Full download test bank at ebook testbankmall.

com

Test Bank for Essentials of Nursing Leadership

& Management, 2nd Edition: Patricia Kelly

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-essentials-
of-nursing-leadership-management-2nd-edition-patricia-kelly/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download More ebooks from https://testbankmall.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Test Bank for Nursing Leadership & Management, 3rd

Edition, Patricia Kelly

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-nursing-
leadership-management-3rd-edition-patricia-kelly/

Test Bank for Nursing Leadership and Management, 2nd

Canadian Edition : Kelly

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-nursing-
leadership-and-management-2nd-canadian-edition-kelly/

Nursing Leadership and Management Kelly 3rd Edition

Test Bank

https://testbankmall.com/product/nursing-leadership-and-
management-kelly-3rd-edition-test-bank/

Test Bank for Essentials of Nursing Leadership &

Management 7th by Weiss

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-essentials-of-
nursing-leadership-management-7th-by-weiss/
Test Bank for Essentials of Nursing Leadership and
Management, 5 Edition : Diane K. Whitehead

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-essentials-of-
nursing-leadership-and-management-5-edition-diane-k-whitehead/

Test Bank Essentials Nursing Leadership Management 6th

Edition Weiss Tappen

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-essentials-nursing-
leadership-management-6th-edition-weiss-tappen/

Test Bank for Essentials of Business Statistics, 2nd

Edition, Sanjiv Jaggia, Alison Kelly

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-essentials-of-
business-statistics-2nd-edition-sanjiv-jaggia-alison-kelly/

Test Bank for Essentials of Nursing Leadership and

Management, 7th Edition, Sally A. Weiss, Ruth M. Tappen
Karen Grimley

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-essentials-of-
nursing-leadership-and-management-7th-edition-sally-a-weiss-ruth-
m-tappen-karen-grimley/

Test Bank for Nursing Health Assessment, 2nd Edition:

Patricia Dillon

https://testbankmall.com/product/test-bank-for-nursing-health-
assessment-2nd-edition-patricia-dillon/
 The two-factor theory of motivation includes motivation and maintenance factors. Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs includes the following needs: physiological, safety, security, belonging, and self-
actualization. In theory X, employees prefer security, direction, and minimal responsibility. In theory
Y, employees enjoy their work, show self-control and discipline, are able to contribute creatively, and
are motivated by ties to the group, organization, and to the work itself. The focus of theory Z is based
on collective decision-making and long-term employment that involves slower promotions and less
direct supervision.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Motivation

4. Leadership that is based upon occupying a position in an organization is called:

a. informal leadership
b. formal leadership
c. leadership
d. management
ANS: B
Formal leadership is based upon occupying a particular position in an organization. Informal
leadership is shown by an individual who demonstrates leadership behavior outside of a formal
leadership role or as a member of a group. Leadership itself is a process of influence whereby the
leader influences others toward goal achievement. Management is a process to achieve organizational
goals.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Leadership

5. Bennis and Nanus (1985) identified three fundamental qualities that effective leaders share. These
three qualities are;
a. guided vision, passion, and integrity
b. knowledge of self, honesty, and maturity
c. intelligence, self-confidence, and determination
d. honesty, self-awareness, and sociability
ANS: A
Bennis and Nanus (1985) have stated that guided vision, passion, and integrity are fundamental
qualities of effective leaders. Knowledge of self, honesty and maturity; self-confidence and
determination; self-awareness and sociability are also desirable characteristics in leaders, but are not
part of the group of qualities identified by Bennis and Nanus.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Leadership Characteristics

