Eusebius and Empire: Constructing Church and Rome in the Ecclesiastical History

James Corke-Webster. Eusebius and Empire: Constructing Church and Rome in the Ecclesiastical History. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019.

Eusebius lived in a precarious moment in Christian history. Between the persecutions of Valerian (259 CE) and Diocletian (303), a whole generation of Christians like Eusebius were born and lived under the assumption that Christian Romans had equal rights to the same privileges granted others. According to Lactantius, it was not the Christians’ conspicuous absences from society but rather their disruptive presence — at the auguries in Diocletian’s court — which first incited that emperor to violence against them (On the Deaths of the Persecutors X). At the same time, Eusebius’ earliest memories would have been as a subject of Palmyra, not Rome itself, and Constantine would have been only the latest in a succession of ostensible unifiers of the Roman Empire. There was still an urgency to the Christian elite’s embrace of Constantine: with no guarantees on the length of the Emperor’s life or promises that his successors would be equally favorable, they needed to take advantage of any opportunity to influence the course of imperial history in their favor.

For this reason, we should read Eusebius’ Church History from the perspective of the provincial elites of the Eastern Mediterranean who, according to James Corke-Webster, are its ultimate audience. Throughout the History, events are organized, edited, or invented to promote Christians’ unique affinities for Roman imperial service. Similarly, Eusebius promoted a vision of Christianity which claimed continuity and was tailored to appeal to the literate intellectuals that Eusebius considered his peers. Corke-Webster argues that the History reflects Eusebius’ particular socio-political circumstances during the first quarter of the fourth century.

In Part I, Corke-Webster re-introduces Eusebius and lays out the evidence for his reading of the History. Approaching Eusebius’ most popular work requires a proper understanding of its author: he was, certainly, a prolific writer and scholar in the Caesarian-Alexandrian tradition, and the probable inheritor of the library which began with the manuscripts Origen had brought within him from Alexandria. But Eusebius was not the ecclesiastical leader that his portrayal in some histories would suggest. He wrote from the periphery of the Empire (p. 52) and his history in ecclesiastical politics suggests he was a bishop whose positions were acquired by his associations with others rather than by the force of his own personality or intellect (pp. 21-24).

While these details of Eusebius’ life are significant, more important for Corke-Webster’s argument is the nature of the audience the Caesarian bishop was trying to reach with his History. Corke-Webster underscores numerous factors that conditioned the audiences for Christian texts: the multiplicity and fluidity of social identities; the economic and labor necessities of book production; and the open-ended nature of book production in the ancient world (pp. 63-65). We should read Eusebius’ statements about his audience and the History’s dedication to Paulinius, a Christian bishop within this larger context. Eusebius’ peers were wealthy clerics whose political and social identities were oriented towards Rome, and Eusebius designs the History to address their specific assemblage of identities – not a vague, otherwise-undefined “Christian” audience.

Part II addresses four types of “characters” who inhabit the History and how Eusebius reworks them to appeal to his audience: intellectuals, ascetics, families, and martyrs. While the presence of all of these subjects in the History seem pertinent to recount the first few centuries of Christianity, Corke-Webster shows how Eusebius reframes these figures to construct Christians as most suitable inheritors of Roman power. Eusebius establishes the “charismatic intellectual” model of church leader inherited from the Alexandrian tradition as the default definition of a Christian leader (p. 120). Justin, Clement, Origen, Dionysius and others are depicted not only as intelligent or charismatic but also as prolific writers of treatises and letters. Eusebius embeds their letters into his narrative wherever he can and gives frequent lists of known works. In the History, the Christian intellectual defines both what it means to be a Christian leader and the content of “Christianity” itself.

Eusebius does not – or cannot – construct a history of Christianity without addressing three modes of living possibly distasteful to his audience (and perhaps himself): extreme ascetics, those who renounced traditional family relationships, and martyrs. In each case, Corke-Webster shows how Eusebius constructs historical episodes to depict such figures as embodying traditional Roman values. For example, even Origen can be criticized for “terrifying” and “grieving” the people around him by his extreme poverty and disregard for his health (pp. 127-128). Eusebius’ portrayals of healthy Christian ascetics resemble those of the philosophers. According to his account, ascetics were guided by a principle of moderation appealing to Roman elites, but their lifestyle was an exception, restricted to elite Christians and specific communities (pp. 147-148). Likewise, the History emphasizes the concern of Origen’s mother for maintaining the family unit and his father’s desire to temper his son’s zeal (pp. 152-155). Corke-Webster even proposes that Eusebius describes Origen’s mother’s intervention in her son’s pursuit of martyrdom to suggest parallels with the mother of the martyrs in 4 Maccabees, a text Origen alludes to in Exhortation to Martyrdom (pp. 161-165).

While Eusebius could ignore texts inimical to ideals of familial piety such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, he would or could not eschew martyr accounts. Corke-Webster argues forcefully that Eusebius does not extol the martyr as a model for ideal Christian living. There is evidence that Eusebius was able to flee from potential prosecution during the “Great Persecution” (pp. 20-21) and he sides with clerics like Cyprian who had to assert their spiritual authority in abstentia against challenges from those who had withstood prison and threats of martyrdom (pp. 198-200). Employing similar strategies as outlined above, Eusebius casts martyrs as upholding Roman virtues and links them to the tradition of self-controlled self-killing found in Greek and Roman sources. As a result, Eusebius “mut[es]” the martyrs by leaving out their debates with Roman judges (pp. 210-211).

In Part III Corke-Webster focuses on how the History constructs the “Church” as a monolithic institution and its relationship to the institutionalized power of Rome. Eusebius portrays a church institution that has allowed an open exchange of letters and the intellectual-charismatic succession of bishops from its beginning (pp. 247-248). In contrast, he also appropriates the Roman tradition of excoriating “bad” emperors, blaming these figures exclusively for the persecution of Christians rather than the Roman state (pp. 257-271).

In his Conclusion, Corke-Webster follows Eusebius’ lead by ending his account with Constantine. From Corke-Webster’s perspective, Constantine’s ascension to sole rulership of Rome formed a natural — if unintended — capstone to Eusebius’ project. From the work’s beginning, Eusebius had intended to show how Christians were not only capable of Roman ruler but were even superior to other claimants (pp. 290-291). Eusebius – not Constantine – establishes this historical moment as pivotal for Christian history. Eusebius emphasizes the advent of a Christian emperor who acts as a patron to the orthodox, but the historian contextualizes this shift by showing the fittingness of this ascent. Eusebius and Empire is an ambitious book, impressive in its scope and coverage.

While the level of detail and number of specific digressions may prevent this text from being an introduction to the History for newcomers, it could serve as a fruitful “re-introduction” for scholars who have been using the History as a sourcebook instead of a primary source in its own right. The text likewise tends to value original contributions over long reviews of the history of research — this work is not meant to serve as another footnote in a literature review, but a comprehensive reorientation to Eusebius’ landmark work and its significance for early Christian literature.

Ben Sheppard (bdshepp@live.unc.edu) is a PhD student in Ancient Mediterranean Religions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.