# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/Prolegomena/Sources and Literature/Sources

§2. Sources.
Remembering the class of students for which the series is chiefly intended, effort has been made to refer to translations of sources where they are at hand, and to refer to the best accessible English authorities on them. But the plan has been to refer to the source itself in the edition actually used, and for literature on them to choose the best for ready reference. Both editions and authorities on sources are therefore selections, usually from many, of such as seem most directly useful. The intention has been to guide to all frequently mentioned sources, whether they were of great value or not, since a useless one costs often quite as much trouble to hunt up and find useless, as a good one to use. It is hardly to be hoped that all the sources often referred to have been gathered, but the following list represents pretty much all that are worth mentioning, and some which are not.
1. Inscriptions, coins, medals, &c.
In some sense these are the most reliable of sources, in spite of counterfeits. A large number will be found collected in Clinton. For farther critical study, compare the collections, great and small; for which, with the matter of inscriptions in general, see Hicks, E. L., and Hübner, E., in the Encyclopædia Britannica, 13 (1881) 121–133; and Babington, in Smith and Cheetham, 1 (1880) 841–862. Monographs on those relating to Constantine will be found under the names, Cavedoni, Cigola, Eltz, Freherus, Garucci, Harduin, Penon, Revellot, Valois, Westphalen, Werveke, in the Literature of this volume.
2. Laws.
These, with their dates, their official nature, their fullness and variety, are primary, and are the only sources recognized by some. They are embodied in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, and collected from these are edited in Migne, Patrol. Latina, Vol. 8. See under Writings of Constantine, above.
3. Other Writings by Constantine.
See under Writings, above, p. 436. With this might perhaps be included also writings to Constantine, like that of Anulinus in Augustinus, Ep. 88.
4. General Literary Sources.
Taking in general chronological order, without attempting the impossibility of fixing the exact chronological place, the first group of contemporary sources is that of the Panegyrists (for collected editions, see Engelmann). It was a serious mistake, now recognized, to pass them by as worthless. Like all authentic documents, they have a minimum residuum of undoubted material, which is larger or smaller according to the critical acumen of the investigator. In the case of these, however inflated or eulogistic they may be, the circumstances under which they were spoken give a considerable value.
(1) Incerti auctoris Panegyricus Maximiano et Constantino dictus (Paneg. 307). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 609–620. Pronounced at celebration of marriage of Constantine and Fausta, a.d. 307. Besides having the great value of being contemporary evidence, the author shows a certain ingenuity in enlarging on the virtues of the young Constantine, who had few deeds to show, and on the deeds of Maximian, who had few virtues, and has therefore a certain discernible modicum of truth.
Compare the Monitum in Migne, Ramsay’s article on Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1073–4, and references under Eumenius.
(2) Eumenius (310–311). (a) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1884), 619–640. (b) Thanksgiving Oration (Gratiarum Actio Constantino Augusto). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 641–654. Eumenius flourished during the reigns of Constantius, with whom he was in high favor, and Constantine. He was head of the school at Autun. The Panegyric was delivered at Treves, in 310. The authorship of Eumenius has been unwarrantably questioned, on the ground that the flattery and exaggeration of the work are not consistent with his taste and sense; but it would seem that both his exaggeration and his taste have been themselves exaggerated. His praise is hardly more “outrageous” than panegyrics were wont to be,—or are, for that matter; and so far from being “worthless,” there is a peculiar deal of interesting, unquestionable, and primary historical evidence. Still, his taste and veracity are not much above that of modern eulogists of living or dead emperors and politicians. The Gratiarum Actio is the official oration of thanks to Constantine in behalf of the citizens of Autun, on account of favors shown them. It was pronounced at Treves in 311.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 92; the Proœmium, in ed. Migne, 619–622; also for editions, Ramsay, article Drepanius, in Smith, Dict. 1. 1073–4; and for literature, Chevalier. For general account of the Panegyrists, see this article on Drepanius.
(3) Incerti Panegyricus Constantino Augusto (Paneg. 313). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 653– . This is usually ascribed to Nazarius, on the ground of style. It was spoken at Treves in 313, and relates mainly to the war with Maxentius. Various details relating to this are of such nature and form as to suggest again that the author is the same as that of the 321 Paneg.,—Nazarius.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145; the Proœmium in ed. Migne, &c., and literature as under Eumenius, above.
(4) Nazarius. (321) Panegyric (Panegyricus Constantino Augusto dictus). In ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 8 (1844), 581–608. Nazarius is mentioned by Jerome as a distinguished rhetorician. This oration was delivered at Rome in 321. Constantine was not present. It is superlatively eulogistic, but like the related panegyrics contains many historical facts of greatest value.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1145, the Monitum, in Migne, and references under Eumenius.
In the midst of the period which these cover comes one of the two great Christian sources, and he is followed by a considerable row of great and small Christians during the century.
(5) Lactantius (ab. 313–314). On the Deaths of the Persecutors (De M. P.). Ed. Fritsche (Lips. 1842), 248–286; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 7 (Par. 1844), 157–276; tr. in T. & T. Clark Library, 22 (Edinb. 1871), 164–211, and in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo and N.Y.), 300–326 [Lord Hailes’ translation]. There are many editions in collected works, and about a dozen separate, and many translations,—in all a hundred or more editions and translations. There has been much controversy regarding the author of this work, but there is little doubt that it was Lactantius. Ebert (Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1. 83) claims to have demonstrated the fact, and most of the later writers agree. The work was composed after the edict of Constantine and Licinius, and before the break between the two, i.e. 313–314. It was written thus in the midst of things, and has the peculiar historical value of a contemporary document, unprejudiced by later events. It is a sort of psalm of triumph, colored by the passionate rejoicing of one persecuted over the Divine vengeance which has come upon the persecutors. “In the use of the work the historian must employ great critical discernment” (Ebert, in Herzog, 8 [1881], 365). But granted all his prejudice, the facts he witnesses are of first value.
Compare Ffoulkes, in Smith and Wace, 3 (1882), 613–617; Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit. 2 (1873), 334; Ebert, in Herzog, Encyk. 8 (1881), 364–366, and Gesch. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 83; and for farther literature, Bibliog, Synops. inAnte-Nicene Fathers Suppl. (1887), 77–81.
(6) Eusebius (ab. 260–340). I. Ecclesiastical History. 2. Constantine. 3. Chronicle.
For 1 and 3 compare Prolegomena of Dr. McGiffert at the beginning of this volume, and for 2, Special Prolegomena, p. 466.
(7) Optatian (fl. ab. 326). Panegyric, in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 19 (1846), 395–432; Letter to Constantine, do. 391–392. Optatian, Porfirius, or Porphyrius, as he is variously called, is dubiously Christian, composed this poem, or series of poems, while in exile, on the occasion of the Vicennalia of Constantine. It dates, therefore, from 325 or 326. It is a most extraordinary aggregation of acrostics, pattern poems, and every possible device of useless, mechanical variety of form, of little value, excepting as a sort of dime-museum exhibition of patience and ingenuity. It consists mainly in calling Constantine flattering names, but contains here and there an historical suggestion. It was accompanied by a letter to Constantine, and drew one from him, and a pardon as well (Hieronymus, Chron.).
Compare Wilson, article Porfirius, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 440; article Porphyrius, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 502; and for editions and literature, Engelmann.
(8) Athanasius (296–373). Apology against the Arians, and various works, ed. Bened. (1698), 2 v. in 3, fo; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 25–28 (1857), 4 v.; translated in part in Newman, Library of the Fathers, and in Schaff-Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (announced). The works of Athanasius contain various letters of Constantine (see under Works) and much of primary historical value for the latter part of Constantine’s reign. So far as it goes, the matter is almost equal to official documents as source.
Compare Bright, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 179–203; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 23 (1884), 884–893; and for extensive literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.
(9) Cyril of Jerusalem (ab. 315–386). Catechetical Lectures. In Migne, Patrol Gr. 33 (1857), especially 830. English translations in Newman, Library of Fathers, 2 (1838), one ref. p. 178. Letter to Constantine II. concerning the sign of the cross seen at Jerusalem, c 3. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 33 (1857), 1165–1176, ref. on 1167–1168. Two or three references only to excavation of the cross and building of churches, &c., at Jerusalem. They take significance only in the fact that Cyril is so near the time (the letter was 351 [?], or not many years later), and delivered his lectures in the very church which Constantine had built (sect. 14, 22).
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884) 923–925; Venables, in Smith & W. 1 (1887), 760–763; and literature in Chevalier Schaff, &c.; also editions in Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.
(10) Ambrosius of Milan (ab. 340–397). Oration on the Death of Theodosius. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 16 (1866), portion relating to Constantine especially, 1462–1465. Relates chiefly to the Finding of the Cross.
Compare Davies, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 91–99; also Chevalier, Engelmann, Schoenemann, &c.
(11) Hieronymus (Jerome) (331–420). Chronicle. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 27 (1866). Part relating to Constantine, 493 (497)–500. A translation and continuation of the Chronicle of Eusebius, who ends with the death of Licinius. An indispensable but aggravating authority.
Compare Salmon, Eusebius, Chronicle of, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 348–355.
(12) Augustinus (354–430). Ep. 43, ed. Migne, 33 (1865), 159– , §§4, 5, 20, &c. He gives account of the various Donatist hearings, and speaks of having read aloud from various original documents, including the petition to Constantine, the proconsular acts, the proceedings of the court at Rome, and the letters of Constantine. He speaks of the hearing at Milan. Ep. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 33 (1865), 302–309. This has the text of letter of Anulinus to Constantine and Constantine to Probianus. Eps. 76. 2; 93. 13–14, 16 (which contains account of decree of Constantine that property of obstinate Donatists should be confiscated); 105. 9, 10 (not translated); 141. 8–10 (not translated), in ed. Migne, and tr. English ed. Schaff, contain various matter on the Donatist acts of Constantine. Ad Donatistas post collationem, c. 33, §56; ed. Migne, 43 (1861), 687 (important for dates given). Contra litt. Petil. Bk. II. ch. 92, §205; ed. Migne, 45 (1861), 326. Tr. in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 580–581. Contr. Epist. Parmen. Bk. I. chs. 5–6, §10–11; ed. Migne, 43 (1841), 40–41. Augustine as a source is of primary value, because of the otherwise unknown sources which he uses and quotes.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 988–1028; Maclear, in Smith & W. Dict. 1 (1877), 216–228. For literature see Schaff, Chevalier, Engelmann, and for particular literature of the Donatist portions, Hartranft, in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 4 (1887), 369–372; and for editions, see Schoenemann, Graesse, Brunet, Engelmann, Schaff, Hartranft, &c.
The equally numerous series of non-Christian writers is headed, in value at least, though not in time, by Constantine’s secretary.
(13) Eutropius (4th cent.). Abridgment of Roman History, Bk. 10. Multitudes of editions and translations; the ones used are: (Paris, 1539), 63–68; transl. by Watson, (Bohn, 1853), 527–535. Eutropius was secretary to Constantine, and afterwards the intimate of Julian. His testimony, though brief, is of peculiar weight from his position for knowing and from a certain flavor of fairness. It was early remarked (Nicephorus Gregoras) that his praise of Constantine had peculiar force, coming from a heathen and friend of Julian. His dispraise, on the other hand, is conditioned by the fact that he applies it only to the period after Constantine began peculiarly to favor the Christians. He seems to be a cool, level-headed man of the world, unsympathetic with Constantine’s religion and, writing from this standpoint, presents a just, candid, reliable account of him.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 126–127; Watson, Notice, in his translations; also for multitudinous editions and translations, and relatively scanty though considerable literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse.
(14) Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ (? 2–324). Ed. Jordan and Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1864, 2 v. Contains a few dedications to and mentions of Constantine, for which see Index.
Compare Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. tr. Wagner, 2 (Lond. 1873), 320–324.
(15) Victor, Sextus Aurelius (fl. 350–400). Cæsars. In ed. Schottius, Antv. Plantin, 1579, p. 97–167. Section on Constantine chiefly, 157–162. Epitome, Antv. 1579. Section on Constantine, p. 49–52. These works, by different authors, have been associated since the time of the above edition with the name of Victor. The former is by him, the latter probably by a slightly later Victor. They use the same sources with Zosimus, but supplement him (Wordsworth). Both are interesting and important, and in Manso’s judgment, final where they agree.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1256–1257; Thomas, article Aurelius, in Biog. Dict. (1886), 228; Manso, Leben Const. p. 215; and scanty references in Chevalier. For editions and farther literature, see Engelmann.
(16) Praxagoras Atheniensis (4th cent). In Photius, Cod. 62; Ed. Bekker, p. 20; ed. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 2–3. Lived in reign of Constantine (Müller, p. 2). Although a heathen (Photius, Cod, 62), he lauds Constantine above all his predecessors. He wrote various works in the Ionic dialect, among others a “history of the deeds of Constantine the Great, in two books,” composed at the age of twenty-two. The fragments or resumé are preserved by Photius, as above. Though brief (three columns), it is a concise mass of testimony.