6. Kirkpatrick and Locke identified six traits that separate leaders from non-leaders. These traits are:
a. respectability, trustworthiness, flexibility, self-confidence, intelligence, and sociability
b. self-confidence, progression of experiences, influence of others, personal life factors,
honesty, and drive
c. intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, sociability, and honesty
d. drive, desire to lead, honesty, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of
business
ANS: D
 Research by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) concluded that leaders posses six traits: drive, desire to
lead, honesty, self-confidence, cognitive ability, and knowledge of business. Wood identified five
dominant factors that influenced leadership development: self-confidence, innate qualities, progression
of experience, influence of significant others, and personal life factors. Stodgill identified the
following traits of a leader: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, sociability. Murphy
and DeBack (1991) identified four characteristics of leaders: caring, respectability, trustworthiness,
and flexibility.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Leadership Characteristics

7. The type of leadership that is participatory and delegates authority to others is called:
a. autocratic
b. democratic
c. laissez-faire
d. employee-centered
ANS: B
Democratic leadership is participatory and authority is delegated to others. Autocratic leadership
involves centralized decision-making with the leader making decisions and using power to command
and control others. Laissez-faire leadership is passive, and permissive and the leader defers decision-
making. Employee-centered leadership focuses on the human needs of subordinates.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Democratic Leadership

8. The leadership theory that considers follower readiness as a factor in determining leadership style is
called:
a. contingency
b. path goal
c. situational
d. charismatic
ANS: C
Situational leadership considers the readiness of the follower as a factor in determining leadership
style. Contingency theory views that pattern of leader behavior as dependent on the interaction of the
personality of the leader and the needs of the situation. In path goal theory, the leader works to
motivate followers and influence goal accomplishment. Charismatic leadership has an inspirational
quality that promotes an emotional connection from followers.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Application TOP: Situational Theory

9. In contingency theory, the feeling and attitudes of followers regarding acceptance, trust, and credibility
of the leader are called:
a. task structure
b. position power
c. low task structure
d. leader-member relations
ANS: D
In contingency theory, leader-member relations are the feelings and attitudes of followers concerning
the acceptance, trust, and credibility of the leader. Task structure of contingency theory means the
degree to which work is defined, with specific procedures, explicit directions, and goals. Low task
structure involves work that is not routine, predictable, or clearly defined. Position power in
contingency theory is the degree of formal authority and influence associated with the leader.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Application

 TOP: Fiedler's Contingency Theory | Task Structure

10. In situational theory, a telling leadership style is considered to be:

a. high task, high relationship behavior
b. high task, low relationship behavior
c. low task, high relationship behavior
d. low task, low relationship behavior
ANS: B
A telling leadership style is high task and low relationship behavior. A high task, high relationship
style is referred to as a selling leadership style. A low task, high relationship style is called a
participating leadership style. A low task and low relationship style is called a delegating leadership
style.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Application TOP: Situational Theory

11. A leader who is committed to a vision that empowers others is called a ________ leader.
a. transformational
b. charismatic
c. transactional
d. autocratic
ANS: A
A transformational leader empowers others. A charismatic leader has an appeal based on personal
power. A transactional leader focuses on day-to-day operations. An autocratic leader has central power
and does not empower others.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Knowledge

TOP: Transformational Leadership Theory

12. A leader who focuses on the day-to-day operations of a unit or department and short-term goals is
considered to be a:
a. transformational leader
b. charismatic leader
c. transactional leader
d. autocratic leader
ANS: C
Transactional leaders tend to focus on day-to-day operations and are short-term goal orientated. A
transformational leader inspires and motivates others to excel and participate in a vision that goes
beyond self-interests. A charismatic leader displays self-confidence and strength in convictions and
communicates high expectations. An autocratic leader makes decisions and uses power to command
and control others.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Application

TOP: Transformational Leadership Theory

13. Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency theory of leadership is based upon three primary factors. Which of the
following is not one of these factors?
a. leader-member relations
b. follower-joiner relations
c. task structure
d. position power
ANS: B
 Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency theory of leadership views leadership effectiveness as dependent upon
the interaction of the leader’s personality and the needs of the situation. These are based upon leader-
member relations (not follower-joiner relations), task structure, and position power.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension

