This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]

On: 01 June 2012, At: 06:34

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer
Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Symbolae Osloenses:
Norwegian Journal of
Greek and Latin Studies
Publication details, including
instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20
From Friend to Foe:
The Portrait of Licinius
in Eusebius
Hugo Montgomery
Available online: 06 Nov 2010
To cite this article: Hugo Montgomery (2000): From Friend to Foe: The
Portrait of Licinius in Eusebius, Symbolae Osloenses: Norwegian Journal
of Greek and Latin Studies, 75:1, 130-138
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/003976700300005901
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied
or make any representation that the contents will be complete
or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions,
formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with
primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

From Friend to Foe:
The Portrait of Licinius in Eusebius
Hugo Montgomery
The object of this article is to analyse the portrait of emperor Licinius in three
important sources of the reign of Constantine the Great: Lactantius De mor-
tibus persecutorum and, especially, Eusebius two historical works, the Historia
ecclesiastica (HE) and the Vita Constantini (VC). The inuence of rhetoric,
with the keywords vituperatio/laudatio and progymnasmata, is emphasized in
Eusebius way of depicting Licinius, this great loser in Late Roman History.
In a letter (V.8.12), Pliny complains about the embarrassments in writing
contemporary history. He hesitates over whether he would write ancient his-
tory or modern. In the latter case he would receive small thanks and give seri-
ous offence: levis gratia, graves offensae. Plinys friend Tacitus emphasized that
writing contemporary history could be a dangerous enterprise for an author
living in the reign of a powerful and suspicious emperor. In Agricola 3.1 he
states that the rule of Nerva and Trajan inaugurated a new era in this respect.
However, Tacitus plans of writing the history of these emperors (Historiae
I.1) were never realized. In The Late Roman Empire the risks involved in
writing contemporary history became even more dangerous, especially in pe-
riods when a new dynasty was established. The task undertaken by Lactantius
and Eusebius, two important sources of the rst decades of the fourth cen-
tury, was therefore not an easy one. The scope and character of these works
are rather different. Lactantius wrote his survey of the ruin of the Roman
emperors who had persecuted the Christians, from Nero to Maximinus Daia,
before discrepancies between the two victorious Augusti Constantine and
Licinius had become too tangible. Eusebius Church History is a much more
ambitious and theological work, as it begins with the preexistent Logos before
the birth of Jesus. There are some indications that at rst he had meant to
conclude the work with the end of the Diocletian persecution. However,
when the political situation made it natural from an ideological point of view
to make also Licinius a persecutor, Eusebius included the fall of this emperor
in the tenth book of the HE. Eusebius later work, Life of Constantine, is
enigmatic. The authorship has been debated, as has its the historical value,
and it is not easy to determine to which literary genre it belongs.
130
Symbolae Osloenses 75, 2000
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

The Portrait of Licinius in Eusebius
1

Cameron 1997. Our knowledge of Licinius is limited because of Constantines policy of
oblivion against him, see Corcoran 1993 about his legislation and Smith 1997 about the impe-
rial iconography.
2