Compare Smith, Dict. 3. 517; also for literature, Chevalier; and for editions, the various editions of Photius in Graesse, Hofmann, Engelmann, &c.
(17) Calendarium Romanum Constantini Magni (350). In Petavius, Uranologium (1630), 112–119. Written after 337, and in or before 355, probably in 355. It is authority for the birthday of Constantine, Constantius, &c.
Compare Greswell, Origines Kalendariæ Italicæ, 4 (Oxf. 1854), 388–392.
(18) Julian the Apostate (331–363). Cæsars. Orations on Constantius and Constantinus, et pass. Ed. Paris, 1630, p. 12–96, 422; Vol. 2, 1–54, passim. Compare also ed. Hertlein, Lips. 1875–76, 2 v. 8vo. Editions and translations are very numerous. (Compare arts. of Wordsworth and Graves; also Engelmann, Graesse, &c. The orations which are panegyrical were delivered (Wordsworth) 355 and 358, and the Cæsars dates from shortly after his accession (in 361). The latter is a satire which has found literary favor, the substantial purpose of which is thought to be a suggestion that he (Julian) is much superior to all the great emperors; but which if one were to venture a guess at its real motive is quite as much a systematic effort to minimize by ridicule the lauded Constantine. The laudatory words of Julian himself in his orations are quite overshadowed by the bitter sarcasms of the Cæsars. As a matter of estimate of the value of this source, there is to be remembered the bitterness of Julian’s hostility to Christianity. What to Eusebius was a virtue would to Julian be a vice. In view of his prejudice, everything which he concedes is of primary weight, while his ill-natured gossip carries a presumption of slanderousness.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 2. 40–59; Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 3. 484–525; Graves, in Smith, Dict. 644–655. Compare for endless literature, Wordsworth, Chevalier, Engelmann, 1 (1880), 476–477.
(19) Libanius, (314 or 316–391 +). Orations. Ed. Morellus, Par. 1606–1627. Contain a few allusions of more or less interest and historical value, for which, see ed. Morellus, Index volume 2, fol. Qqqv$^b$.
Compare Schmitz, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 774–776; and for editions and literature, Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.
(21) Ammianus Marcellinus (d. ab. 395). Histories. There are many editions, for which compare Engelmann, Graesse, and Wordsworth. Among editions are ed. Valesius (1636) and ed. Eyssenhardt, Berol. 1871. The work was a continuation of Tacitus, but the first thirteen books (including Constantine’s period) are best. He says (Bk. 15, ed. Valesius, 1636, p. 56–57) that Constantine investigated the Manichæans and like sects through Musonius, and gives account of the bringing of his obelisk to Rome, perhaps by Constantine (Bk. 17, p. 92–93; compare Parker, Twelve Egypt. Obelisks in Rome, Oxf. 1879, p. 1), and makes other mention, for which see Index to ed. Eyssenhardt, p. 566.
Compare Wordsworth, in Smith & W. 1 (1879, 99–101, and for literature, Chevalier (scanty) and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 43–45 (Rich).
(22) Eunapius (Anti-Christian) (ab. 347–414). Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists; Ædesius. Ed. Boissonade (Amst. 1822), 19–46 passim. Eunapius was born at Sardis about 347, and died after 414 a.d. (cf. Müller, Fragm. 87). He was a teacher of rhetoric, and besides this work wrote a continuation of the history of Dexippus, extending from 270–404 a.d. Fragments of this are preserved, but none relating to Constantine. Photius (Cod. 77) says that he calumniated the Christians, especially Constantine. With the fragments in Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 11–56, is included also (14–15) a fragment from the Vita Ædes., relating to Sopater. The death of Sopater and the relation of Ablavius to it is given more fully in the Vita Ædes. with various suggestive allusions. Much of his history is supposed to be incorporated in Zosimus, and this gives importance to his name, weight to Zosimus, and light on the hostile position of Zosimus towards Constantine.
Cf. Photius, Cod. 77; Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 7–9; Mozley, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 285–286; Schmitz, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 93; also for further literature and editions, Chevalier and Engelmann.
(23) Bemarchius (4th cent.) was of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; wrote the Acts of Constantine in ten books (Suidas, s.v. Βήμαρχιος; cf. Zonaras, p. 386). No portion is preserved. Wrote under Constantius, on whom he is said (Libanius, Orat. ed. Reiske, p. 24) to have delivered a panegyric.
Cf. Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 3; Smith, Dict. 1 (1859), 482, &c.
An early but as yet valueless group is that of Syriac and Armenian sources on the (apocryphal) treaty of Constantine with Tiridates.
(24) Zenobius of Klag (fl. ab. 324). History of Daron. French translation from Armenian in Langlois, Coll. Hist. Arm. 1 (1867), 353–355. Like the works of the other Armenian historians, the text of this writer has suffered more or less from corruption. He has two mentions (p. 344 and 351) of Constantine, the latter being an account of the treaty with Tiridates.
Compare introduction of Langlois, and literature in Chevalier.
(25) Agathangelus (ab. 330). History of the Reign of Tiridates and of the Preaching of St. Gregory the Illuminator, c. 125–127, §163–169; in Acta SS. Boll. Sept. VIII. 320– ; also with French translation from Armenian in Langlois Coll. d. hist. de l’Arm. p. 97– . The work extends for 226–330 a.d. The author was secretary to Tiridates, but the work as we have it is a redaction made, however, not long after, as it was used by Moses of Khorene. This was in turn later (seventh century?) retouched by some Greek hagiographer. This Greek form is extant in mss. at Florence and Paris (cf. editions above), and there is reason to suppose that the extant Armenian is a version from this Greek form. But with its additions of arrantly apocryphal matter, it is hard to tell what is what, and so all considerable mention of the relation of Constantine and Tiridates has been left out of the account of Constantine’s life. Yet we must hesitate to put it all down under the mythical; for Tiridates certainly had intercourse with the Romans, and the original form of this life was certainly by a competent hand, and the matter relating to Constantine is in part soberly historical enough.
For farther information, compare Davidson on Gregorius Illuminator, in Smith & W., Dict. 2. 737–739; Introduction, Langlois, p. 99–103.
(26) Faustus of Byzantium (320–392). Historical Library. French translation from the Armenian in Langlois, Coll. d. hist. Arm. 1. 201–310. There are mentions of Constantine and Tiridates in Bk. 3, chaps. 10 and 21. The work is open to some suspicions of having been tampered with, but Langlois inclines to give it a fairly good character. If genuine, the mention of the treaty with Tiridates would nearly establish it as historical fact.
Compare Beauvois Nouv. biog. gén. 17 (1856), 203, and Introduction of Langlois; also, literature in Chevalier.