TOP: Fiedler's Contingency Theory

14. Leaders who “commit people to action, convert followers into leaders, and convert leaders into agents
of change” are called:
a. transactional leaders
b. situational leaders
c. charismatic leaders
d. transformational leaders
ANS: D
The leadership description that includes committing people to action, converting followers into
leaders, and converting leaders into agents of change refers to transformational leaders (Bennis and
Nanus, 1985). Transactional leaders are more concerned with the day-to-day operations. Situational
leaders adapt their leadership style according to the situation at hand. Charismatic leaders display self-
confidence and strength in their convictions and tend to lead by using personal power and evoking
emotion in their followers.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Application

TOP: Transformational Leadership Theory

15. The acronym used to identify Gulick and Urwick’s (1937) seven principles associated with
management is:
a. PDQRZ
b. POSDCORB
c. POSCORD
d. POSDCD
ANS: B
Gulick and Urwick’s (1937) seven principles that define the management process are: planning (P),
organizing (O), staffing (S), directing (D), coordinating (CO), reporting (R), and budgeting (B).
Therefore the acronym is: POSDCORB.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Knowledge TOP: The Management Process

16. Mintzberg’s managerial taxonomy includes three categories of managerial roles. Which of the
following is not one of those categories?
a. information processing roles
b. interpersonal roles
c. managing roles
d. decision-making roles
ANS: C
Mintzberg (1973) categorized the roles or behaviors, expectations, and recurring activities that
managers do into a taxonomy or classification system. Mintzberg’s taxonomy of management roles
included the following: 1) information processing roles, 2) interpersonal roles, and 3) decision-making
roles.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Analysis TOP: Management Roles

17. Which of the following is not considered a management decision role?

 a. entrepreneur
b. disturbance handler
c. allocator of resources
d. liaison
ANS: D
Mintzberg’s managerial taxonomy (1973) noted three distinct categories of roles that manager do, one
of which is the decision-making role category. Some examples of decision roles include: entrepreneur,
disturbance handler, allocator of resources, and negotiator. Liaison is considered to be part of the
interpersonal managerial role set.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Management

18. Which of the following is considered to not be one of the content motivation theories?
a. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory
b. Alderfer’s expectancy-relatedness growth theory
c. equity theory
d. McClelland’s manifest needs theory
ANS: C
Motivation theories can be divided into two categories: content motivation theories and process
motivation theories (Lussier, 1999). Content motivation theories include: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
theory, Alderfer’s expectancy-relatedness growth theory, and McClelland’s manifest needs theory and
model of achievement, power, and affiliation. Equity theory is considered to be a process motivation
theory.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Motivation

19. Which of the following motivation theories and models contains: collective decision-making, long-
term employment, use of quality circles, and holistic concern and mentoring?
a. Theory X
b. Theory Y
c. Theory Z
d. McClelland’s model
ANS: C
Ouchi’s (Shortell and Kaluzney, 2006) Theory Z noted the following four qualities: 1) collective
decision-making, 2) long-term employment, 3) use of quality circles, and 4) holistic concern and
mentoring. Theory X includes two primary areas: security (direction and minimal responsibility
emphasis) and coercion (threats and punishment necessary). Theory Y includes: people enjoy work
and are disciplined and creative in getting work done. McClelland’s model includes three primary
areas: achievement, power, and affiliation.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Application TOP: Motivation

20. When leaders work to remove obstacles and barriers while employees have self-control and self-
discipline and are rewarded by their involvement in their work, they are working under which theory?
a. Hierarchy of Needs
b. Two-factor theory
c. Theory Z
d. Theory Y
ANS: D
 Douglas McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y espoused that leaders must remove work obstacles and barriers
while workers have self-discipline and self-control in their work and the reward is the opportunity to
be involved in their work and be creative. Ouchi’s (1981) Theory Z focuses primarily upon collective
decision-making, long-term employment, and a holistic concern. Herzberg’s (1968) Two-factor theory
is based on hygiene maintenance factors such as adequate salary and job security as well as motivation
factors to maintain a satisfied work force. Maslow’s (1970) Hierarchy of Needs is based upon a series
of human needs ranging from physiological to self-actualization to describe human behavior.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Analysis TOP: Motivation

