What do you think?
Rate this book
Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance
Historians who viewed imperial Rome in terms of a conflict between pagans and Christians have often regarded the emperor Constantine's conversion as the triumph of Christianity over paganism. But in Constantine and the Bishops , historian H. A. Drake offers a fresh and more nuanced understanding of Constantine's rule and, especially, of his relations with Christians. Constantine, Drake suggests, was looking not only for a god in whom to believe but also a policy he could adopt. Uncovering the political motivations behind Constantine's policies, Drake shows how those policies were constructed to ensure the stability of the empire and fulfill Constantine's imperial duty in securing the favor of heaven. Despite the emperor's conversion to Christianity, Drake concludes, Rome remained a world filled with gods and with men seeking to depose rivals from power. A book for students and scholars of ancient history and religion, Constantine and the Bishops shows how Christian belief motivated and gave shape to imperial rule.
632 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
6 people are currently reading
109 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 21, 2018
H.A. Drake challenges the modern notion popularized by Edward Gibbon (18th cent.) that intolerance is inherent to Christianity. In doing so, he refers to misguided narratives about the Church's changed position during the reign of Constantine positing that the emperor himself created and encouraged the conditions that made Christianity into a monolithic, intolerant organization bent on the destruction of all who did not tow the party line.
Drake roots such misinterpretation in the neglect of the sociological development of movements and the political realities of the time. Ideology or theology - Drake particularly names the latter - interfere with our ability to view the shifting policies of Constantine toward, for example, Arius and Athanasius with logical consistency. Drake argues that Constantine's political agenda - the desire for an empire united at every level under a single emperor - does not necessarily call into question the sincerity of his Christian conversion nor suggest that there was no room for diversity within that unity. To the contrary, Drake's portrait of Constantine reveals an emperor who readily embraced diversity in the name of a unified consensus - where all sides had to give and take for the sake of peace. Constantine was also, according to this portrait, firmly committed to non-coercion, the idea that true belief cannot be forced.
It is clear from Drake's book that much of what we think we know is wrong about Constantine, the bishops to whom he handed the reins of judicial and civil authority, and the unintended consequences resulting from his attempts to create as broad a consensus as possible. Constantine does not emerge as a saint, but by no means is he the villain of popular contemporary views (based on outdated 18th and 19th cent. scholarship generally rejected by current scholars).
Drake roots such misinterpretation in the neglect of the sociological development of movements and the political realities of the time. Ideology or theology - Drake particularly names the latter - interfere with our ability to view the shifting policies of Constantine toward, for example, Arius and Athanasius with logical consistency. Drake argues that Constantine's political agenda - the desire for an empire united at every level under a single emperor - does not necessarily call into question the sincerity of his Christian conversion nor suggest that there was no room for diversity within that unity. To the contrary, Drake's portrait of Constantine reveals an emperor who readily embraced diversity in the name of a unified consensus - where all sides had to give and take for the sake of peace. Constantine was also, according to this portrait, firmly committed to non-coercion, the idea that true belief cannot be forced.
It is clear from Drake's book that much of what we think we know is wrong about Constantine, the bishops to whom he handed the reins of judicial and civil authority, and the unintended consequences resulting from his attempts to create as broad a consensus as possible. Constantine does not emerge as a saint, but by no means is he the villain of popular contemporary views (based on outdated 18th and 19th cent. scholarship generally rejected by current scholars).
September 30, 2025
Very thorough exposition about the absorption of Christianity into the Roman Empire, and the effect that it had on both the Empire and the Religion.
July 30, 2011
jam packed with illustrations of Roman politics and how the Roman state influenced teh emerging neo-Christianity. How Christianity came to fill a vacuum in the rapidly changing and deteriorating Roman state. The careful thoroughness of Drake is a breath of fresh air for Christians and Critics of Christianity alike. H. A. Drake takes the overly assumptive finger of critics away from the absolute notions that Constantine had total control of the landscape and explains the power the largely pre-existing bishops had in the already decentralized policy of "Rome".
Already being interested in the Roman Catholic origins and progression of "the Church", Drake wil arm one with temperence and a broad understanding of what actually took place that made the Centralized power of Rome a nonlocalized Neo-Christian machine.
Those who are interested in the changes that took place in Rome from Augustus on will find it very appropriate in explaining the power shifting in the Emperor, Senate and military. Also, explaining various roles and information gathering that took place, the role of passing information through coinage, using the even temper of "cultured actions" to pad the most imperial of policies... are just a few gems to make this era of Rome approachable to the modern mind.
Read it!
Already being interested in the Roman Catholic origins and progression of "the Church", Drake wil arm one with temperence and a broad understanding of what actually took place that made the Centralized power of Rome a nonlocalized Neo-Christian machine.
Those who are interested in the changes that took place in Rome from Augustus on will find it very appropriate in explaining the power shifting in the Emperor, Senate and military. Also, explaining various roles and information gathering that took place, the role of passing information through coinage, using the even temper of "cultured actions" to pad the most imperial of policies... are just a few gems to make this era of Rome approachable to the modern mind.
Read it!
February 17, 2008
An excellent history of the IV and the conflicts between the dozens of Christianities extant under Constantine's reign, and how the emperor twisted arms, received and bestowed honors, and generally hijacked a new Christianity for the express purpose of maintaining peace and tranquility in his kingdom.
It shows that prior to Constantine, Christianity was based on the premise of the claim to worship almighty God according to the dictates of the Christian's conscience, and allowed all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where and what they may.
But that, with the imperial power behind them, they started first attacking their own, the heretics, and then attacking others, the pagans. This was not a fundamental position of Christians, but with political power came the desire to kill others who believed differently rather than let their heresies propagate among others.
I well documented book, and highly recommended for its scholarly approach to both old and new facts.
It shows that prior to Constantine, Christianity was based on the premise of the claim to worship almighty God according to the dictates of the Christian's conscience, and allowed all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where and what they may.
But that, with the imperial power behind them, they started first attacking their own, the heretics, and then attacking others, the pagans. This was not a fundamental position of Christians, but with political power came the desire to kill others who believed differently rather than let their heresies propagate among others.
I well documented book, and highly recommended for its scholarly approach to both old and new facts.
October 6, 2012
AN extremely accompished and detailed account of why the 2 competing paradigms applied to Constantine and the Christianisation of Europe - that he was either a devout believer on a mission or that he was a cynical manipulator with no beliefs who merely utilised church power for imperial stability are actually both improbable when taken alone. The book is a constant threading together of the two paradigms, making each in isolation meaningless. As the sleeve said, you'll most likely not read a better book on either politics or religion this year. I've begun rereading it after a 10 or so year break and I'm finding it every bit as engrossing and well written as I had remembered it.
Read
September 23, 2010Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Ancient Society and History) by H. A. Drake (2002)
Read
April 25, 2018Very informative piece describing how politics, rather than belief, motivated not only Constantine, but the bishops, themselves, during the establishment of Christianity as the state religion.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews