Alexander and most of his opponents, but had the disadvantage of not being a
biblical term. Nevertheless, the council fathers accepted the word, even Eusebius
of Caesarea, who had to change his position and was forced to explain this to his
parishioners at length (Theodoretus, Historia ecclesiastica1.12). In the end, only
two opponents remained, and they were exiled, as was Arius. Other decrees of the
Council of Nicaea concerned the date of Easter and canonical questions.
The council did not find general acceptance at first, and many other councils, partly
of regional and partly of more general importance, followed; before long Arius was
rehabilitated. In several towns adherents of Alexander and Arius (or rather of
Eusebius of Nicomedia) fought against each other. Soon, Athanasius, who had suc-
ceeded Alexander in 328, rose to the center of the conflict. Charges against him
were discussed in various councils and brought before the emperor. Formally, they did
not regard dogmatic questions, charging him with murder and other criminal offenses.
After long debate Athanasius was exiled to Trier; the rows went on. Constantine’s
attempts to unify Christianity had failed. Possibly an anti-heretical law which for-
bade the assemblies of certain heretic groups, such as Novatians and Montanists, which
were rejected by Athanasians and Arians alike was an attempt to bring those groups
together by drawing attention to common enemies (Eus. V. Const.3.64).
Although Constantine was willing to lend his support to Christianity, he did not
fight against paganism directly, with the possible exception of a short period after
his victory over Licinius. At that time he seems to have published a general ban on
sacrifices (Euse. V. Const.2.45.1, historicity in dispute), which was soon abolished
(Eus. V. Const.2.56). Nevertheless, paganism was affected by several measures, which
were not necessarily anti-pagan in their intent. Temple possessions were confiscated,
allegedly to embellish Constantinople (Lib. Or.30.37). Certain apparently immoral
practices were forbidden, as for example temple prostitution – but customs of this
kind had also been criticized by pagans. Even the interdiction on haruspicinain
private houses (CTh9.16.1–2) is not necessarily to be interpreted as a specifically
Christian measure, because private divination had always posed a serious threat to
Roman emperors. Public haruspicinawere expressly allowed and even requested when
public buildings were struck by lightning (CTh16.10.1). A special case is the destruc-
tion of a pagan temple in Mamre, which was also a holy place for Christians (Eus.
V. Const.3.52–3).
Apart from this, traditional practices were not obstructed by the authorities. The
emperor remained pontifex maximusand the cult of the emperor persisted; pagan
symbols continued to be used in official representation. A famous inscription from
Hispellum documents an imperial letter which even allows the building of a new
temple for the emperor and his family, on condition that no superstitious acts (prob-
ably a hint at sacrifices) be performed (CIL11.5256 =ILS705).
It was still a time of co-existence. Officially, the emperor praised tolerance in itself,
but he must also have been driven by political reasons. Paganism and Christianity
were strong and the emperor needed support from both spheres, not least because
many members of the administrative elite still harbored pagan sympathies.
In his last days, Constantine was baptized, demonstrating his adherence to the
Christian god. This may show personal conviction, but it is unclear whether he had
106 Hartmut Leppin