Eusebios. Über das Leben des glückseligen Kaisers Konstantin (De vita Constantini)

Happily for the “Constantine Year” 2006, Paul Dräger [D.] has produced a new German translation of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, the first in almost a century.¹ D.’s translation is a remarkable achievement, the product of scrupulous attention to the language of the original and a refined sense for the nuances of Eusebius’ prose. It is a felicitous inaugural volume for the new Utopica series, “Bibliotheca Classicorum,” and will be a valuable aid for both students and scholars of Eusebius and Constantine.

The book is arranged as follows: Greek text and facing translation stand first after a brief foreword, followed by commentary, introduction, indices, and bibliography. The text is adapted from the standard edition of Winkelmann² with departures from it (generally, corrections or restoration of MS readings) indicated in a chart at the head of the commentary (p. 307f.).

D.’s is a demanding, but rewarding translation. D. strives to translate Eusebius’s (and Constantine’s) Greek as faithfully as possible within the rules of the German language. D. painstakingly conveys not only the sense of the original, but also reproduces its phraseology, stylistic figures, and even syntax in German. The translation is meticulously accurate; the prose entirely Eusebian.

Such fidelity to both style and sense necessarily leads to some sacrifice of clarity in the target language. The style of D.’s translation thus has much in common with that of A.J. Woodman’s recent translation of Tacitus’ Annals.³ A reader familiar with Greek, though not at home with Eusebius’ style, will find the translation an indispensable tool for understanding and appreciating the virtuosity of the original. A reader with no knowledge of Greek may find D.’s translation a bewildering journey into a foreign world.

D. briefly discusses his translation principles at the end of the Einführung (pp. 394-96) and refers the reader to his translation of Apollonios of Rhodes for fuller discussion.⁴ A remark in a footnote (n. 27, p. 386) perhaps captures best how D. sees his task: “… ein begnadeter Stilist wie Eusebios will zu Bewertung und Verständnis Wort für Wort gelesen, übersetzt, kommentiert und möglichst auch griechisch geschrieben sein.” An excerpt will show D.’s principles in practice. The following is D.’s translation of the famous report of the vision of the cross and the appearance of Christ to Constantine in a dream (VC 1.28.2-29.):

Um die Stunden der Mittagssonne herum, als sich der Tag schon neigte, habe er mit eigenen Augen, behauptete er, am Himmel selbst, über der Sonne befindlich, ein Wendemal eines Kreuzes, aus Licht bestehend, gesehen, und mit ihm eine Schrift verbunden, die besagte: ‘Durch dieses siege!’ Staunen über den Anblick habe sich sowohl seiner als auch des ganze[n] Heeres bemächtigt, das ihm nun, als er irgendwohin einen Marsch unternahm, folgte und Augenzeuge des Wunders wurde. Und er sagte, er sei nun mit sich ratlos gewesen, was das eigentlich für eine Erscheinung sei. Als er sich das zu Gemüte führte und viel überlegte, kam die Nacht herauf und überfiel ihn. Da nun sei von ihm im Schlafe der Christus Gottes mit dem am Himmel erschienenen Zeichen gesehen worden und habe ihn aufgefordert, eine Nachahmung des am Himmel gesehenen Zeichens zu bilden und diese gegen die Zusammenstöße mit den Kriegsgegnern als Abwehr zu gebrauchen.

D. has preserved the very order of the clauses of the first sentence and begins the next sentence with “Staunen” just as Eusebius sets θάμβος emphatically in front. κρατῆσαι is felicitously rendered with “sich bemächtigen,” preserving the sense of the overwhelming power of the vision, and the structure of the entire sentence likewise faithfully follows the original. The, at first glance, unremarkable participle ἐνθυμουμένῳ suddenly indicates the depth of Constantine’s reflection when translated with the phrase “als er sich das zu Gemüte führte”: Constantine does not merely “think about” the vision, but he “lays it to heart.” In other words, with “Gemüte” D. has brought out θυμός inherent in the Greek word. The unlikely phrase “Zusammenstöße mit den Kriegsgegnern” is τὰς τῶν πολεμίων συμβολάς exactly.

