mountainman

Eusebian Frauds in the "Vita Constantini"
T. G. Elliott
Phoenix, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer, 1991), pp. 162-171
doi:10.2307/1088553
This article consists of 10 page(s).

Greetings one and all,

Could someone with access to JSTOR, and the time
and the inclination please email this 10 page.pdf to
arius at the domain of mountainman.com.au
and post here in response?

Many thanks and best wishes


Pete Brown

Vorkosigan

Pete --


Neither the author nor the journal nor the article are available through the JSTOR search system. I am at a loss to understand what is wrong -- why I can find the article and see it in JSTOR when I Google, but not when I use the search programs in JSTOR. According to the Phoenix website,

"If you are at an institution that subscribes to J-STOR, click here to be connected to the J-STOR Phoenix archives. Please note that Phoenix is part of J-STOR's Arts & Sciences Complement collection, which is an add-on feature, and therefore may not be available through your institution."

Sorry, man. But thanks for the pointer to Phoenix. I'm collecting such journals for my Mark work.

Michael

mountainman

Thanks for the information Michael.

S.C.Carlson

Done.

mountainman

Thanks very much Stephen.
That's one I owe you.

On a related search for background to the author
of this article, I came across the following review
of his book:

H.A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops.
The Politics of Intolerance.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.
Pp. xx, 609. ISBN 0-8018-6218-3. $68.00.

Reviewed by Raymond Van Dam, University of Michigan

Toto

The paper is cited in Pagan City and Christian Capital: Rome in the Fourth Century . There are some excepts of this on google books.

mountainman

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article for interested
parties. I imagine that there are copyright considerations in
posting the entire text, but that a few paras is considered fair.

EUSEBIAN FRAUDS IN THE VITA CONSTANTINI
T. G. Elliott

ON THE BASIS OF EUSEBIUS' ACCOUNT one might describe the religious
character of Constantine, which he says in 1.11 will be his subject, as that
of a heaven-sent deliverer, patron, and impartial peacemaker. The nouns
can all be accepted. That he was heaven-sent in the manner described by
Eusebius is debatable: it can depend on what one thinks of the evidence regarding
Christianity in his family, and of Eusebius' conversion story. That
he was impartial regarding theological disputes is implied in Eusebius' accounts
of the Councils at Nicaea in 325, Antioch in 326, and Tyre in 335.
However, in 3.66 Eusebius represents Constantine as banning the books
of heretics who were not Arians. In fact, Constantine's council at Nicaea
in 325 anathematized Arianism, and its decisions were not tampered with
during his lifetime. Eusebius' Constantine was also aggressively anti-pagan
and I shall discues the prohibition of pagan sacrifice which he recounts in 2.45.

Other emperors, says Eusebius in 1.24, owe their accession to their fellowmen.
Constantine alone was made emperor only by God. Eusebius has
nothing on the officers of Constantius, and nothing on the Alamann king
crocus.' In 1.22 he had told us exactly how this accession had come about.
Constantine had put on his father's imperial mantle in order to conduct his
funeral, and after the funeral everyone saluted him as Augustus. The claim
that God made Constantine emperor is interesting both in itself and in
conjunction with Eusebius' conversion story.

In an earlier discussion of that story (see "Conversion") I did not express
a view on whether Eusebius produced it because he misunderstood
what Constantine told him or because he wished to mislead. I believe that
Eusebius' story must be fraudulent.

T. G. Elliott (1991)