Cf. Exod. 2:1-10. Cross-referenced at I 19. i, 25. 18—20, trans. 487. 12 VC I 20. 2, p. 26. 11-14, trans, p. 488. Cf Exod. 2:15. 688 NOTES AND STUDIES psalmody of his troops. 13 Eusebius here repeats his earlier assertion that the story of Moses may have seemed a myth to the unbelievers, but that it is brought to life again in the present day through Constantine. He underscores this point by weaving quotations from the Book of Exodus into his sentences. In fact, this is the first time he uses biblical quotations in this work.14 Eusebius' own narrative thus becomes a re-enactment of the Old Testament in the same way as Constantine is a present-day version of Moses. This theme is taken up again, albeit in less bold strokes, in Eusebius' report of Constantine's crucial confrontation with his eastern rival Licinius that secured him sole rulership over the Roman Empire in its entirety. Instead of expressly comparing Constantine to Moses, here it is his adversary Licinius who is equated with Pharaoh. 15 3. Whenever he is on campaign, Constantine is in the habit of withdrawing to his 'tent', set up at some distance from the camp, where he communicates with God in prayer. 16 This is the manner in which he prepares himself for the confrontation with Licinius. 17 Constantine also orders a 'tent', now described as having the shape of a church, to be made ready for his campaign against Persia,18 which he did not live to complete. It is significant that the word used by Eusebius for this 'tent' (skene) is the same as that used in the Old Testament for the tabernacle of Moses. Other passages establish more tenuous connections to Moses. When Constantine is described as a 'friend of God' 19 or a 'servant of God' 20 this may be intended as a direct reference to Moses who was also thus identified. But it may equally well reflect the hellenistic concept, which in turn was influenced by Jewish conceptions 13 Several scholars have made cursory mention of Eusebius' application of the Moses comparison, largely based on this passage: Dvornik, op. cit., p. 644; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, p. 271 and G. F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories. Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius, second, revised and enlarged edn. (Macon, 1986), pp. 162-63. 14 VC I 38. 2-5, p. 34. 21-35. 21, trans, p. 492-93. Cf. Exod. 15:4-5; Ps. 7:16-17; Exod. 15:11; Exod. 15:1-2; Exod. 15:11. 15 VC II 11. 2, p. 53. I O - I I , trans, p. 503. 16 VC II 12. 1—2, p. 53. 12-26, trans, p. 503. 17 VC II 14. 1-2, p. 54. 12-19, trans, pp. 503-504. 18 This part of VC IV 56 is lost, but its content is summarized in the ancient table of contents, p. 13. 3-4. The trans, p. 555 is based on a reconstruction of the text. 19 VC 1 3. p. 4, p. 16. 32-17. 2, trans p. 482; I 13. 1, p. 22. 1-3, trans, p. 485; I 38. 2, p. 35 5, trans, p. 493—here in conjunction with crossing of Red Sea comparison; I 52. 2, p. 42. 20, trans, p. 496. 20 VC I 47. 3, p. 40. 14, trans, p. 495; II 2. 3, p. 48. 15, trans, p. 500; IV 48, p. 140. 18, trans, p. 552; IV 71. 2, p. 149. 27, trans, p. 558. NOTES AND STUDIES 689 of kingship, of the ruler as a 'friend of the divinity'.21 And Eusebius' explanation that Constantine's demolition of a temple of Aesculap in Cilicia was motivated by his desire to appease 'him who is at once a jealous God and the true Saviour', may be taken as a faint reminder of the warning Moses received on Mount Sinai of the jealousy of God, coupled with the idea that the story of Moses and the Hebrews is perfected in Christ.22 Eusebius clearly pursued a deliberate literary strategy of evoking Moses as the Old Testament exemplum which Constantine imitates at every turning-point of his imperial career: his flight to Britain where he was proclaimed emperor, his victory over Maxentius, his defeat of Licinius, and the last campaign of his life, against Persia. In fact, Eusebius' overall portrayal of Constantine is strongly reminiscent of Moses even when concrete allusions are lacking.23 Constantine is king