The translation abounds with such minor revelations, for instance the novelty “Wendemal” in the passage above. Etymologically, the word must mean a “turning mark” or “monument.” It is none other than τρόπαιον. Why not “Siegesmal” or “Siegesdenkmal”? D. explains (note on 1.6): “Sieges-Mal (vermieden wegen νίκη etc. ‘Sieg’; ‘Wende-Zeichen’ wegen σημεῖον), das dort errichtet wurde, wo sich die Feinde zur Flucht ‘wandten’ (z.B. 2.10.2 εἰς φυγὴν ἐτράποντο) bzw. ‘gewendet wurden’ ( τρόπαιον < τρέπομαι).” While the translation “Wendemal” may at first glance seem pedantic, it permits D. to avoid redundancies that would result from the juxtaposition of τρόπαιον and derivatives of νίκη, as at 1.37.1, where νικητικὸν τρόπαιον appears, easily translated as “Sieges-Wendemal.” D.’s commentary reliably furnishes the casual reader with the information necessary to understanding such deliberate novelties in German. However, a reader beginning in the middle of the book will often have to leaf through the commentary to find an explanation given earlier.

D. uses pointed brackets <> in the translation to mark supplements to the Greek, normally words that are understood in the Greek but do not appear in it, and parentheses () to aid the identification of persons, most often to indicate the antecedents of pronouns in Eusebius’ long, hypotactic sentences. D. also occasionally uses parentheses to supply additional information that requires no further commentary. For instance, at 3.6.1: “eine hervorstechende Stadt, nach dem Sieg ( nike) benannt: beim Volk der Bithynier Nikäa.” D.’s uses of italics to render the lengthy antithesis between Constantine and the “tyrants” at 3.1 also deserves note: ” Die überhäuften sie mit Ehrentzug – ” der aber machte sie geehrt und für alle nacheifernswert.”

A few other happy translations will help to convey the manner of the translation:

1.16.1. μόνῳ δ’ ἄρα Κωνσταντίῳ σοφία τις εὐσεβοῦς ὑπειῄει λογισμοῦ, καὶ πρᾶγμα πράττει παράδοξον μὲν ἀκοῦσαι πρᾶξαι δὲ θαυμασιώτατον :

“Allein den Konstantios nun überkam eine Weisheit frommer Überlegung, und er tut eine Tat, zwar unerwartet zu hören, zu tun aber höchst wunderbar.” (D. always retains the historical present.)

1.33.2. θᾶττον γοῦν τὴν ψυχὴν θανατῶσαι ἢ τὸ σῶμα αὐτῷ παρεχώρουν ἐπὶ φθορὰν αὗται :

“Denn schneller überließen ihm diese ihr Leben zur Tötung als ihren Körper zur Schändung.” Here the translation improves on the original.

2.71.1. ὑμῶν φιλονεικούντων : “…während Ihr untereinander gern…streitet.”

4.48. Note the wordplay in Greek and German: ὅτι δὴ κἀν τῷ παρόντι βίῳ τῆς κατὰ πάντων αὐτοκρατορικῆς βασιλείας ἠξιωμένος εἴη κἀν τῷ μέλλοντι συμβασιλεύειν μέλλοι τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ :

“… weil er sowohl im gegenwärtigen Leben doch des unabhängig herrschenden Kaisertums über alle gewürdigt worden sei als auch im zukünftigen mit dem Sohn Gottes zusammen zukünftig Kaiser sei.”

While, as stated above, D. is overall a model of accuracy, there are, nonetheless, a small number of minor errors, which I list for convenience:⁵

Keph. 2.44: τοὺς ἄρχοντας translated as “die Beamten,” but the author of the kephalaia has summarized only the first part of 2.44, concerning governors, and ignored the rest, containing other magistrates. Translate: “die Statthalter.”