The writers of the following centuries are for the most part Christian, uncertain or religiously unknown, excepting the very pronounced non-Christian who heads the list.
(27) Zosimus (fl. ab. 400–450). History. Ed. Bekker (Bonn, 1837), 8vo. Section on Constantine occupying Bk. 2. 8– , p. 72–106. The date of this writer has been put as early as the fourth century and as late as the end of the fifth. It will be safe to divide extremes. He is a heathen who, on the period of Constantine, draws from an anti-Christian and anti-Constantinian source, and who regards the introduction of Christianity as a chief cause of the decline of the Roman Empire (cf. various passages cited by Milligan). He is prejudiced against Christianity with the bitter prejudice of one who finds himself in a steadily narrowing minority, and he is occasionally credulous. But he wrote in a clear, interesting style, without intentional falsifications, and was quite as moderate as the Christian writer (Evagrius 3. 41) who calls Zosimus himself a “fiend of hell.” His extended account is therefore of great value among the sources, and especially as it is probably drawn in large measure from the earlier lost work of Eunapius.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W., 4 (1887), 1225–1227: Mason, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 1334–1335; also, for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, and for editions, Engelmann.
Anonymus Valesianus (fifth century). Ed. Valesius (Paris, 1636), p. 471–476. This fragment, first published by Valesius in the above editions of Ammianus, is of the highest value for the life of Constantine. It is evidently drawn from various sources, many of which are now lost. The compiler or writer shows a judiciousness and soberness which commends his statements as peculiarly trustworthy.
Compare the exhaustive examination by Ohnesorge, Der Anonymus Valesii de Constantino. Kiel, 1885. 8vo.
(27) Stephen of Byzantium (ab. 400). Greek Cities. Venet. Aldus, 1502, fol. H. iii. s.v. Ναϊσσὸς. The work is a dictionary of geography, and the fact in these few lines is of first value.
Compare Smith, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 904–906. Chevalier, Hoffmann, etc.
(28) Sozomen (b. ab. 400). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, English translation, London, Bohn, 1855; newly edited by Hartranft in Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2 (1890) [in press]. This history covers the period 323–423 (not 439). He draws largely from Eusebius. He has been described rightly (Dowling, Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 31) as relatively inaccurate, rhetorical and credulous. But he works from sources, though mainly from exact ones. For farther discussion, compare Hartranft in volume 2 of this series.
Compare also Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 722–723, and literature in Chevalier.
(29) Socrates (b. ab. 408). Ecclesiastical History. Ed. Hussey, reprinted with Introduction by Bright, Oxf. 1878. English translation London, Bohn, newly edited by Zenos in volume 2 of this series [in press]. This history covers the period 306–439. It is written with general good judgment, but for Constantine adds little to Eusebius of which it professes to be a continuation.
For farther description and discussion, compare Zenos, Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 709–711, and literature in Chevalier.
(30) Theodoret (b. ab. 393?–457?). Ecclesiastical History. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 82 (1859), 879–1280. English translation, London, Bohn, 1854. The birth of Theodoret has been placed at various dates, 386, 387, 393, &c., and the exact time of his death (453–458) is equally uncertain. This work reaches from 324 to 429, and is generally regarded as learned and impartial. It gives much concerning Constantine’s relations to the Arian controversy and incorporates many documents, which appear to be taken mainly from Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. A chief value is, it would seem, for the text of Eusebius. But his very use of documents shows care and gives value.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 904–919; Newman, Hist. Sketches, 2 (1876), 303–362; Schaff, Hist. of Church, 3 (1884), 881–882; and literature in Chevalier; also for editions, Graesse and Hoffmann.
(31) Orosius, Paulus (ab. 417). Histories, Bk. 7, chaps. 26–28. Ed. Migne Patrol. Lat. 31 (1846), 635–1174; section relating to Constantine occupies 1128–1137. For many editions and mss. compare Schoenemann, Bibl. Patr. Lat. 2 (1794), 481–507, and Engelmann, 2 (1882), 441– . It is said (Manso) that Orosius adds nothing to existing material. This is only in part true. At all events, his value as corroboratory evidence is considerable, brief as the work is.
Compare Phillott, in Smith & W, 4 (1887), 157–158; Ebert, Gesch. d. chr. Lat. Lit. 1 (1874), 323–330, and literature in Chevalier and Engelmann.
(32) Prosper Aquitanus (403–463+). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 535–606 (8). Portion relating to Constantine, 574–576. The Chronicle extends to 444 or 455. To 326 he depends mainly on Eusebius’ Chronicle, and for the rest of our period on the continuation of Hieronymus.
Compare Phillott, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 492–497; Teuffel, Hist. of Rom. Lit. 2 (Lond. 1873), 482–484; and for literature, editions, &c., Chevalier, Engelmann, &c.
(33) Idatius (468+). List of Consuls (Fasti Idatiani). In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 51 (1861), 891–914; portion relating to Constantine, 907–908. Idatius lived until after 469. This work, which is not generally acknowledged to be his, although quoted under his name, ends in 468. It contains brief statements of some events under the most significant years.
Compare Ramsay, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), and literature under “Idace de Lamego,” in Chevalier.
(34) Gelasius of Cyzicus (ab. 450– ). History of the Council of Nicæa. In Labbe, Concilia, 2 (1671), 103–286. There is also an abstract in Photius, Bibl. Cod. 88, ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 103 (1860), 293–296. Venables is probably just when he says: “His work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue.” There is a little on Constantine not in those sources, but to try to fix on any of it as authoritative quite baffles one. Still, it is not wholly clear that he did not use sources, as well as his own imagination, in adding to the other sources. It may be said to be “of doubtful value,” as source. It is not easy to see what Venables means in saying that the third hook, as we have it, gives only three letters of Constantine. This is true; but the second book, “as we have it,” gives several more.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 621–623.
(35) Jacobus of Sarug (452–521). Homily on the Baptism of Constantine. Ed. Frothingham, Roma, 1882. For further information consult the extended study of Frothingham.
(25) Philostorgius (b. ab. 468). English translation by Walford (Lond. Bohn, 1855), 425–528. The original work covered the period between 300 and 425. The fragments preserved contain several interesting facts, or fictions, relating to Constantine, some not found elsewhere. Photius and all the orthodox have always called him untrustworthy or worse, and a very unorthodox critic (Gibbon) finds him passionate, prejudiced, and ignorant; but it seems to be agreed that he used some sources not availed of by others.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1587), 390; Dowling, Study of Eccl. Hist. p. 26–27; and literature in Chevalier.