21. Benner’s Model of Novice to Expert (1984) is based on how many levels of experience?
a. five
b. six
c. seven
d. four
ANS: A
Benner’s Model of Novice to Expert (1984) acknowledges that there are certain skills, tasks, and
outcomes that can be associated with differing levels of experience. Benner uses five levels of
experience, which are: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and expert.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Knowledge

TOP: Benner's Model of Novice to Expert

MULTIPLE RESPONSE

1. Which of the following researchers did not coin the phrase: “leaders are people who do the right thing;
managers are people who do things right”?
a. Kotter (1990)
b. Stodgill (1948)
c. McCall (1998)
d. Bennis and Nanus
ANS: A, B, C
Bennis and Nanus (1985) are responsible for the phrase: “leaders are people who do the right thing;
managers are people who do things right.”

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Knowledge

TOP: Leadership and Management

2. Which of the following are considered to be the three major classifications of leadership theories?
a. behavioral
b. contingency
c. motivational
d. contemporary
ANS: A, B, D
Three primary classifications that leadership theories can be broken down into are: behavioral,
contingency, and contemporary.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Knowledge TOP: Leadership Theories

3. Blake and Mouton (1985) in their work on the two dimensions of leadership utilized the managerial
grid. Which of the following are some of their five leadership styles?
 a. leader is passive and defers decision-making
b. impoverished leader for low production concern and low people concern
c. authority compliance leader for high production concern and low people concern
d. team leader for high production concern and high people concern
ANS: B, C, D
Blake and Mouton’s (1985) five leadership styles identified in their managerial grid include: 1)
impoverished leader for low production concern and low people concern, 2) authority compliance
leader for high production concern and low people concern, 3) country club leader for high people
concern and low production concern, 4) middle-of-the-road leaders for moderate concern in both
dimensions, and 5) team leader for high production concern and high people concern. The style of
leadership where the leader is passive and defers decision-making is called the laissez-faire style
(Lewin, 1939).

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Application

TOP: Employee-Centered and Job-Centered Leaders

4. Five basic emotional and social competencies have been associated with emotional intelligence. Which
of the following are some of these competencies?
a. self-awareness
b. self-regulation
c. motivation
d. self-actualization
ANS: A, B, C
The five basic competencies (Goleman, 1998) associated with emotional intelligence are: self-
awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. Self-actualization is not one of these
basic competencies for emotional intelligence.

PTS: 1 OBJ: Cognitive Level: Comprehension TOP: Emotional Intelligence

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPTER XV
CONSTANTINE’S DEATH AND CHARACTER

It seems incontestable that Constantine degenerated as he grew

older. Certainly his popularity tended to decrease. This, however, is
the usual penalty of length of reign, and in itself would not count for
much. But one cannot overlook the cumulative evidence which is to
be found in the authorities of the period. Eusebius himself admits[126]
that unscrupulous men often took advantage of the piety and
generosity of the Emperor, and many of the stories which he tells in
Constantine’s praise prepare us for the charges which were brought
against him by the pagan historians. For example, Eusebius
declares that whenever the Emperor heard a civil appeal, he used to
make up out of his private purse the amount in which the losing party
was mulcted, on the extraordinary principle that both the winner and
the loser ought to leave their sovereign’s presence equally satisfied.
Such a theory would speedily beggar the richest treasury. Aurelius
Victor preserves a popular saying which shews the general
estimation in which Constantine’s memory was held. Men used to
say that for the first ten years of his reign he was a model sovereign
(præstantissimus), for the next twelve he was a brigand (latro), and
for the last ten a spendthrift heir, so called because of his
preposterous extravagance (pupillus ob profusiones immodicas). He
was nicknamed Trachala, the obvious reference of which would be to
his short, thick neck; but Aurelius Victor appears to associate it in
some way with the meaning of “scoffer” (irrisor).
 BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE AT ROME.
FROM “ROME OF TO-DAY AND YESTERDAY,” BY JOHN DENNIE.