Keph. 2.46: the position of “durch die Provinzial-Statthalter” suggests that only the building of new churches was facilitated by them, not the restoration of the old. This phrase needs to be moved after “so daß sie”: “so daß sie durch die Provinzial-Statthalter sowohl die alten wiederherstellten als auch größere bauten.”

Keph. 4.50: Ἰνδῶν πρεσβεία καὶ δῶρα translated as “Gesandtschaft der Inder und Geschenke,” but both embassy and gifts belong to the Indians.

1.7.2: ἀφειδῶς ἔθνη καὶ πόλεις ὅλας ἡβηδὸν ἐξανδραποδιζόμενος. D. translates, “… indem er schonungslos ganze Völker und Städte jeglichen Alters versklavte.” The position of “jeglichen Alters” in the German suggests that Cyrus enslaved cities (or peoples and cities) of every age. In the Greek, ἡβηδόν is more closely connected to the reference to people inherent in the participle ἐξανδραποδιζόμενος. A different expression is necessary to bring out that the entire populace of the cities was enslaved indiscriminately (perhaps “unterschiedslos versklavte”).

1.50.1: D. translates Πόλεμον … ἄσπονδον … αἴρεται as “Er nimmt also, ohne ihn zu erklären, Krieg…auf.” Eusebius more probably refers however to an “implacable” war, that is, one interrupted by no truce (cf. LSJ s.v. ἄσπονδος II.2), even if Licinius plots in secret.

2.2.2. D. translates ἤδη δέ τινες καινοτέραν ὑπέμεινον τοῦ βίου τελευτήν as “Und schon mußten sich einige einem neueren Lebensende unterziehen.” The translation “neueren” is semantically correct but potentially confusing. Eusebius clearly means “unusual,” for he goes on to describe the unusually grisly deaths of some Christians.

2.26.2. In describing the defeats of the persecutors, Eusebius writes πᾶσα δὲ τούτων πολέμων παράταξις εἰς αἰσχίστην ἔληξεν ἧτταν. D. translates “und die ganze Taktik dieser Kriege endete in schändlichster Niederlage.” Eusebius must mean with πᾶσα παράταξις, not their entire strategy, but “every battle” (cf. LSJ s.v. I.2.).

3.49.1. Εἶδες δ’ ἂν ἐπὶ μέσον ἀγορῶν κειμέναις κρήναις τὰ τοῦ καλοὺ ποιμένος σύμβολα translated as, “Man hätte an einem Brunnen, der mitten auf Marktplätzen lag, das Bild des guten Hirten sehen können.” Since one fountain cannot occupy the center of several marketplaces, it seems best to retain the plural of the Greek.

4.52.3. τὸ τοὺς συνοίκους ἅπαντας θεοσεβεῖς παραδοῦναι τοῖς παισί. D. translates, “alle Hausangehörigen den Söhnen gottesfürchtig zu übergeben,” but has rendered θεοσεβεῖς as if it were θεοσεβῶς. Eusebius means that Constantine provided his sons with exclusively Christian staffs.

Greek titles of imperial officials deserve special notice. The etymological similarity among ἐπαρχία (province), ἔπαρχος (prefect), and ἐπαρχιώτης (a provincial) work against D.’s otherwise fruitful method of translation and lead to confusion. For instance, in 1.34 D. translates ἀνδρῶν τὴν ἔπαρχον διεπόντων ἐξουσίαν as “die [Männer] … die statthalterliche Macht ausübten.” The reference is not to governors, however, but to the prefects of Rome. Similarly, at 2.44, ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς ἦ νόμος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπερκειμένων τὰς ἡγεμονικὰς ἀρχὰς ἀξιωμάτων, ἐπί τε τῶν ἀνωτάτω καὶ τὴν ἔπαρχον διειληφότων ἐξουσίαν is translated as “Dasselbe Gesetz aber galt für die über den Provinzial-Statthalterschaften liegenden Würden, [und? = τε ] für die höchsten, die die Provinzial-Macht erhalten hatten.” The first administrators are obviously vicarii; the translation here is unproblematic. The “highest men” who hold “provincial power” are the Praetorian Prefects, however. D. cites Barnes’ (correct) identification in his note ad loc. without advising the reader whether it is right or wrong (“Barnes 269 versteht …”).

