Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

the instructions of a greater (and Divine) power than it would be if that first authority
only had obligations to itself. 112
Of course, Constantine was only able to write in these terms because of the
utter failure of the clerics to come to an agreement. The failure of the clerics would
necessitate, or enable him, to take a commanding role in the controversy and to
exercise authority in an area from which hitherto he had been excluded. This,
together with the personal responsibility he felt himself to be under, created the
conditions and atmosphere in which he could, and indeed should, if all else failed, end
the status quo of toleration and introduce persecution. As such, and in purely political
terms, it was almost in his interests that the Bishops should fail in their attempts to
secure unity.
However, an extreme interpretation of this would, of course, reduce
Constantine's role to that of an insignificant civil servant; a mere cog with little
inherent value in a mindless machine. Naturally this would not be a situation best
favoured by the emperor. Therefore Constantine continued to display a personal
interest (and therefore exhibit a personal liability) in the dispute as indicated by a letter
he wrote to the Proconsul of Africa, Probianus after Aelian had acquitted Felix and
sometime in the summer of 315. 113 In this fairly short letter, Constantine took up just
over half of it listing the witnesses to the trial of Felix and in narrating its proceedings.
The only purpose of this must have been to demonstrate Constantine's detailed
knowledge of, and therefore interest in, the case; it cannot have been for Probianus’
practical benefit as he would have had direct access to the provincial archives or would
have been briefed on such recent proceedings by his local officials. During the trial,
112 Edward’s (2004b) 230, speaks of: a “profession of servitude [which] did not diminish, but rather
elevated, his authority.” Although Edwards is here referring to Constantine's appreciation of the role of
the logos in his ideological programme, rather than the Donatists, his phrase is nevertheless still
applicable.
113 Petronius Probianus 3 PLRE 1.733-4; Barnes (1982) 101, 170, 243. The letter is preserved by
Augustine in both Contra Cresconium 3.70.81 (PL 43.540) and in Ep. 88.4 (PL 33.304-305); Corcoran
(2000) 22 n79, 278 n73, 306, 321 n25, dates it to May or June; Maier (1987) 189-192 dates it to the end of
June to July 315; English translation in Stevenson (rev. Frend) (1987) 308
80