Creed 1984, XXXIV.
3

For a discussion about date of De mortibus persecutorum, see Creed 1984, XXXIII-XXXV.
Still useful is the splendid study by Barnes 1973.
Much has been written about the victorious Constantine and how he was
portrayed in these contemporary works.
1
A tragic person is Licinius, one of
the great losers in later Roman history. He was made Augustus of the west-
ern part of the Empire in the conference at Carnuntum 308, but could not
take possession of Italy when Constantine anticipated him with a successful
campaign against Maxentius in Rome. Licinius became Constantines son in
law and they both signed the edict at Milan. Having defeated Maximinus
Daia he became the Augustus of the eastern parts of the Empire, but conicts
with Constantine in 314, or 316, deprived him of most of his European pos-
sessions. He was nally defeated by Constantine in 324 and became the vic-
tim of a damnatio memoriae; he had lost his name and reputation for ever.
Early Christian historiography
For Lactantius in De mortibus persecutorum, Licinius was on the right side
even though Lactantius did not give a completely positive picture of him,
as he wrote his treatise with a subdued hostility to him.
2
Licinius was an
old friend of Galerius, the most active persecutor who early planned to give
the title of Augustus (20.3-4) to him instead of granting it to the meek and
sickly Constantius. After he had defeated Maximianus, his behaviour towards
Valeria, Galerius wife, and other members of the family of his dead enemy
was cruel (50-51). Licinius is depicted as a loyal colleague of Constantine in an
antithetical composition (43-49) that combines the narrative of the two great
victories, Constantines against Maxentius and Licinius against the persecu-
tor Maximinus Daia. They were good relatives and good partners against
Gods enemies and therefore had the support of heavenly forces in dreams
and visions. Thus Constantine was advised in a dream to mark the heavenly
sign of God on the shields (44.5). Soon also Licinius was instructed by an
angel, rst in a dream and then in a vision, how to pray to the supreme
God with his soldiers (46.3-7). It is contested where and when De mortibus
persecutorum was written, but there are no manifest indications in the text
that this good fellowship of the two emperors was endangered after their vic-
tories.
3
The structure of the HE is much more complicated than the De mortibus
persecutorum, as its author had to rewrite and rethink his history several times,
131
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

Hugo Montgomery
4

The name and acts of Crispus are only omitted in the Syriac version of the HE, Louth 1980,
112.
5

Schwartz 1909, Laqueur 1929, with critical remarks by Christensen 1980. That Eusebius
started writing the HE already before the persecutions of Diocletian is asserted by Barnes
1980; arguments against this view are given by Louth 1990, 120-123 and by Burgess 1997. See
also Drake 1988.The originality of Eusebius historical works is emphasized by Momigliano
1964 and 1987.
6

These passages are listed by Barnes 1980, 196-197. See also Schwartz 1909, LXI-LXI.
7

For God as the director of history in Eusebius works, see Liebeschuetz 1997, who however
claims that the ecclesiastical historians on the whole give little space to divine intervention,
to the miraculous or the inexplicable, Ibid., 162.
8

The later date of this war was given by Bruun 1953 with an argument that has persuaded
many. Critical remarks have been given by DiMaio, Zeuge, Bethune 1990. For a discussion,
see also Grnewald 1990, 108-112.
even though he did not succeed in obliterating the memory of Crispus, who
later became a no-person in the VC.
4
The attempts of Ed. Schwartz and R.
Laqueur to discern several layers of the HE have been questioned.
5
It is not
just a question of analysing a text which is full of contradictions, however,
for also the manuscript tradition is enigmatic. Ed. Schwartz showed it was
possible through the ATER-group of manuscripts to detect how Eusebius
was forced to make adjustments to earlier drafts of books VIII and IX, where
Licinius picture had to be reevaluated when seen in the perspective of later
events. He thus had to put in phrases such as before he went mad - or
simply omitted his name - to touch up a narrative in which Licinius had
been seen at rst as a good man.
6
When Maximinus Daia had been slain,
there was according to IX.1.10 a period of happiness and delight in the em-
pire, as there had been after the edict of toleration. Such times of happiness,
however, were of short duration as fyonos, a devilish envy, was provoked. In
Eusebius OT-inspired understanding of history the devil and God are the
working forces, and Licinius soon became the tool of this envy.
7
He had not
learned the lesson of the tyrants Maxentius and Maximinus Daia but was
lled with envy towards Constantine, his superior and father in law.
In book X this emperor is depicted as a tyrant, an enemy of the Church
and of humanity. Eusebius refers summarily to the rst conict between
the two rulers when Licinius was accused of conspiring (X.8.5) against
Constantine along with Bassianus. God, however, unmasked his evil plans
and Constantine had to start a war, the so-called bellum Cibalense, the date
of which is contested but seems to have started in 316, two years later than
earlier assumed.
8
It has been difcult to nd any clues of the dating of this
war in Eusebius, because chronology is of little signicance in his God- and
132
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

9

Cameron 1983, 71-88. For A. Camerons polemic against T. Barnes 1989, 102-103, about the
genesis of the VC see Cameron 1997, 147-49. She has emphasized the importance of historical
narratives in the Christian world, Cameron 1991, esp. pp. 89-119. She discusses Eusebius Vita
Constantini on pp. 61-65. I owe much to Cameron & Hall 1999, who discuss about the liter-
ary character of the VC, pp. 27-34. Most of the translations from the VC in this article I have
borrowed from this book.
10