(26) Hesychius Milesius (ab. 500?– ). Origins of Constantinople. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 146–155; also in ed. Orelli (Lips. 1820), 59–73. Hesychius, surnamed Illustris, of Miletus lived in the early part of the sixth century. This work contains several allusions to the founding of the city of Constantine. It seems to have been taken almost word for word in parts by Codinus.
Compare Venables, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 12–13; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 447–448; Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 143–145; also literature in Chevalier, and editions and literature in Engelmann.
(27) Cassiodorus (ab. 468–561+). Tripartite History. In Opera, ed. Garetius, 1 (Rotom. 1679, fol.), b 1–b 372. On Constantine, especially p. 207–243. (Same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69 [1865], 879–1214.) Cassiodorus was born about 468 and lived to be more than ninety-three years old. This work is an epitome of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, and has no additional value as source. A work on the Goths has been preserved to us only in an epitome by Jordanes. See Jordanes.
Compare Young, in Smith & W. 1 (1877), 416–418, or (better for this work) Ramsay, in Smith, 1 (1859), 623–625; and for literature and editions, Chevalier, Engelmann, Graesse, etc.
(28) Lydus, Joannes (Laurentius) (490–550+). De Mensibus; De Magistratibus; De Ostentis, passim. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. Hist. Byz. (1837). Other editions of the various works may be found noticed in Graesse, Trésor, 4 (1863), 122; Brunet, Manuel, 3 (1862), 880; Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 478–479; Hoffmann, Lex. He was born at Philadelphia in 490, and lived some time after 550. He was a heathen, but respectful toward Christianity (Photius, Cod. 180). He mentions Constantine ten or a dozen times; e.g. his foundation of Constantinople (De O. 21. 5), Constantine’s learning and military skill (De mag. 3. 53), and quotes (De magistr. 3. 33, ed. Bonn., p. 226), Constantine’s own writings.
Compare Photius, Cod. 180; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 600; Hase, Pref. and in ed. Bekker; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer), 32 (1860), 388–391; and for farther literature, Chevalier and the article of Joubert, and Engelmann, Bibl. scr. class. 1 (1880), 479.
(29) Jordanes (or Jornandes) ( –551?). History of the Goths, (De Getarum origine et rebus gestis). In Cassiodorus, Opera, ed. Garetius, 1 (Rotom. 1679), 397–425; same ed. in Migne, Patrol. Lat. 69 (1865), 1251–1296. This work on the Goths is said by its author to be an epitome of the work of Cassiodorus. It says (p. 406–407) that Constantine employed Goths in his campaign against Licinius, and also in the building of Constantinople. It was composed in 551 or 552 (cf. Wattenbach, Deutschland’s Geschichtsq. 1 [1877], 66).
Compare Hodgkin, in Encycl. Brit. 13 (1881), 747–749; Acland, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 431–438 (exhaustive); and abundant literature in Chevalier, Engelmann, Wattenbach, &c.; also editions in Engelmann, “Potthast. Bibl. hist. med. æv. 1862, p. 102,” &c.
(30) Anonymous, qui Dionis Cassii historias continuavit (sixth century?). 14. Licinius (18 lines); 15. Constantinus (9 lines). In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 199; of especially Introd. in Müller, p. 191–192. These were first published by Ang. Mai in Script. Vet. Nov. Call. 2, 135–, 527–, and are found also in various editions of Dion Cassius; e.g. ed. Sturz. 9 (Spz. 1843). Mai strongly inclines to suspect that Johannes Antiochenus is the author, but this Müller (p. 191) argues to be impossible. They are sometimes referred to as Excerpta Vaticana. Petrus Patricius and various others have been suggested as authors, but all that is affirmed with any assurance is that the author was a Christian. This is on the ground of Diocletianus, 1 (p. 198). The fragments are very brief, but contain several little facts and turns not found elsewhere.
(31) Evagrius (536?–594+). Ecclesiastical History, 3. 40–41. English translation (1709), 472–474. A violent invective against and disproval of the charges of Zosimus against Constantine and adds nothing to historical facts.
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 423–424.
(32) Procopius Cæsariensis (fl. 547–565). Histories. Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1833–1838, 3 v. Two or three slight mentions, of which the nearest to any account is the division of the empire by Constantine, and the founding of Constantinople (De bel. Vand, 1. 1). He flourished from about 547 to 565. Whether he was Christian or heathen is uncertain. He is characterized by peculiar truthfulness (cf. his De ædif. 1; Praf. ed. Bonn, v. 3, 170–, and Milligan).
Compare Milligan, in Smith & W. 4 (1887), 487–488; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 3, 538–540; also for literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, 1. 655; and for editions, Milligan, Plate, and the various bibliographies.
(33) Petrus Patricius (fl. 550–562). Fragments. In Müller, Fragm. 4 (1868), 189. Gives account of an embassy of Licinius to Constantine.
Compare Means, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 226–227; also Chevalier and Hoffmann.
(34) Gregory of Tours (ab. 573–594). History of the Franks, 1. 34. Ed. Ruinart (Paris, 1699), 27, &c. (?) History of the Seven Sleepers, do. 1272–1273, &c. Liber miraculorum, do. 725–729. The edition of Ruinart is reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Lat. vol. 71 (1867). In the first of these he quotes as authorities, Eusebius and Junius; the latter are full of legendary matter.
Compare Buchanan, in Smith & W. 2 (1880), 771–776; also for editions and literature, Engelmann, Chevalier, and Graesse.
(35) Chronicon Paschale (ab. 630 a.d.) Ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1832, 2 v.; section relating to Constantine occupies vol. 1, p. 516–533. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 92 (Paris, 1865). The work is a chronicle of the world from the creation until 630. It has been thought, but on insufficient grounds (cf. Salmon), that the first part ended with a.d. 354 and was written about that time. It is really a homogeneous work and written probably not long after 630 a.d. (Salmon). It is frequently quoted, unfortunately, as Alexandrian Chronicle (e.g. M’Clintock and Strong Cycl.). The chief value is the chronological, but the author has used good sources and presumably some not now extant. It has something the value of a primary source of second rate.
Compare Salmon, In Smith & W. 1. (1877), 509–513; Clinton, Fasti. Rom. 2 (1850), 169; Ideler, Handb. d. Chron. 2 (1826), 350–351, 462–463; and for literature and editions, Salmon.
(36) Anonymous Acts of Metrophanes and Alexander (seventh century?), “in which is contained also a life of the emperor Constantine the Great.” In Photius, Cod. 256; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 104 (1860), 105–120. A more complete recession of this anonymous piece was edited by Combefis, who regards it as the work of a contemporary, written therefore in the middle of the fourth century (cf. his Hist. Mon. p. 573, teste Fabricius). The authentic details can be traced word for word, according to Tillemont, in other historians, while impossible statements show it to be not the work of a contemporary. It seems to fall under the class of works where “What is true is not new, and what is new is not true,” but it can hardly be regarded as sufficiently determined whether or no it is worthless.