At 2.46.3, D. translates παρά τε τῶν ἡγεμονευόντων καὶ τῆς ἐπαρχικῆς τάξεως as “von den Statthaltern als auch von der Provinzial-Regierung,” but Eusebius refers to something more specific than the “provincial government.” The “taxis” meant is the officium of the Praetorian Prefects ( ἔπαρχοι). 3.31.2 causes several difficulties: Δρακιλλιανῷ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ φίλῳ, τῷ διέποντι τὰ τῶν λαμπροτάτων ἐπάρχων μέρη, καὶ τῷ τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἄρχοντι is translated as: “sowohl Drakillianos, unserem Freund, der die Rolle der glänzendsten Provinzial-Statthalter ausübt, als auch dem Provinzial-Statthalter der Provinz.” In the note ad loc., D. correctly identifies Dracillianus as a vicarius (the Greek is derived from the common designation agens vicem praefectorum), but the translation “Provinzial-Statthalter” suggests Dracillianus was exercising the power of a governor; this designation becomes particularly confusing when immediately followed by the tautologous-sounding “Provinzial-Statthalter der Provinz,” i.e. the provincial governor himself.

Eusebius’ use of ἄρχων for “governor” also creates some confusion in the translation. At 1.16.1, D. translates τῶν ἐπ’ ἐξουσίας ἀρχόντων as “den mit unbeschränkter Erlaubnis Herrschenden.” This description, however, recalls D.’s usual translation for αὐτοκράτωρ : “unbeschränkter Herrscher,” which in the context (Constantius here orders his subordinates to sacrifice or leave the imperial service) cannot be correct. At 2.45.2 τοῖς κατὰ τόπον ἄρχουσι is translated as “die Beamten an den einzelnen Plätzen.” The governors of the individual provinces, “Statthalter,” are meant here, not vague “officials.”

Lastly on titles, 4.36.3: D. translates ἀπεστάλη δὲ γράμματα παρὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἡμερότητος πρὸς τὸν τῆς διοικήσεως καθολικόν as “Entsandt wurden aber von Unserer Milde Schreiben an den allgemeinen der Diözese (Provinz).” Constantine means the diocesan financial administrator, the rationalis ( ὁ καθολικός). D. again skeptically cites Barnes (“gemäß Barnes…”) for the identification with the rationalis in his note ad loc. The well-intended explanation “(Provinz)” is mistaken, and the equivocation of the rationalis with the (Roman republican) quaestor in the note is anachronistic. D.’s correction of Barnes, note ad 4.1.2, interpreting διασημότατος as clarissimus (with Cameron/Hall; Barnes translates eminentissimus) also seems incorrect: διασημότατος usually means perfectissimus and ἐξοχώτατος eminentissimus (and λαμπρότατος clarissimus).

A few other literal translations of technical terms seem ill-advised, particularly where, as with titles, the meaning of a word has developed beyond its semantic roots ( καθολικός as “allgemeiner ” above would be one example). In 3.60.3, Constantine says he has read ὑπομνήματα. These are simply reports or records of proceedings. The translation “Denkschriften” is here unnecessary and misleading. The constant translation of αὐτοκράτωρ as “unbeschränkter Herrscher” vel sim. likewise obscures the thoroughly conventional nature of the Greek title. If “Kaiser” can under no circumstances be used to translate two words, βασιλεύς and αὐτοκράτωρ, it would be less awkward simply to write imperator. δεισιδαιμονία is indeed sometimes scornfully used against pagans by Christians in the sense “demon-fear” to brand the pagan gods as mere “demons,” but often it merely indicates “superstition” or the stubborn holding to ritual (as often superstitio); in a Christian context, this can become the stubborn defense of abstruse points of doctrine. When Constantine speaks of Christian heretics’ δεισιδαιμονία (e.g., 3.65.3), the translation “Dämonenfurcht” cannot be correct.