Hall 1993 a & b, Cameron & Hall 1999, 13-16. Eusebius has also used the material he culled
in the De laudibus Constantini. For the complicated history of this speech, see Drake 1988.
Constantine-centered history. Later, Licinius started a campaign against the
Christians, who rst were ousted from the palace and the army. He inaugu-
rated evil laws, and behaved like a tyrant, but his hostile acts were made in
secret (X.8.14). He got the idea of starting a persecution, but God intervened
through Constantine (X.8.19). Finally, Licinius was beaten and killed, and
with this victory Constantine and Crispus introduced a new era of happi-
ness, and there Eusebius ends his narrative in the Church History.
After the death of Constantine, Eusebius wrote a Life of Constantine (VC),
which never got the nal touch. It is a mixture of different literary genres, as
it is a pious biography but also a documentary history.
9
Much of the historical material up to the fall of Licinius is taken over from
the HE, as Stuart Hall has demonstrated, but the presentation of this material
and the composition of the work are different from what Eusebius had used
in the HE.
10
As this Christian biography is concentrated on Constantine,
there was no room for a colleague in the struggle against the enemies of the
church in 312 and 313. Thus the war against Maxentius is not connected with
Licinius war in the eastern part of the Empire as it is in the HE. Only once
does Eusebius mention that Licinius had defeated the last persecutor, when
he states that Licinius did not remember the fate of Maximinus Daia, whom
he himself had been established to destroy and punish for the evil of their
policies (I.56.2). Licinius is only named twice, but there are more than 20
anonymous references to him, in grim metaphors such as a certain savage
beast I.49, serpent (II.1) or just with phrases, such as he of whom we have
spoken. Like Constantines other enemies in the VC Licinius is a non-per-
son, he is just the tool of the evil forces.
Thus the fact that Licinius had once sided with Constantine is much
more hidden in the VC than in the HE; in the VC he is depicted as almost
mad from the beginning. It is not easy to trace the political development
in Eusebius narrative from the start in I. 48 to the nal defeat of Licinius
in II.18. Eusebius main subject is not to give information about military
or political history but to rouse the religious and moral indignation of his
audience, which originally perhaps consisted of members of the royal family
133
The Portrait of Licinius in Eusebius
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

Hugo Montgomery
11

This narrative technique formed the subject of my dissertation, Montgomery 1965. An
analysis of I. 25.2-37 with the introduction of Constantines Italian war against Maxentius in
Montgomery 1998.
and the clergy. Also the way Eusebius presents this apparently long-lasting
conict between Licinius and his benefactor Constantine is much more
dramatic, and literary, than in the HE. He follows a literary pattern often
used by ancient historians when introducing a new phase in the narrative,
he lets the main person see, or hear something, then considers the situation
and nally reacts.
11
In that way he inaugurized Constantines Italian inva-
sion in I.26/27, and later the narrative of the dissension in the church in
II.63, and the campaign against the Sassanides in IV.56.1. Thus Eusebius
story of the wars between Constantine and Licinius, which is introduced
in I. 48 with the alarming information the former got from the east, is
taken up again in II.3 with a statement about Constantines deliberations
in this dangerous situation before he determined to intervene. So accord-
ing to I.48/49 the emperor received tidings (a kohD --- e punyaneto) from the
eastern provinces that a certain savage beast was harassing both the church
and the inhabitants. In this manner Eusebius introduces a long section of
the narrative, from I.49 to II.2, where without following any chronological
structure he gives a short and venomous mini-biography of Licinius, full of
comments on his moral deciencies. We are informed that Licinius had at
rst been honoured by Constantine, who had granted him the privilege
of sharing his paternal descent (I.50.1) by giving him his sister as his con-
sort and also by making him Augustus of the eastern part of the empire.
Licinius had not been any grateful relative but tried to conceal his evil plots.
Finally, he started a campaign against the Christians, and in this connection
Eusebius in I.51-55 gives some information which he had not taken from
the HE. Not just Licinius hatred towards the Christians but also his cru-
elty, greed and sexual depravity were the working forces behind these laws
and decrees. At the end of the rst book Eusebius gives a ash back to the
fate of the persecutors Galerius and Maximinus Daia in order to emphasize
how Licinius had not learned anything from his evil predecessors, his mind
had been blacked out by a moonless night. In II.1-2 Eusebius returns to
Licinius campaigns against the Christians. His plans to launch a general
persecution forced God to anticipate the event and lit a great lantern in
the darkness (II.2.3) and got his servant Constantine to react.
In II.3.1 Constantine is again the main character, and Eusebius connects
the narrative of his wars against Licinius with the preceding passage, intro-
duced in I.49, by saying that the emperor regarded the report of the events
in the east (thn tvn ei rhmenvn a kohn) as intolerable. Following the narrative
134
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