Compare Tillemont, Mém. 7 (1732), 657; Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. 9 (1737), 124 and 498; Acta. SS. Nov. 1.
(37) Johannes Antiochenus (fl. 610–650). Chronological History. Fragments in Müller, 4 (1868), 535 (8)–622; Fragm. 168–169, on Constantius and Galerius, and 170–171a, on Constantine, p. 602–603. This writer is to be distinguished from Johannes Malalas, also known as Johannes Antiochenus. He flourished somewhere between 610–650 (Müller, p. 536). The sections relating to Constantine are in the main exactly correspondent to Eutropius. It has been conjectured (Müller, p. 1538) that Eutropius and Johannes copied from a common Greek source; but the curious error in the section on Constantine (p. 603), by which “commodæ” is converted into a proper name, and becomes the name of the sister whose son Constantine put to death, shows it to have been translated from the Latin. The work of Johannes has, however, some interesting suggestions and additions; e.g. its paraphrase of the word “dubius” in the characterization of Constantine’s conduct towards his friends.
Compare Müller, p. 535–538; Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 587; also article of Stokes, and other literature under Malalas.
(38) Malalas (= John of Antioch) (ab. 700). Chronography, Bk. 13, 1–11. Ed. Dindorf (Bonnæ, 1831); in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (section on Constantine, p. 316–324); also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 97 (Par. 1865), 1–70. Earlier editions are, Oxf. 1691, 8$^o$; Venice, 1733, fol. [reprint of 1691, “quite useless”]. Lived about 700 (Müller, Fragm. 4 [1868], 536), or about 650 (Chevalier, 1205). He has been placed as late as ninth century (Hody), and as early as 601 (Cave). Noting is known of his personal history. He is to be distinguished from the John of Antioch in Müller’s Fragm. who is earlier than Malalas. He is very credulous and inaccurate and the section on Constantine is no exception to the rule.
Compare Prolegomena of Hody and Dindorf; Stokes, in Smith & W. 3 (1882), 787–788, &c.; and farther literature in Chevalier, Rép. 1205; Hoefer, Nouv. biog. gén. 32 (1060), 1007, and the article of Stokes.
(39) Pseudo-Isidore (eighth cent.?). Decretals. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 130 (1853), 245–252. The famous “Donation of Constantion,” which appears here for the first time. See under The Mythical Constantine.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 4 (1885), 268–733; and for literature, Chevalier under Isidore Mercator; also the literature of the Donation.
(40) Theophanes (758–818). Chronography. Ed. Classen, Bonn. 1839–41, 2 v. Section on Constantine occupying vol. 1, p. 10–51; also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 108 (186). This work “is justly regarded as one of the most important in the whole series of Byzantine historians” (Dowling, p. 69). Theophanes was friend of Georgius Syncellus; and at his request (Prœm. p. 5) took up the latter work at the point where he left off (Diocletian), extending it to 811. He is an authority of judgment and weight for matters relating to his own times, and on quite a different level of historical character from Cedrenus and Zonaras. Although of very much less value for Constantine, he shows even here a certain historical judgment and discrimination. His book is an intelligent work from various sources, one of which is Eusebius. He says that he has diligently examined many works, and reports nothing on his own authority, but on the authority of ancient historiographers and “logographers” (Prœm. p. 5).
Compare Dowling Introd. (Lond. 1838), 69–70; Smith, in Smith, Dict. 3. 1082–1083; Gass, in Herzog, Real Enc. 15 (1885), 536–537; Acta sanctorum Boll. March 12; and for (extensive) literature, Chevalier.
(41) Anastasius Bibliothecarius (d. 879). Lives of the Roman Pontiffs. In Migne, Patrol. Lat. 127–128 (1852). 34. S. Silvester, vol. 127, 1511–1527. Small use.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of the Church, 4 (1885), 774–776; and for literature and editions, Chevalier and Graesse.
(42) Photius (ninth cent.). Bibliotheca. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. vols. 103–104 (1860). Contains excerpts from and comments on Praxagoras, Eunapius, Gelasius, Anon. Metroph., and Eusebius, which see.
Compare Schaff, Hist. of Church, 4 (1885), 636–642; Means, in Smith, Dict. 3 (1859), 347–355.
(43) Constantinus Porphyrogenitus (c. VII.) (fl. 911–959). De thematibus. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1840), 1–64, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz.; and in ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 113 (1864), 63–140. Gives (2. 8, ed. Bonn. p. 57–58) account of division of the empire among his sons by Constantine. He also mentions in his De cer. aul. Byz. (ed. Reiske, Bonn. 1829; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 112); e.g. the “cross of Constantine” several times mentioned, and gives a few facts of archæological interest. Constantinus VII was emperor 911–959.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 349–351; Ceillier, 12 (1862), 811–813; and for farther literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, 1 (1880), 249; also for editions, Plate, who has admirable survey.
(44) Leo Diaconus (tenth century). Histories, 5. 9 and 8. 8. In ed. Hase (Bonn. 1828), p. 91 and 138. Mentions the foundation of a city, the vision of the cross, the Scythian wars, and burial in the Church of the Apostles at Constantinople, and characterizes him as “among emperors the one renowned in story” (8. 8). For other editions, compare Brunet, Graesse, Hoffmann, and Engelmann. He lived from about 950 to at least 993. He was used by Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus) and perhaps Zonaras. “Style vicious,” and “knowledge…of ancient history is slight” (Means).
Compare Means, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 743–744; M’Clintock and Strong, Encycl. 5 (1875), 351; Hase, Præf.; and for literature, Chevalier.
It is by some stretching of the term that many of those dating before the year 1000 are admitted as sources. Some contribute hardly a single fact not in other sources. This is still more true of the period following, but this period is especially rich in sources of historical fictions—and these must be considered. So the Byzantine historians to the invention of printing are given, and some Western writings, which contain relevant matter.
(45) Zonaras, Johannes (1042–1130?). Chronicle. Ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 134–135 (Par. 1864). The section relating to Constantine occupies Vol. I. 1097–1118, Bk. 13, chs. 1–4; cf. also end of Bk. 12. The ed. Pinder, Bonn. 1841–1844, 2 v., is unfinished, containing only twelve books. It has since been edited by Dindorf, Lips. 1868–1875, 6 v. Bk. 13 is in Vol. 3 (1870). This work consists of eighteen books extending from the beginning of the world until 1118. Zonaras draws, for Christian period, from Eusebius, Philostorgius, &c., with some discernment, and so deserves a tolerably high place among the Byzantine historians (Zöckler). He incorporates a choice variety of fables, but gives more or less facts which seem to be facts. He actually adds almost nothing to the sources of Constantine, though there are certain facts over which one lingers a little before relegating to the great class of “interesting, if true.”