It is unfortunate that the reproduction of Eusebius’ syntax sometimes leads to a tiring abundance of subordinate conjunctions and relative pronouns, as in this paragraph-length sentence at 2.22: “Den Völkern aber außerhalb und allen Stämmen dieser schenkte die Großherzigkeit des Kaisers anderes, das durch seine Menge überquoll, weswegen alle Menschen bei uns — da sie das vor Augen sahen, wovon sie früher nur dem Hörsagen nach erfahren hatten, daß es im anderen Teil der Herrschaft der Römer geschehe, und deswegen die glückselig gepriesen hatten, denen es gut ging, wobei sie ein Gebet verrichteten, auch einmal selbst das gleiche genießen zu können – es für berechtigt hielten, sich schon selbst glücklich zu preisen, indem sie zugestanden, daß der so große Kaiser als eine fremdartige Sache, von der die gesamte Ewigkeit noch niemals unter den Strahlen der Sonne erzählt habe, dem sterblichen Geschlecht erglänzt sei.” 3.47.3 offers another, briefer example: “Deswegen ist von uns aus dem, was sich auf die Erinnerung an ihn bezieht, auch dies mit Recht aufgenommen worden, worin er, indem er seine Mutter wegen des Übermaßes an Frömmigkeit ehrte, die göttlichen Satzungen erfüllte, die das Schickliche hinsichtlich der Ehre der Eltern anordnen.” The frequent use of the conjunction “indem” to render Greek participles (paired with “worin” in the example just cited) also seemed tedious. It would have been possible to introduce some sentence breaks without doing harm to Eusebius’ train of thought.

The commentary strives to illuminate, as D. himself writes, “alles Erklärungsbedürftige” (396). Within its given limits, the commentary succeeds marvelously. D. consistently provides the reader with the essential information on various historical personalities, dates and events, places and buildings, and other realia. For example, D. explains the use of wax in painting in his note ad 1.3.2 and provides the reader with cross-references to two further passages in the VC in which Eusebius uses similar terminology. The comments on both these later passages refer the reader helpfully back to the first. D.’s explanation of γνώρισμα and its connection to ancient drama, note to 3.30.1, is of the same vein.

Most impressive is D.’s sensitivity to Eusebius’ style. All students of Eusebius, as well as of ancient rhetoric and prose style, might benefit from D.’s careful attention to the nuances of Eusebius’ Greek. Often, D.’s comments clarify what effect he is attempting to recreate in the translation. At 1.27.3, D. translates, “…diejenigen, die auf eine Mehrzahl von Göttern gesetzt hatten, auch auf mehrere Unglücksfälle getroffen waren.” His note ad loc. brings out the etymological wordplay: “Mehrzahl ( πλήθει) von Göttern / mehrere ( πλείοσιν) Unglücksfälle.” Some of D.’s concise technical explanations may lead casual readers to seek out a good glossary of rhetorical terms: e.g., on 4.29.5, ” Dies … dies … für dies : Die polyptotische Anapher des asyndetischen Trikolons hämmert das Gesagte gleichsam ein.”

D. also helps the reader grasp the point of literary topoi and allusions used by Eusebius. For example, in the note on 1.7.1, D. explains the traditional background of the comparison of Constantine and Cyrus; and in the note on 1.7.2, D. reveals for the reader the pointed contrast between the rival successors of Alexander and the harmonious sons of Constantine.

The notes also offer numerous corrections of previous translators, most frequently of Cameron/Hall.⁶ Such references are of course valuable when they serve to justify a divergent translation. For example, D. explains ad 1.39.1 that he has translated μετ’ ἐπινικίων as “Siegesjubel” and not as “Triumph” because Constantine had defeated, not barbarians, but Roman citizens. Cameron/Hall (among others) translate incorrectly “in triumph.” Many remarks, however, seem gratuitous and needlessly harsh.⁷

The Einführung is divided into five sections: 1.) Eusebius’ life; 2.) Eusebius’ works; 3.) Eusebius and Constantine; 4.) the Vita Constantini; and 5.) on the text, translation, and commentary.