The Portrait of Licinius in Eusebius
pattern with which he had introduced this new phase in the relationship be-
tween the two Augusti, Eusebius gives us a report of Constantine s delibera-
tions in this serious situation: he thought (ton svfrona sunagei logismon)
about the serious consequences of a war did not react at once. With these
considerations in mind (taut e nnohsaw) the Emperor unhesitatingly deter-
mined to extend his hand (dejian o regein ... v rmato) to save those who had
reached extremes of misery (II.3.2). He then began his preparations, military
and ideological (II.4.1), for a war against the evil emperor of the east to stop
his planned persecution of the Christians.
In his narrative of these wars Eusebius merges the rst military conicts
between the two emperors (the bellum Cibalense) with the wars of 324, but
in the main follows the chronological sequence of the events. He also con-
trasts the actions and pagan ideology of Licinius with Constantines reactions
and Christian way of nding a peaceful solution to these conicts between
paganism and Christianity: Constantine prayed in his tabernacle, Licinius
sacriced to pagan gods and used magic as his support, Constantine let his
labarum precede his army, Licinius statues of gods. Licinius was treacherous,
Constantine faithful.
Rhetoric and the portrait of an evil emperor
So in the VC Eusebius could portray Licinius in a much more coherent way
than in book X of the HE. He is depicted from the beginning as an evil tyrant
full of hatred towards the Christians. Eusebius is here using the same pattern
as when speaking about Maxentius, who had never persecuted the Church,
or about Maximinus Daia who at rst tried to follow the edict of tolerance.
His method is a little more sophisticated, however, because Licinius is al-
ways put in contrast to Constantine. So the encomiastic picture of the good
Constantine is the positive counterpart of the portrait of the evil Licinius.
The whole composition is antithetic, as when Eusebius in I.49.1 said that the
Roman empire was split in two regions, one realm of light and one of dark-
ness. Eusebius even claims that Licinius consciously acted contrary to his pi-
ous and trustful father in law, I.51.2: While the one promoted peace and
concord by assembling the priests of God in obedience to the divine law,
the other schemed to disable what was good and tried to shatter harmonious
concord. The same antithesis also forms the disposition of I.52: Constantine
preferred to have a Christian clergy at court, Licinius because of that drove
all the godly men from the imperial court into exile.
When making Licinius in every respect the counterpart of the pious
Constantine, Eusebius, esp. in the VC, is following a clear-cut literary pat-
tern. Constantine was a legitimate ruler as he had imperial blood in his veins;
he was powerful, pious, and Godfearing. As a ruler he was generous, mer-
135
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