and legislator, a high priest inasmuch as he stands in direct communication with the deity24 and a prophet insofar as he has foreknowledge and intercedes with God on behalf of his people.25 II By evoking Moses as the model for Constantine, Eusebius taps into a long tradition of reflections on the significance of Moses. To Jewish authors of the first and second centuries AD, Moses is the perfect human, the embodiment of all virtues. In addition, he is also the model of the perfect leader in whom religious authority and secular power are combined. Flavius Josephus in an extensive passage in his Jewish Antiquities gives pride of place to Moses as one of the founding fathers of the Jewish people who was elevated above other humans on account of his extraordinary virtues and abilities.26 His older contemporary, Philo of Alexandria, devoted an entire work On the Life of Moses to illustrate the many ways in which Moses can serve as the model for any pious human, but especially for kings, philosophers, law-givers, arch-priests and 21 Dvornik. op. cit., passim; and N. H. Baynes, 'Eusebius and the Christian Empire', in Melanges Bidez (Brussels, 1933), repr. in his Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955). 22 VC III 56. 1, p. n o . 6, trans, p. 535; cf. Exod. 20:5. 23 Cf. P.-M. Guillaume, 'Moise', DSp 10 (1980), 1453-71. 24 V C I 4 7 . 3, p . 4 0 . 10—12, t r a n s , p . 4 9 5 ; I I I 10. 3, p 8 6 . 9 , t r a n s , p . 5 2 2 ; I I I 58. 2, p. 111. 11 —12, trans, p. 536. 25 VC II 56. 2—59, p. 71. 7-72. 7, trans, p. 514; II 61. 1, p. 72. 18, trans, p. 515; IV 30. 2, p. 132. 2-4, trans, p. 548. 26 Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Iudaicae, II 217-IV 331, ed. B. Niese (Flavii losephi Opera, vol. 1, Berlin, 1955, repr. of the second edition), 128-290, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Josephus, vol. 4, Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 259-635. 690 NOTES AND STUDIES prophets. 27 Philo's assertion that 'in himself and in his life displayed for all to see, he [Moses] has set before us, like some wellwrought picture, a piece of work beautiful and godlike, a model (paradeigma) for those who are willing to copy it' 28 is echoed in Eusebius' claim that 'Constantine who alone of all that ever wielded the Roman power was the friend of God the Sovereign of all, has appeared to all mankind so clear an example of a godly life'.29 Philo's work also inspired the patristic authors Clement of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa. In his Miscellanies, Clement of Alexandria explicitly follows Philo's lead in elaborating on the importance of Moses as the prototype for any ruler, lawgiver and general.30 He also highlights Moses' exceptional spiritual authority which makes him the ideal sage (sophos) and, as communicator of the divine law, also the ideal shepherd of his people. The Christian counterpart to Philo's work, Gregory of Nyssa's On the Life of Moses is based on the premise of the universal appeal of Moses as the model for the perfect life.31 Gregory reiterates the exemplary character of Moses elsewhere: 'The great Moses is set forth as a common model [KOWOV imdSeiy/xa] for all those who look to virtue.' 32 Basil of Caesarea also asserts that the life of Moses has something of a propaedeutic force when he notes that as soon as we hear it, 'we are immediately captured by yearning for the virtue of the man'. 33 In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, there were thus two facets to the exemplary character of Moses: his universal appeal as the prototype of every pious and virtuous human, and his more specific role as the leader of the Hebrews and their 27 Philo of Alexandria, Deuita Mosis, II i. 1-3,ed. L. Cohn (Philonis Alexandrim Opera que supersunt, vol. 4, Berlin, 1902), p. 200. 1-201 3, trans. F. H. Colson (Philo, vol. 6, Cambridge, Mass., 1959, first published 1935), pp. 451—53. 28 Op. cit., I 158. 10-13, trans. 