Section 1 (367f.), appropriately, gives a concise account of what is known of Eusebius’ life. Section 2 (368-71) gives the reader a convenient list of Eusebius’ works, arranged thematically, briefly commented and provided with references to relevant passages in the VC. In section 3 (371-74), D. takes up the question of the depth of Eusebius’ and Constantine’s acquaintance. D. covers both certain and speculative encounters between the two, rightly concluding with Barnes:⁸ “Von einem besonderen Nah- oder gar Beraterverhältnis kann also keine Rede sein” (373).

Section 4 of the Einführung, on the VC itself, is by far the most extensive (374-93), divided into five subsections. Of these, the first two represent important contributions to the appreciation of Eusebius’ compositional technique. Subsection 4.1 presents an “Inhaltsübersicht” of the entire VC. Much more than a mere summary of the contents of the VC, it illustrates in outline form the thematic structure of the entire work. D. sees in the whole a “wohlüberlegte Komposition” (379), which he convincingly illustrates in subsection 4.2. Additional space is devoted to specimens of ring composition in the VC. In particular, D. brilliantly analyses the striking parallelism of the passages of the VC on Constantine’s father in the first book and mother in the third (380-82). D. thereby elaborates a compelling alternative to the theory of the incomplete composition or unfinished revision of the VC proposed by Pasquali in 1910 and still common today.⁹ Also of note in this section, D. plausibly argues that, in contradiction with the historical record, Eusebius apparently believed that Constantius’ death and Constantine’s accession to power took place in Gaul, most likely at Trier: D. can cite a number of passages that suggest that Eusebius believed Constantine left to conquer Britain immediately after the death of Constantius (in Gaul).

Subsection 4.3 (384-86) discusses the literary genre of the VC. D. approaches the question by cataloging Eusebius’ own references to the work. D. finds it best to describe the VC not as a biography, but as a description of Constantine’s “life in accord with God,” which, as D. astutely notes, the composer of the kephalaia perceived immediately, titling his work κεφάλαια τοῦ κατὰ θεὸν βίου τοῦ μακαρίου Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως. D. moreover stresses that strict definitions of genre were foreign to Eusebius; it is equally possible to call the VC a biography with encomiastic/panegyrical traits or an encomium/panegyric with biographical/historical traits, and so on (386).

D. discusses the documents in the VC in subsection 4.4 (387-91), with brief comments on their formal type, their distribution throughout the VC, as well as their (undoubted) authenticity. D. rejects the hypothesis that the documents were added later to an originally document-free version; he also holds the identification of “doublets” (e.g. 2.20-21 and 2.30-42, a description of the contents of Constantine’s edict to the eastern provincials and the edict itself) as misconceived. The last subsection, 4.5, illustrates the distinguishing characteristics of the author of the kephalaia and the usefulness of the information they provide (in particular, proper names avoided by Eusebius for stylistic reasons).

Lastly, in section 5 (393-96) D. discusses his text, translation, and commentary, which have been treated above.

Two indices and a bibliography conclude the book. The first lists quotes and allusions to the Bible, ancient authors, law codes and other works by Eusebius. The second is an extremely user-friendly index of names: D. distinguishes references to the kephalaia with a K (in bold type). References to persons not named by Eusebius are given in parentheses. The bibliography is concise and practical. D. naturally gives the texts and translations he has made use of or consulted. He also provides the reader with a brief list of recent or influential scholarly works on Constantine, as well as of the dictionaries and handbooks referred to in the commentary.

D.’s translation is an outstanding philological achievement. Not only German students and scholars stand to benefit from it. For English-language scholars, D. offers an often revealing contrast to the now standard translation of Cameron and Hall. The translation will indeed be an invaluable reference for those working with the original Greek. As for the Greekless, we may hope that the translation’s uncompromising, defamiliarizing nature will bring readers directly into the world and thoughts of Eusebius. In a classroom setting, some preparatory material might smooth the transition. We may hope that the experience of what seems a so genuine expression of the original in D.’s translation will spur readers on to meet Eusebius —and Constantine— on their own terms.