Hugo Montgomery
ciful, and when utterly provoked even his anger (II.17) was well-founded.
This picture suits the panegyrical tendency that characterizes the whole work,
where the way of depicting the main character corresponds with the rules
for writing encomia in pagan and Christian rhetorical manuals.
12
Licinius
place in this comparison with the good emperor seems deplorable. He did
not have any family connections with the imperial house berfore marrying
Constantines sister. His legitimacy was not thus convincing, nor did he have
political resources by himself, as his brother in law gave him the sovereignty
of the east. His moral defects were innumerable, he was ungrateful, deceit-
ful, greedy, cruel, indecent, interested in magic and highly involved in pagan
cults and beliefs. His way of death was also disgracing. Much help on how
to depict such a moral monster was to be found in the panegyric handbooks,
as laudatio and vituperatio were the two Janus-faces of the epideictic genre.
Already according to Aristotle the denunciation was the counterpart of the
praise. The topoi emphasized in an epainos and a psogos were genos, descent,
paideia, education, trofh, mode of life, prajeis, acts, yanatos, way of death,
points Eusebius did not forget in his description of Licinius personality and
lifestyle.
13
These rhetorical precepts were studied in handbooks, but they were also
practised at an early stage in the education of an orator. Included in the
primary education were progymnasmata, exercises where the students had to
balance praise and blame.
14
By following model speeches and treatises rheto-
rician trainees became accustomed to writing exercises in which they rst
praised and then blamed the same person. It was easy to describe a person
when having such rhetorical patterns at ones disposal. So the shift from praise
to blame was not a difcult one for Eusebius, it was part of his rhetorical
education. Most of the preserved progymnasmata of the panegyric genre con-
cern praise. In Aphtonius rhetorical treatise, however, Philip II of Macedonia
is denounced for his evil acts, his barbaric descent and undisciplined way of
life.
15
In early Christian literature, Tertullianus portrait of Marcion is inu-
enced by such vituperatio, the polemic rhetorical genre. Marcions barbaric
descent from the darkest and most uncivilized corner of Asia Minor was
136
12

Cicero, Partitiones oratoriae 69-82, with a summary 82. For the Christian way of demon-
strating the virtues of the main person in a vita see e.g. Delehaye 1966, 141-147 with many
references to Menander Rhetor and Theon.
13

Alexander Rhetor, in Spengel 1856, 2.
14

For this part of rhetorical education in the Roman Empire see Bonner 1977, 264-265. For
the influence of the genus demonstrativum on the VC see the discussion in Cameron 1997,
163-169 and 1999, 27-33. For the officia of this genre of laus and vituperatio, see Lausberg 1990,
56, 131-138.
15

Spengel 1854, 40-42.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

The Portrait of Licinius in Eusebius
16

Tertullianus portrait of Marcion, Adversus Marcionem I. 3-6; Marcions audacia, I.19.5, II.
17.1. For this vituperatio, see the introduction to Adversus Marcionem by Braun 1990, 60-61.
Johannes Chrysostomos follows the same pattern in an early treatise, Kelly 1995, 20-21.
17

For the audience of the VC, see Cameron 1999, 33.
18

For the ecclesiastical politics behind Eusebius treatise Contra Marcellum, see Barnes 1981,
264-265 and 1989, 15. Eusebius controversies with Athanasius were intense during the last
part of his life (Drake 1988, 32-33).
hereby emphasized, and behind his heresy lurked his moral deciencies, es-
pecially his audacia, his audicity.
16
Eusebius did not share Plinys hesitation about the expediency of writing
modern history, neither when updating the HE nor when writing an enthu-
siastic picture of the victories of the good Christian ruler in the VC. There
was no risk that the losing part could attack him. Could he get enough gratia
from his work? When denigrating Licinius he also gave more honour to the
victorious ruler and his family, so that he would get credit from his narra-
tive of Constantines rise to power over the whole Roman empire.
17
His ac-
count in the VC of the doctrinal disputes in the church after these wars was
much more dangerous and in this eld he did not reap much honour from
his orthodox opponents. Here Eusebius himself was one of the actors and
many questioned his choice of theological partners.
18
Bibliography
Barnes, T.D. 1973: Lactantius and Constantine, Journal of Roman Studies 63, 29-46.
Barnes, T.D. 1980: The editions of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, GRBS 21, 191-201.
Barnes, T.D. 1981: Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge Mass, London 1981.
Barnes, T.D. 1989: Panegyric, history and hagiography in Eusebius Life of Constantine,
in: R. Williams, The making of orthodoxy. Essays in honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge,
94-123.
Barnes, T.D. 1994: The two drafts of Eusebius life of Constantine, in T.D. Barnes, From
Eusebius to Augustine, Aldershot 1994, XII.
Bonner, S.F. 1977: Education in Ancient Rome. From the elder Cato to the younger Cato, London.
Braun, R. 1990: Tertullien Contre Marcion, Tome I (Sources chrtiennes 365), Paris.
Bruun, P. 1953: The Constantinian coinage at Arelate, Finska fornminnesfreningens tidskrift
57, Helsingfors.
Burgess, R.W. 1997: The dates and editions of Eusebius Chronici Canones and Historia
Ecclesiastica, JThS NS 48, 471- 504.
Cameron, A. 1983: Eusebius of Caesarea and the rethinking of history, in E. Gabba (ed.),
Tria Corda. Scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano, Como 1983, 71-88.
Cameron, A. 1991: Christianity and the rhetoric of empire. The development of Christian dis-
course, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford 1991.
Cameron, A. 1997: Eusebius Vita Constantini and the construction of Constantine, in M.J.
137
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2