Compare Smith, Dict. 3. 1331; (Zöckler), in Herzog, Real Enc. 17 (1886), 555–556; and for (rich) literature, Zöckler, Chevalier, and Engelmann, 1 (1880), 798.
(46) Cedrenus, Georgius (ab. 1057). Compendium of History. Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1838–1839, 2 v., the section relating to Constantine occupying Vol. I, p. 472–520 et pass. Also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 121–122 (Par. 1864). Nothing is known of his personal history. The work is a chronicle from the beginning of the world until 1057 a.d. He mentions as his chief sources Georgius Syncellus, “until the time of Maximianus and Maximinus,” and from this point Theophanes, Siculus, Psellus, and others (cf. p. 4; cf. also Glycas. Chron., ed. Bonn. p. 457), and claims to have collected facts not in these sources. He mentions the work of Joannes Thracesius, or Curopalates, who is probably Scylitzes, whose work corresponds so exactly with that of Cedrenus in parts as to suggest the one or the other a better copier than compiler. The statement of Ceillier is that Cedrenus copied the work of Scylitzes for the period 811–1057, and that Scylitzes afterwards continued his work to 1081; i.e. there was a double edition of the work of Scylitzes, and Cedrenus wrote between. But Means (p. 760) thinks otherwise, and gives good reasons, making one edition and placing Cedrenus’ work later, i.e. after 1081. The “additional facts” are few, the compilation is uncritical and credulous; but the work is recognized as a source to be consulted, though with greatest critical care.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 658; Ceillier, 13 (1863), 560; Means, Scylitzes, in Smith, Dict. 3. 759–762; and for literature, Chevalier, under the words Cedrene and Scylitzes.
(47) Pseudo-Leo. Chronography, under Constantius Chlorus and Constantinus Magnus. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1842), p. 83–90. In Corp. scr. hist. Byz. from Cramer, Anecd. gr. bibl. reg. Par. 2 (1839), 243–379. It is published as the first part of the Chronography of Leo Grammaticus, because assigned to him by the catalogues of the ms. at Paris. It is thought by Cramer, however, not to be by him, but to be “compiled from various writers,—Cedrenus, Joannes Antiochenus, Chronicon Paschali, and perhaps others which are lost” (cf. Cramer, Anecd. gr. 2. 243–379, quoted by Bekker, Præf. iii.–iv.). In this section the author quotes Socrates and Eusebius, but uses other and some unusual sources. While one hesitates to lay much weight on an author of such unknown age and personality, and which contains obvious errors, yet it carries the conviction of a certain moderate weight. Many passages are identical, almost word for word, with Cedrenus. In one of these passages the author refers to Socrates as his authority, while there is no such mention in Cedrenus. They may have taken from the same source. At all events, this work appears on its face much more like sober history than do Cedrenus and Zonaras. Its absolute value as source is very slight.
Compare Preface of Bekker.
(48) Attaliata, Michael (ab. 1072). History. Ed. De Presle and Bekker, Bonn. 1853. 8°. He mentions (p. 217, also p. 222) half a dozen things relating to Constantine; that he was reckoned among the apostles, the sign of the cross, &c., but nothing of value, unless (p. 222) the transposition of a colony from Iberia to Assyria (?).
Compare Præf. of De Presle, also Graves, in Smith, Dict. 1. 409, who, however, does not mention this work; and for literature, Chevalier and De Presle, p. 7–8.
(49) Anna Comnena. Alexias. Ed. Schopen-Reifferscheid, Bonn. 1839–1878. Mentions among two or three other deeds, a statue which this “father and lord of the city” had made over for him (12. 4), and that he has been counted among the apostles (14. 8).
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1. 179; Klippel, in Herzog, 1 (1877), 427–429, &c.
(50) Glycas, Mich (after 1118). Chronicle (or Annals). Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1836; the section relating to Constantine occupies p. 460–468, ed. Migne, 158 (Par. 1866), 1–958. This work of Glycas extends from the beginning of the world to a.d. 1118. Though “justly placed among the better Byzantine historians” (Plate), for the period of Constantine he is one of the worst. His critical judgment seems to incline to the selection of the most unhistoric. He gives at end of preceding section a description of the work of Scylitzes (cf. Cedrenus), and quotes in it a work of Alexander on the Invention of the Cross.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 277; Joubert. in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer), 20 (1857), 845–846; and for literature, Chevalier; also for editions, Hoffmann.
(51) Nicetas Choniatas (Acominatus) (1150–1216+). History. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. Bonn. 1835, 8°; ed. Migne, Patrol. Gr. 139 (1865), 282–1088 (=Mai, Bibl. nov. patr. 6. ?). Thesaurus, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 139–140 (1865), 1087–1443, 1–282 (=Mai, Spicil. Rom. v. 4). Born about 1150, and lived until 1216 at least. Gives in his History two or three things which relate to “the first and mightiest among Christian emperors” (De Is. Aug. 3. 7, ed. Bonn. p. 583); e.g. the tale of the nails from the cross (do. p. 584), and the despoiling of his tomb (De Al. Is. Aug. 1. 7, p. 632); also a few in the Thesauri, e.g. his conciliation to Arianism through his sister and her friend, the Arian presbyter (6. 3 and 6), and various matters relating to the Arian controversy (mainly in Bk. 5), where he uses the familiar sources,—Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius, &c, but also some other less familiar ones.
Compare Worman, in M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclop. 7 (1877), 54–55; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 1182–1183; Ullmann, in Stud. u. Krit. (1833), 674–700; Gass, in Herzog, 10 (1882), 540–541, and abridged in Schaff-Herz. 2. 1652. Compare for literature, the above and Chevalier; and for editions, Worman, Plate, Brunet, Graesse, Hoffmann, &c.
(52) Gregoras, Nicephoras (1295–1359). Byzantine History, Bks. 1–37. Ed. Shopen (v. 1–2) and Bekker (v. 3), Bonn. 1829, 1830, and 1855. In Corp. scr. hist. Byz.; ed. Migne, Patrol. Lat. 148–149 (1865). Mentions incidentally half a dozen facts relating to foundation of Constantinople (10.1; 14. 3, &c.), his destruction of idolatry (19. 1), treatment of the Jews (26. 15), and enlargement of empire (26. 37). He was born 1295, and died after 1359. Was more learned but less judicious than Cantacuzenus (Plate).