Addendum by Klaus Geus, Utopica Verlag (Aug. 2, 2007)

Some of the errors mentioned by Professor Dillon have already been corrected in a second, slightly revised edition (“zweite, durchgesehene Auflage”) of this book, which was published last week (ISBN 978-3-938083-06-2).

Notes

1. The last was that by J.M. Pfättisch, Des Eusebius Pamphili vier Bücher über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin und des Kaisers Konstantin Rede an die Versammlung der Heiligen (Kempten/Munich, 1913).

2. F. Winkelmann, Eusebius Werke 1.1: Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1991).

3. A.J. Woodman, Tacitus, The Annals. Translated with Introduction and Notes. (Indianapolis and Cambridge, 2004). Reviewed in BMCR 2005.07.15.

4. P. Dräger, Apollonios von Rhodos: Die Fahrt der Argonauten. Griechisch/Deutsch. Herausgegeben, übersetzt und kommentiert (Stuttgart, 2002), 587-91.

5. The text and translation each contain a number of typos: — German: 1.28.2: “des ganzes Heeres,” read: ganzen; 1.37.2: “zweite zweite und dritte,” read: zweite und dritte (so correctly in note ad loc.); 1.41.3: “… aber auch aus Gefängnissen und jeder Gefahr und Furcht diejenigen befreite, die unter der tyrannischen Grausamkeit diesem unterworfen gewesen waren.” Read “diesen,” corresponding to the plural in the Greek: τούτοις; 2.69.3: “ohne der Gefahr,” read: “die”; 3.60.9: insert a period between “Ladung” and “Denn”; 4.26.2: “Hinterlassenschft,” read “Hinterlassenschaft”; note ad 1,22,1: “vorherhende,” read “vorhergehende”; note ad 3.4-24: “threee,” read “three”; p. 378: “Disssens,” read “Dissens”; p. 379: “ist…vorgebeugt ist,” delete the second “ist.” — Greek: 1.51.1. ἀπχὴν read: ἀρχὴν; 2.6.2. φάλλαγγος, change the comma to a period; 2.16.2. οἱ δ’ εὐσεβείας, read: ὁ δ’ εὐσεβείας; 2.19.1. κατεσκοσμεῖτο, read: κατεκοσμεῖτο; 2.35.1. ἄλλ’ εἴτε, read: ἀλλ’ εἴτε; 3.1.6. οἴκους, read: οἴκων; 3.1.7. ὑπάρχων, read: ὑπῆρχον; 3.48.2. δεισιδάμοσιν read δεισιδαίμοσιν; 4.72. οἰκουένην, read: οἰκουμένην.

6. A. Cameron and S.G. Hall, trans., Eusebius: Life of Constantine (Oxford, 1999).

7. D. notes, on 1.7.1, “alle Stellenangaben bei Cameron/Hall 188 ad loc. sind falsch”; on 1.7.2 s.v. Liebling ( τὰ παιδικά, meaning Hephaistion), D. reports a “skurriles Mißverständnis” of Cameron/Hall, who translate “his lost childhood”; on 4.29.1: ” in Muße Reden schrieb : Syntax ( σχολῇ) und Vokabular ( λογογραφέω) völlig verkannt von Cameron/Hall (‘without calling upon speechwriters’).” One might note the condescension in the note on 3.20.3, where D. writes, “die ‘Übersetzungen’ (Paraphrasen/Nacherzählungen bei Pfättisch, Tartaglia, Cameron/Hall) sind wegen ihrer Pauschalität wenig hilfreich.” That D. thinks very little of Cameron/Hall is no secret; he describes their translation as “bristling with monstrosities” (“strotzt von Monstrositäten,” p.395). Whatever its deficiencies, though, the not inconsiderable space in the commentary devoted to their (and others’) errors might have been more profitably used, for the translation speaks for itself.

8. T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge and London, 1981), 265f.

9. G. Pasquali, “Die Composition der Vita Constantini des Eusebius,” Hermes 45 (1910), 369-86; further references given by D. p. 377 n. 12.