Edwards & S. Swain, Portraits. Biographical representation in the Greek and Latin literature
of the Roman empire, Oxford 1997, 145-174.
Cameron, A. & Hall, S.G. 1999: Eusebius. The Life of Constantine. Introduction, translation
and commentary, Oxford.
Christensen, T. 1980: Runus of Aquileia and the Historia Ecclesiastica, Lib. VII-IX, of
Eusebius, Studia Theologica 34, 129-152.
Corcoran, S. 1993: Hidden from history: The legislation of Licinius, in: Harris, J. & Wood,
I., The Theodosian code, London.
Creed, J.L. 1984: Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, Oxford.
DiMaio, M., Zeuge, J., Bethune, J. 1990: The Proelium Cibalense et Proelium Campi Ardiensis:
The rst civil war of Constantine I and Licinius I, AncW 21, 67-91.
Delehaye, H. 1966: Les passions des martyrs et les genres littraires, 2
nd
ed., Brussels.
Drake, H.D. 1988: What Eusebius knew: The Genesis of the Vita Constantini, Cl Phil 83,
1988, 20-38.
Grnewald, Th. 1990: Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der Zeit-
genssigen berlieferung (Historia, Einzelschriften 64), Stuttgart.
Hall, S.G. 1993a: The use of earlier Eusebian material in the Vita Constantini, I.57-59, Studia
Patristica 24, 1993, 96-101.
Hall, S.G. 1993b: Eusebian and other sources in Vita Constantini I, Logos - Festschrift fr
Luise Abramowski, Berlin 1993, 239-263.
Kelly, J.N.D. 1995: Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostomos. Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop,
London.
Laqueur, R. 1929: Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 11), Berlin
& Leipzig.
Lausberg, H. 1990: Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literatur-
wissenschaft, 3. Auage, Stuttgart.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. 1997: Ecclesiastical Historians on their own Times, Studia Patristica
24, 1997, 151-163.
Louth, A. 1990: The date of Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica, JThS NS 41, 111-123.
Momigliano, A. 1964: Pagan and Christian historiography in the fourth century A.D., in
A. Momigliano (ed), The conict between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century,
Oxford 1964, 79-99.
Momigliano, A. 1987: Ancient biography and the study of religion in the Roman Empire,
in: A. Momigliano, On Pagans, Jews and Christians, Middletown.
Montgomery, H. 1965: Gedanke und Tat, Zur Erzhlungstechnik bei Herodot, Thukydides,
Xenophon und Arrian, Lund 1965.
Montgomery, H. 1998: Conversion as literature. Eusebius on Constantines vision in the
Vita Constantini, Classica Cracoviensia IV, 107-114.
Schwartz, E. 1903-1909: Eusebius, Werke, II:3 (Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller,
IX,3) Leipzig.
Spengel, L. 1854: Rhetores Graeci, II, Leipzig.
Spengel, L. 1856: Rhetores Graeci, III, Leipzig.
Warmington, B.H. 1997: Eusebius of Caesareas versions of Constantines laws in the codes,
Studia Patristica 24, 1997, 201-207.
University of Oslo
Department of Classical and Romance Studies
138
Hugo Montgomery
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

G
u
e
l
p
h
]

a
t

0
6
:
3
4

0
1

J
u
n
e

2
0
1
2