Editing Constantine the Great (section)

== Sources ==
Constantine was a ruler of major importance and has always been a controversial figure.{{sfn|Barnes|1981|p=272}} The fluctuations in his reputation reflect the nature of the ancient sources for his reign. These are abundant and detailed, but they have been strongly influenced by the official propaganda of the period and are often one-sided.{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1pp=2–3, 14, 23–25|2a1=Southern|2y=2001|2p=169|3a1=Cameron|3y=2005|3pp=90–91}} No contemporaneous histories or biographies dealing with his life and rule have survived; the nearest alternative is [[Eusebius]]'s ''[[Life of Constantine|Vita Constantini]]'', which offers a mixture of [[eulogy]] and [[hagiography]]{{sfn|Barnes|1981|pp=265–68}} written between 335 and 339{{sfn|Drake|1988}} to extol Constantine's moral and religious virtues.<ref>Eusebius, ''Vita Constantini'' 1.11; cited in {{harvnb|Odahl|2001|p=3}}</ref> The ''Vita'' creates a contentiously positive image of Constantine,{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1p=5|2a1=Storch|2y=1971}} and modern historians have frequently challenged its reliability.{{sfnm|1a1=Barnes|1y=1981|1pp=265–71|2a1=Cameron|2y=2005|2pp=90–92|3a1=Elliott|3y=1996|3pp=162–71}} The fullest secular life of Constantine is the anonymous ''[[Anonymus Valesianus|Origo Constantini]]'', a work of uncertain date which focuses on military and political events to the neglect of cultural and religious matters.{{sfnm|1a1=Lieu|1a2=Montserrat|1y=1996|1pp=39–40|2a1=Odahl|2y=2001|2p=3|3a1=Lenski et al.|3p=26}}

[[Lactantius]]' ''[[De mortibus persecutorum]]'', a political Christian pamphlet on the reigns of [[Diocletian]] and the [[Tetrarchy]], provides valuable but tendentious detail on Constantine's predecessors and early life.{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1pp=14–32|2a1=Odahl|2y=2001|2pp=6–14}}{{sfnm|1a1=Barnes|1y=1981|1pp=12–14|2a1=MacKay|2y=1999|2p=207}} The [[ecclesiastical]] histories of [[Socrates of Constantinople|Socrates]], [[Sozomen]], and [[Theodoret]] describe the ecclesiastic disputes of Constantine's later reign. Written during the reign of [[Theodosius II]] (r. 402–450), a century after Constantine's reign, these ecclesiastical historians obscure the events and theologies of the Constantinian period through misdirection, misrepresentation, and deliberate obscurity.{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1pp=14–32|2a1=Odahl|2y=2001|2pp=6–14}}{{sfnm|1a1=Barnes|1y=1981|1pp=12–14|2a1=MacKay|2y=1999|2p=207}}{{sfn|Barnes|1981|p=225}} The contemporary writings of the orthodox Christian [[Athanasius of Alexandria]] and the ecclesiastical history of the Arian [[Philostorgius]] also survive, though their biases are no less firm.{{sfn|Odahl|2001|pp=6, 10}}

The [[epitome]]s of [[Aurelius Victor]] (''De Caesaribus''), [[Eutropius (historian)|Eutropius]] (''Breviarium''), [[Festus (historian)|Festus]] (''Breviarium''), and the anonymous author of the ''[[Epitome de Caesaribus]]'' offer compressed secular political and military histories of the period. Although not Christian, the epitomes paint a favourable image of Constantine but omit reference to Constantine's religious policies.{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1pp=14–32|2a1=Odahl|2y=2001|2pp=6–14}}{{sfnm|1a1=Lieu|1a2=Montserrat|1y=1996|1pp=2–6|2a1=Warmington|2y=1999|2pp=166–67}} The ''[[Panegyrici Latini]]'', a collection of [[panegyric]]s from the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, provides valuable information on the politics and ideology of the tetrarchic period and the early life of Constantine.{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1pp=14–32|2a1=Odahl|2y=2001|2pp=6–14}}{{sfn|Wienand|2012|pp=26–86}} In addition, contemporary architecture—such as the [[Arch of Constantine]] in Rome and palaces in [[Gamzigrad]] and [[Córdoba, Spain|Córdoba]]{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1pp=20–21, 288–91|2a1=Odahl|2y=2001|2pp=8–11}}—[[Epigraphy|epigraphic]] remains, and the [[coin]]age of the era complement the literary sources.{{sfnm|1a1=Lenski et al.|1pp=14–32|2a1=Odahl|2y=2001|2pp=6–14}}{{sfn|Wienand|2012|pp=26–86}}