Personally, I tend to believe that the border between paganism and
Christianity was extremely fuzzy in the late 3rd and early 4th
century; too fuzzy to really say what Constantius Chlorus and Helena
believed in. I don't have the printed sources ready I used for other
purposes some time ago, but I remember some interesting details:
- It was not uncommon that Roman citizens of Christian belief
nevertheless held symbolic positions as pagan priests connected with
their position in a municipality or their office.
- Even in the 5th century, Christian Roman Emperors were still
officially proclaimed gods by the Senate as part of their
inauguration. No one, not even the Church, obviously found it
problematic that the head of a Christian state had "deus" in the list
of his titles.
- The idea of clearly separating religions from each other was still
new, even for Christians. The Romans, as all peoples of the
Hellenistic world, had no problem worshipping dieties from other
religions than the one they usually practised. One could be a follower
of some imported oriental diety and simultaneously worship the Olympic
gods, and hardly anyone found this remarkable. Constantine the Great,
for example, paid respect to the Christian god (though he was baptized
only shortly before his death, if at all), but also to the official
Roman gods and to Sol Invictus. He held the office of the Chief Priest
and had praises and thanks to the pagan gods included on the monuments
erected upon his order. All this without remorse, as I could imagine.
Maybe Flavius Valerius Constantius Chlorus went to church from time to
time, listened to what the Christian priests had to say and found it
interesting and evident. That could explain why he did not carry out
anti-Christian orders. But being a Roman, he just added his occasional
tribute to the new god to his repertoire of dieties. At least, I could
imagine this.
Regarding Constantine's mother Helena: Whether she was Christian or
not at the time Constantine grew up is almost impossible to determine.
Some argue that the fact that Constantius Chlorus did not marry her
(which is not totally clear), though their relationship was enduring,
would be proof for her Christian belief - an aspiring officer would
not have ruined his career by marrying a Christian woman, while
keeping her as a concubine was acceptable. However, there were also
other reasons for not marrying Helena. Important persons married for
important reasons only, for political or financial gain, but not for
love. Constantius Chlorus (and surely Helena, too) knew that for his
future ambitions it was better to not marry a low-class woman, in
order to stay an interesting potential groom for a woman form an
influential family. He could always marry such a woman and keep Helena
as his "real" partner (and his wife would most likely do something
similar). So the relationship between Constantine's father and mother
does not prove anything.
Just my thoughts...
Scriptor |