359. On Philo's treatment of Moses, see also L. Bieler, 9EI0E ANHP. Das Bild des gb'ttlichen Menschen in Spatantike und Friihchristentum (Darmstadt, 1967, first published in two volumes, Vienna, 1935—36). On the lasting influence of the Moses imagery on Byzantine imperial ideology, see Dvornik, op. cit., passim. 29 V C I 3 . 4, p 16. 3 2 - 1 7 . 2, t r a n s , p 4 8 2 . Cf. I 10. 2, p . 20. 5—6, t r a n s , p . 4 8 4 . 30 Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis I (22) 150. 5~(29) 182. 3, ed. O. Stahlin (Clemens Alexandrinus, vol. 2, Stromata Buch I—VI, 3rd edn., rev. L. Friichtel, Berlin, i960), 93. n - 1 1 2 . 4. 31 Gregory of Nyssa, De Vita Moysis I, ed. H. Musunllo (Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 7/1, Leiden, 1964), 2. 8 f. 32 Gregory of Nyssa, In laudem fratris Basilii, 20, ed., comm. and trans. Sister J. A. Stein (Encomium of Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, on his Brother Saint Basil, Catholic University of America. Patristic Studies, 17, Washington, 1928), p. 40. 15-19. 33 Basil of Caesarea, In Gordium martyrem, PG 31, col. 492A. NOTES AND STUDIES 691 mediator with God, a model for those who hold political and spiritual authority. This last aspect of the role of Moses became particularly prominent among the Christian authors, and especially the hagiographers, of the fourth and fifth centuries. 34 Their rhetorical repertoire often included more or less extensive comparisons of a saint with Moses and other biblical figures, intended to demonstrate the superiority of the former over the latter. It was especially the description of bishops that invited such comparison with Moses, for the episcopal office entailed spiritual leadership combined with secular authority in the administration of a diocese. On occasion, bishops are even reported to have defended themselves against criticism by insisting on their imitatio of Moses. The Moses typology could also be invoked in order to show that a religious figure had become 'a new Moses' or 'another Moses'. It is important to note that this explicit identification, which is stronger in emphasis than a mere 'as if comparison, was originally reserved exclusively for bishops—until George of Pisidia in the seventh century applies it to both the Emperor Heraclius and the Patriarch Sergius.35 Examples from the fourth and fifth centuries are Ulfilas the bishop of the Goths, 36 Gregory the Wonderworker, 37 Jacob of Nisibis 38 and Pope Sixtus. 39 In the writings of patristic authors, then, Moses serves as the model of preference for the ideal bishop. 40 Ill This brings me back to the recurring theme in the Vita Constantini of the parallels between Constantine and Moses. 34 C o m p l e t e d o c u m e n t a t i o n in C. R a p p , ' C o m p a r i s o n , Paradigm and the Case of M o s e s ' , in Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. M a r y W h i t b y (Leiden, 1997). 35 See M . W h i t b y , 'A N e w Image for a N e w Age: G e o r g e of Pisidia on the E m p e r o r Heraclius', in The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, ed. E. D a b r o w a (Cracow, 1994), esp. p p . 2 1 3 - 2 1 , and C. L u d w i g , 'Kaiser Herakleios, Georgios Pisides u n d die P e r s e r k n e g e ' , in Poikila Byzantina 9, Varia 3 (Bonn, 1991), passim. 36 Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez, 3rd edn. rev. F . W i n k e l m a n n (Berlin, 1981), II 5, p . 18. 1 2 - 1 3 . 37 G r e g o r y of Nyssa, De vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi, P G 46, col. 908C; also col. 949A: G r e g o r y resembles M o s e s in prayer. 38 T h e o d o r e t of C y r h u s , Historia Religiosa ed. P . Canivet, A. L e r o y - M o l i n g h e n ( T h e o d o r e t d e C y r , Histoire des moines de Syrie, 2 vols., P a n s , 1977 and 1979, S C h , 234, 257), I 5, vol. 1, p . 168, trans. R. M . Price (A History of the Monks in Syria, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1985), p . 14. 39 Xysti III papae epistolae et decreta, E p . IV, P L 50, col. 595A. 40 T h u s also M . Harl, 'Moise figure d e 1'eveque d a n s l'eloge de Basile d e G r e g o i r e de Nysse (381)', in The Biographical Works of Gregory of Nyssa. Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa (Mainz, 6-70 September 1982), ed. A. Spira (Cambridge, Mass., 1984), p. 87. 692 NOTES AND STUDIES Eusebius, who was a biblical scholar long before he became a historian, biographer and panegyrist, was well aware of the whole range of aspects embodied by the figure of Moses.41 He consciously invoked Moses as the prototypical leader in whom political and spiritual authority are combined. This is of great consequence for our understanding of the two passages in which Constantine is said to be Mike' a bishop. There is no need to explain them away as non-Eusebian interpolations or as verbatim quotations by an insecure Eusebius of a Constantine who was confused about his role as a Christian and an emperor. In fact, these passages insert themselves seamlessly into the Eusebian scheme of showing Constantine to be an imitator of Moses with all that that entailed: military and political leadership as well as spiritual authority in a role comparable to that of a bishop. Although the equation between Moses and bishops is not explicitly attested in the literature before Eusebius, this need not weaken my argument. The earlier treatises extolling the dual leadership role of Moses had already prepared the ground for this identification. Further, in the explosion of patristic writing in the age after Constantine such ample and confident use is made of the Moses model for bishops that we can safely assign its roots to an earlier period.42 But it would be going too far to credit Eusebius with introducing this idea. For, as Friedhelm Winkelmann has demonstrated, the literary reception of the Life of Constantine was minimal.43 Among the fifth-century church historians, only Socrates invokes Moses in his description of Constantine, and he does so in the context of the emperor's preparations for the Persian 41 He was especially familiar with Philo's writings. See D. T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey (Assen/Minneapolis, 1993), pp. 212-34. Cf. also E. Schwartz, 'Eusebios von Caesarea', RE VI/i (1909), 1370-439, col. 1423 and F. Winkelmann, introduction to his edition to the VC, p. L. 42 The pervasive appeal of the figure of Moses is also expressed in the art of the fourth century: 29 sarcophagi from this period depict the Crossing of the Red Sea under the leadership of Moses. C. Rizzardi, / sarcofagi paleocnstiam con rappresentazione del passaggio del Mar Rosso, Saggi d'arte e d'archeologia dell'istituto di antichita ravennati e bizantine dell'universita degli studi di Bologna, 2 (Faenza, 1970). This work supersedes the articles by E. Becker, 'Konstantin der Grosse, der neue Moses', Zeitschrift fitr Kirchengeschichte 31 (1910), 161-73; and 'Protest gegen den Kaiserkult und Verherrlichung des Sieges am Pons Milvius in der altchristlichen Kunst der konstantinischen Zeit', in Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit, ed. F J. Doelger (Freiburg, 1913). 43 F Winkelmann, 'Die Beurteilung des Eusebius von Casarea und seiner Vita Constantini im gnechischen Osten', in Byzantinische Bettra'ge, ed. J. Irmscher (Berlin, 1964), repr. in his Studien zu Konstantin dem Grossen und zur byzantinischen Kirchengeschichte. Ausgewdhlte Aufsdtze, eds. W. Brandes, J F. Haldon (Birmingham, 1993) NOTES AND STUDIES 693 campaign which included the 'tent'—not, as one might expect, with regard to the Battle at the Milvian Bridge.44 The Moses comparison which is so prominent in Eusebius also hints at a parallel between Constantine and Christ. Beginning with Melito of Sardis, Christian authors regarded Moses as a prefiguration of Christ, 45 a view that is echoed by Eusebius himself in his Demonstratio Evangelica46 and expressed in the Christian art of the third and fourth centuries. 