Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

394 14. the family in the late roman world
Though useful in counterbalancing the exaggerated claim that Christianity
systematically uprooted wide sectors of Roman law by virtue of its sheer
independent strength, 6 the interpretations that deny, or significantly minimize,
Christian influence on secular law have a common failing: that of
excessive fragmentation. We observe this in two ways: firstly, the different
issues on which the various emperors acted are analysed separately; secondly,
the family laws are considered in isolation from the whole legislation in
favour of the Christian religion. Such a splintered approach inevitably diminishes
the validity of the overall evidence.
In order to play down the influence of Christianity on imperial legislation,
historians sometimes resort to the argument of coincidence. In other
words, the measures originated from specific needs that had nothing to do
with, and just happened to be compatible with, Christian morals. For
example, it is plausibly argued that the above-mentioned Constantinian
measure abolishing the Augustan penalties on celibacy intended (in perfect
agreement with Christian morality) to rehabilitate the condition of celibates,
widows and divorcees who had not remarried; and also, perhaps, to
encourage bequests in favour of clerics. 7 On the other hand, it is pointed
out that the Augustan legislation had never been popular and had failed to
achieve the intended results; quite the reverse, it had spread the phenomenon
of informers, a problem considered as intolerable above all by the
property-owning classes. According to this argument, therefore,
Constantine was merely taking stock of a de facto situation and his law was
principally aimed at restoring full rights of ownership and putting an end
to the scourge of delation. Eusebius, Constantine’s biographer, friend and
adviser, held a very different opinion. He (as others after him) viewed this
provision as proof of the emperor’s Christian devotion. 8 But Eusebius, it
is objected, at the time of writing the Vita Constantini, would have known
nothing of Constantine’s real intentions in the year 320 and simply gave,
like many modern historians, a religious interpretation to a law that in fact
had quite different motivations. 9 This reading, however, does not account
for the likelihood that Eusebius’ opinion dated to the time of Nicaea,
when, both in the official assemblies and at the various meetings on the
fringe of the council, Constantine had ample opportunity not only to tell
the bishops about his Christian feelings but also to inform them of how
such feelings had been officially and formally implemented. Even if (for
the sake of argument) at the moment of repealing the Augustan laws, by a
strange form of dissociation, the emperor had managed not to feel the
6 As is well known, the key historical work representing this position is Biondi (1952–4).
7 See in particular Humbert (1972) 360–73 and bibliography.
8 Eus. Vita Constantini iv.26.2–4; see also Soz. HE i.9.3–4; Cass. Hist. Tr. i.9.
9 Recently, Evans Grubbs (1995) 123ff. Spagnuolo Vigorita (1984) does not deny Christian influence
but attributes more importance to the aspects of tax policy.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008