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2. 304–306; Joubert, in Nouv. biog. gén. 21 (1857), 889–891; also for literature, Chevalier, and for editions, Plate and Joubert.
(53) Ephræmius (fourteenth century). Cæsars (?). Constantinus. Ed. Bekker, Bonn. 1840, 8°; section on Constantine occupies p. 21–25; ed. Migne, 143 (Par. 1865), 1–380. It was first edited by Mai, Scr. vet. nov. coll. 3 (1828), 1–225 (Dowl.). This metrical chronicle introduces one or two fables, but is in the main at least semi-historical, but its additional facts give no impression of having special sources,—in brief, it is scarcely a source, rather literature.
Compare Smith, Dict. 2. 28; Bonneau, in Nouv. biog. gén. (Hoefer) 16 (1856), 127; Mai, Præf. in ed. Bekker, also ed. Migne. Compare for literature, Chevalier.
(54) Cantacuzenus, Joannes. Angelus Comnenus Palæologus (d. 1375+). Histories. Ed. Schopen, Bonn. 1828–1832, 3 v.; also in Migne, Patrol. Gr. 153–154 (Dowl. 1866). Speaks of Constantine as a model of clemency (4. 2; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 18) worthy to be compared with the apostles (3. 92), and as led by the spirit of God like David (4. 48; ed. Bonn. v. 3, p. 351), and mentions the time (in May) when his memory is celebrated (4. 4; 3. 92), but has hardly a half-dozen mentions and fewer facts of interest or value. He reigned 1342–1355, abdicated, and lived until after 1375.
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 579–581; and for farther literature, Chevalier and Engelmann, also for editions.
(55) Nicephorus Callistus (d. ab. 1450). Ecclesiastical History, 7. 17–18, 55. In Migne, Patrol. Gr. 145–147. Bk. 7 is in 145, and Bk. 8 in 146. This late history, not so bad as some in style, but full of legendary matter, was compiled from the standard existing historians, and perhaps some others. The portions on Constantine are taken almost wholly from Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and other existing historians.
Compare Schaff, Church Hist. 3 (1884), 883–884; Plate, in Smith, Dict. 2 (1859), 1180–1181; Dowling, Introd.(1838), 91–93.
(56) Monody on the Younger Constantine (ab. 1450). Ed. Frotscher, Anon. Græci oratio funebris, Freiberg i. S., 1855. This work has not been seen, but according to Seeck (Ztschr. f. Wiss. Theol. 1890, p. 64) and Wordsworth (p. 630) this edition contains the result of a study by Wesseling, which shows that this work, referring to an anonymous emperor, does not refer to Constantine II. at all, but to some ruler who belongs in the fifteenth century.
Compare Seeck and Wordsworth for editions.
(57) Codinus (d. ab. 1453?). Excerpts on the origins of Constantinople. Ed. Bekker (Bonn. 1843). For other editions, compare articles of Plate and the Nouv. biog. gén. Contains considerable relating to Constantine, especially respecting the founding of Constantinople, and the buildings and statues in it. Mainly compilation, or compilation from compilation, but is from partly lost sources and far from unnecessary. He died about 1453 (?).
Compare Plate, in Smith, Dict. 1 (1859), 810–811; Nouv. biog. gén. 11 (1855), 24–25; and for literature, Chevalier.
(58) Ducas (fl. 1450–1460 a.d.) gives “From the incarnation until Constantine the Great, 318 years,” and speaks of a church restored by him. Ed. Bekker, in Corp. scr. hist. Byz. (1834), p. 13 and 48.
(59) Geoffrey of Monmouth (d. 1154). British History. English translation (Lond. Bohn, 1848), 162– . The passage relating to Constantine covers a number of pages, and is ninety-five per cent fiction, five per cent fact.
Compare Tedder, in Stephen, Dict. of Nat. Biog. 21 (1890), 133–135.
Various of the old chronicles are only translations or paraphrases of this; e.g. the Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft (ed. Wright, Lond. 1866, p. 76–78), various Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, and French chronicles, Waurin’s Recueil des Chroniques (ed. Hardy, Lond. 1864), although Hardy maintains that neither Waurin or any of the other versions are real translations, but says there is some lost common source.
(60) Henry of Huntingdon (1135). History of the English. Ed. Arnold, Lond. 1879, 8°, p. 29–31. Engl. translation, Lond. Bohn, 1853, p. 28–29. This is written from generally good sources, notably Eutropius, and means to be historical; but its mythical details—e.g. Helena, a British princess, Constantine cured of leprosy—make it useless.
Compare Forester, Preface to translation; Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 167–173.
(61) William of Malmesbury (1137). Chronicle of England. English translation, Giles (Lond. Bohn, 1847), 6. Mentioned as a source because often quoted in literature. He ascribes to Constantine the introduction of the British settlement in France.
Compare Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. 2 (1846), 134–142.
(62) Diceto, Ralph de (d. 1202?). Abbreviated Chronicles. Ed. Stubbs, Lond. 1876; section on Constantine, p. 73–76. This work was composed before 1188. It consists in the main of abstracts from Eutropius, Eusebius, Jerome, and Rufinus, with various mythical details from William of Malmesbury and other sources.
Compare Poole, in Stephen, Dict. of Nat. Biog. 15 (1888), 12–14. This is taken from Stubbs, Introduction, q.v.
(63) Eulogium Historiarum (ab. 1366). Ed. Haydon, Lond. 1858, 3 v.; section on Constantine, 1. 337–339; 2. 267–268, 332–333; 3. 12, 265. This was probably written by Peter, a monk of Malmesbury (Haydon), about 1366. Compiled from various sources, has familiar facts, but is of no value except for legends.
Compare Preface of Haydon.
(64) Voragine (1230–1298). Golden Legend. Legend concerning the Invention of the Cross. Ed. Graesse (Lips. 1846, repr. Vratisl. 1890). French translation by Brunet, 2 (1843), 118–116. Early English translation printed by Caxton. A curious mixture of fact and fable, in which legendary is gathered, but all facts are expressed with a curious conscientiousness, or pretended conscientiousness, in quoting authorities. But on Constantine, however, his authorities do not always come to the test of containing what he quotes from them.
Compare article Varaggio, in M’Clintock and Strong, Cyclop. 10 (1881), 719, Brunet’s Preface and the Proceedings of the American Soc. of Ch. Hist. for 1889.
Besides the above-mentioned sources there are many mentions which may be found in the various collections of mediæval documents, such, e.g., as Pertz, Monumenta Germaniæ Historica, which has various interesting chronicles covering the period of Constantine.