47 Eusebius' other works which discuss the historical role of Constantine, the Church History and the Tricennial Oration, also make it clear that he was much more than the divinely appointed ruler of the Empire, the soter or the nomos empsychos of hellenistic philosophy or the sacral king of the Jewish tradition. Constantine partook of the divine logos and communicated it to the Empire, in a process which parallels Christ's rule over the universe. The Byzantine court ceremonial of later centuries preserved this association of the emperor with Moses and with Christ. According to the tenth-century Book of Ceremonies, a precious relic of the staff of Moses was kept in the chapel of St Theodore in the palace and carried on imperial processions together with the Cross of Constantine. 48 Many patristic authors comment on 44 S o c r a t e s , Histona ecclesiastica, e d . G . C h . H a n s e n (Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, Berlin, 1995), I 18. 12, p. 59. 17-60. 3, trans. A. C. Zenos, NPNF, vol. 2, p. 22; F. Heim, 'Les figures du prince ideal au IVe siecle: du type au modele', in Figures de I'Ancien Testament chez les Peres, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica, 2 (Strasbourg, 1989), has demonstrated that the interpretation of Christian emperorship was significantly 'toned down' between the time of Constantine and the end of the fourth century. 45 Melito of Sardis, Horn, in pascha 67—69, ed. O. Perler (Meliton de Sardes, Sur la Paque et fragments, SCh 123, Paris, 1966), pp. 96-98, trans. C. Bonner (The Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis, London/Philadelphia, 1940), PP 1"7S~7b. Cf. J. Danielou, From Shadows to Reality. Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers (London, i960), pp. 153-226. For the typological connections between Moses, Christ and Saint Peter, especially with regard to the church of Rome, see Ch. Pietri, Roma Christiana. Recherches sur I'Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son ide'ologie de Miltiade a Sixte (311-440), Bibliotheque des Ecoles Francaises d'Athenes et de Rome, 224 (Rome, 1976), pp. 315—56. 46 E u s e b i u s , Demonstratio Evangelica I I I 2. 6 - 3 0 , e d . I. A . H e i k e l (Eusebius Werke, vol. 6, Berlin, 1913), p. 97- 3-101. 5, trans. W. J. Ferrar (The Proof of the Gospel, vol. 1, London/New York, 1920), pp. 104—109. 47 F. Wiiest, 'La figure de Moise comme prefiguration du Christ dans 1'art paleochretien', La figure de Moise. Ecriture et relectures, Publications de la faculte de theologie de l'umversite de Geneve, 1 (Geneva, 1978). 48 De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, ed. J. Reiske, vol. 1 (Bonn, 1829), I 1, p. 6. 24—7. 1; p. 10. 20 f.; II 40, p. 640. 6 ff. See also O. Treitinger, Die ostromische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im hofischen Zeremoniell (Darmstadt, 1969, first published Jena, 1938), p. 134; A. Grabar, L'empereur dans Vart byzanlin (Paris, 1936), p. 96, n. i, and most recently Dagron, op. cit., pp. 106—11. 694 NOTES AND STUDIES the staff of Moses as a prefiguration of Christ's Cross. 49 The fourth-century treatise by Pseudo-Macarius, for example, explains: 'The staff of Moses carried two images: to the enemies, it showed itself as a snake that bites and destroys, but to the Israelites, as a staff on which they leaned. In this way also the wood of the true Moses, who is Christ, is death and an enemy to the enemies, the spirits of evilness. But to our soul, it is a staff, a stable support and life, upon which it rests.' 50 An aitiological story told by Georgius Codinus explains that the staff of Moses was brought to Constantinople under Constantine the Great who placed it in the newly constructed church of the Theotokos he Rhabdos.51 In later centuries, the staff was admired by English and Russian pilgrims in its new location in the palace.52 This object may have survived to the present day in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul which counts among its treasures a wooden rod, kept in a container richly decorated with precious stones. 53 This ceremonial usage of the staff of Moses conjointly with the Cross of Christ perpetuates Eusebius' view of Constantine's rulership. 54 It is impossible for us to determine whether the idea for the literary representation of Constantine as resembling Moses and as holding the position of a bishop originated with the emperor 49 For further references, see L. Brottier, 'L'episode des fleaux d'Egypte (Ex. 7—11), lu par Philon d'Alexandrie et les Peres Grecs', Recherches Augustiniennes 24 (1989), 39-64, P- 5°-5i50 Pseudo-Macarius, Horn. XI 4. 4, ed. H. Berthold (Makarios/Symeon, Reden und Bnefe. Die Sammlung I des Vaticanus graecus 694 [B], vol. 1, Berlin, 1973), p. 149. 1-5. 51 Georgius Codinus, De aedificiis, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1843), p. 102. 16-103. 4. See also A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Poikila Byzantina, 8 (Bonn, 1988), 607 f. 52 K. N. Ciggaar, 'Une description de Constantinople traduite par un pelerin anglais', Byzantion 34 (1976), 211—67, 1. 20, p. 245, and 2. 1, p. 246. This text was composed shortly after 1063. The Russian pilgrim's account of Anthony of Novgorod, which also mentions this relic, was composed in 1200, cf. X. Loparev, Kniga Palomnik. Skazanie mest svjatyx v Caregrade Antonija arxiepiskopa Novgorodskogo v 1200 godu, Pravoslavnyi Palestinskij Sbornik, 51 (St. Petersburg, 1899), 81. I would like to thank Gail Lenhoff for her assistance with this text. 53 This was made public by I. Kalavrezou in her presentation 'The Rod of Moses in Byzantine Court Ceremonial', at the Twenty-Second Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, October 24-27, 1996, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (see also the Abstracts of Papers, 29). 54 Constantine may himself have encouraged such ideas about the religious character of his rulership, which are also manifest in the plan for his mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles. See most recently C. Mango, 'Constantine's Mausoleum and the Translation of Relics', Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83 (1990), 51—61 and 'Constantine's Mausoleum: Addendum', Byzantinische Zeitschrift 83 (1990), 434 NOTES AND STUDIES 695 himself or whether it must be attributed to Eusebius. In the absence of additional sources, the question of the interplay between the eulogizer and his object of praise cannot be resolved.55 It is, however, possible to speculate about the development of Eusebius' ideas in this regard. Eusebius must have conceptualized the nucleus for the Moses comparison at the time when he composed Book IX of the Ecclesiastical History57 in c.313—14.58 The death of Maxentius, the adversary of the greatest protector of Christianity known to Eusebius, in the floods of the Tiber could not but invite comparison with Moses' crossing of the Red Sea. When Eusebius later recycled this passage almost verbatim in the Life of Constantine, it provided him with an underlying theme that he planned to exploit throughout the work. But he left the Life of Constantine unfinished. This explains why the Moses comparisons are more carefully executed at the beginning of Eusebius' narrative, in the description of Constantine's youth, than in the later parts where the mere mention of the 'tent' still awaits embellishment into a more elaborate evocation of Moses. The same may be true for the depiction of Constantine as a bishop, which nonetheless inserts itself harmoniously into the theme of the emperor as another Moses. 55 CLAUDIA RAPP 55 This would be suggested by the fact that Constantine refers to himself as 'bishop of those outside' in direct speech. Cf. above, note 3. 56 Sansterre, art. cit., however, attempts to show that Eusebius' representation of Constantine went much further than the emperor himself intended. 57 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica IX 5-8, ed. E. Schwartz (Eusebius, Werke, vol. 2 [Leipzig, 1908]) 828. 22—830. 21, trans. G. A. Williamson (The History of the Church, Harmondsworth, 1989), pp. 292-94. 58 According to the chronology established by T. D. Barnes, 'The Editions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History', GRBS 21 (1980), 191-201, at p. 201.