Historical texts are often respected for their informational objectivity whereas art is revered for its visual and philosophical subjectivity. In respect to both historical texts and artistic vision one must be able to differentiate what is perceived and what is accurate. Eusebius’ Life of Constantine is a biography depicting the rule of the late Roman emperor Constantine, exercises offered by Peter Jenny’s The Artist’s Eye uses art as an exploratory aide to decipher a more profound meaning to the text than what meets the untrained eye. When comparing Jenny’s exercise of Constellations in Chapter 7 to Eusebius’ biography there must be a connection between the two texts, an understanding of the biography in its intended form, and an analysis
…show more content…
It is clear from the reading that under the reign of the previous emperor, citizens were both mentally and physically tortured with their well-being in total disregard (1:35). Eusebius painted an image of a constant fear of persecution that lingered on the minds of society under a tyrannical ruler until divine intervention occurred and God gave Constantine to Rome as a savior, much like that of Jesus to humanity (1:38:4). Constantine is repeatedly portrayed as a humble man, taking no credit for his victories by giving the glory all to the Christian god and restoring a sense of equal justice to the empire (1:39:1). The information in this biography might all be true, but to simply accept what is written as fact would be to take the information at face value; in other words, to not question the article would leave it as such, there was never, and will never be a ruler as great as Constantine. For example, Eusebius states, “By these he was safely hedged about to the end as he lived his life, pleased at the loyalty of his subjects, and pleased also that he saw all those under him passing their lives in contentment and utterly overjoyed at the happiness of the churches of God” (1:47:4). While it is clear that Eusebius was in strong support of Constantine’s reign, this can be considered a ‘non-constellated’ view of the text, or in other words …show more content…
To create a parallel between the chapter seven exercise, one should consider this text as the sky and Eusebius’ writing as the stars, connecting the dots in an analytical yet imaginative way. With numerous respected rulers prior to Constantine being portrayed as unequivocally evil, a logical interpretation of the writing is clearly the frequent reference of religion with indisputable favoritism to Rome’s first Christian Emperor (1:33:1). The text is more concerned with the Christian leader chosen by God than the emperor himself; Eusebius relentlessly mentions the Christian Lord, which leads one to connect the stars (so-to-speak) that this is religious propaganda more so than a historically accurate biography. For example, the belief that the Christian God chose Constantine to rule Rome, won all of his battles, saved the city, saved the people, helped the poor, wed widows etc., was almost certainly information that Eusebius drastically embellished in order to suit his agenda of manipulating society to trust in and conform to such an infallible religion (1:24/ 1:34/ 1:38:2/ 1:41:1/ 1:43:1). Constant correlation between Constantine’s victories and God seem almost forced, leaving an unbiased opinion to be able to connect the dots laid out in the
It is clear from the reading that under the reign of the previous emperor, citizens were both mentally and physically tortured with their well-being in total disregard (1:35). Eusebius painted an image of a constant fear of persecution that lingered on the minds of society under a tyrannical ruler until divine intervention occurred and God gave Constantine to Rome as a savior, much like that of Jesus to humanity (1:38:4). Constantine is repeatedly portrayed as a humble man, taking no credit for his victories by giving the glory all to the Christian god and restoring a sense of equal justice to the empire (1:39:1). The information in this biography might all be true, but to simply accept what is written as fact would be to take the information at face value; in other words, to not question the article would leave it as such, there was never, and will never be a ruler as great as Constantine. For example, Eusebius states, “By these he was safely hedged about to the end as he lived his life, pleased at the loyalty of his subjects, and pleased also that he saw all those under him passing their lives in contentment and utterly overjoyed at the happiness of the churches of God” (1:47:4). While it is clear that Eusebius was in strong support of Constantine’s reign, this can be considered a ‘non-constellated’ view of the text, or in other words …show more content…
To create a parallel between the chapter seven exercise, one should consider this text as the sky and Eusebius’ writing as the stars, connecting the dots in an analytical yet imaginative way. With numerous respected rulers prior to Constantine being portrayed as unequivocally evil, a logical interpretation of the writing is clearly the frequent reference of religion with indisputable favoritism to Rome’s first Christian Emperor (1:33:1). The text is more concerned with the Christian leader chosen by God than the emperor himself; Eusebius relentlessly mentions the Christian Lord, which leads one to connect the stars (so-to-speak) that this is religious propaganda more so than a historically accurate biography. For example, the belief that the Christian God chose Constantine to rule Rome, won all of his battles, saved the city, saved the people, helped the poor, wed widows etc., was almost certainly information that Eusebius drastically embellished in order to suit his agenda of manipulating society to trust in and conform to such an infallible religion (1:24/ 1:34/ 1:38:2/ 1:41:1/ 1:43:1). Constant correlation between Constantine’s victories and God seem almost forced, leaving an unbiased opinion to be able to connect the dots laid out in the