In greater detail Zosimus[127] accuses Constantine of wasting the

public money on useless buildings. As a pagan, he would naturally
regard expenditure upon the construction of sumptuous Christian
churches as money thrown away, but it is perfectly certain that the
state of the Imperial resources did not justify the Emperor in
lavishing vast sums upon churches in all parts of the Empire. If we
consider what must have been the capital cost of his churches in
Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Mamre, and Antioch,
—to mention only a few places,—and remember that he was
constantly urging the bishops to keep building and constantly
sending instructions to his vicars to make handsome subsidies out of
the State funds, we cannot but conclude that the grumbling of the
pagan tax payer was thoroughly well justified. Constantine, indeed,
seems to have been as entêté in the matter of building churches as
was in our day the mad King Ludwig of Bavaria in the building of
royal castles. Nor was this the only form in which the passion for
bricks and mortar—il mal di pietra—seized him. He built a new
basilica even in Rome—though he rarely set foot in the city. In
Constantinople he must have sunk millions of unproductive capital,
which were far more urgently required for the development of
agriculture and commerce. In one epigrammatic sentence Zosimus
sums up his indictment by saying that Constantine thought to gain
distinction by lavish outlay.[128] He also wasted the public revenue on
unworthy and useless favourites,[129] whom he taught, in the phrase
of Ammianus Marcellinus, to open their greedy jaws (fauces aperuit).
Zosimus says bluntly that in his opinion it was Constantine who
sowed the seeds of the ruinous waste and destruction that prevailed
when he wrote his history, and he roundly declares that the Emperor
devoted his life to his own selfish pleasures.[130]
There is another character sketch of Constantine which has
survived for us, drawn by an even more bitter enemy than the
historian Zosimus. It is to be found in that amusing and extraordinary
jeu d’esprit which bears the name of The Cæsars, from the pen of
the Emperor Julian. Julian detested the very memory of Constantine
the Great, whom he regarded as the arch-apostate from the ancient
religion, and, thus, when he introduced him into the presence of the
deities of Olympus, it was really to pour ridicule and contempt upon
his pretensions. Julian describes him, at the first mention of his
name, as a man who has seen considerable fighting, but has
become soft through self-indulgence and luxury.[131] The deities of
heaven are represented as sitting in conclave, while the deified
Emperors approach to join in their councils. Julian runs over the list
of the great Emperors, introducing them one by one and making
each sit by the side of the god whom he most resembles in
character. But when Constantine’s turn comes, it is found that he has
no such archetype. No god will own him as his protégé or pupil, and
so, after some hesitation, Constantine runs up to the Goddess of
Luxury (Τρύφη), who embraces him as her own darling, dresses him
up in fine clothes, and, when she has made him smart, hands him
over to her sister, the Goddess of Extravagance (Ἀσώτια). The irony
was bitter, and the shaft sped home.
The ascetic Julian does not spare his august relative, whose title
to the epithet of “Great” he would have laughed to scorn. He
declares that Constantine’s victories over the barbarians were
victories pour rire; he represents him as a crazy being in love with
the moon, like that half-witted Emperor of the Claudian house, who
used to stand at night in the colonnades of his palace and beg the
gracious Queen of the Sky to come down to him as she had come
down to Endymion. Julian puts into his mouth a grotesque speech in
which he makes Constantine claim to have been a greater general
than Alexander because he fought with Romans, Germans, and
Scythians and not with mere Asiatics; greater than Julius Cæsar or
than Augustus because he fought not with bad men but with good;
and greater even than Trajan, because it is a finer thing to win back
what you have lost than merely to acquire something new. The
speech was received with ridicule by the gods, and then Hermes
pointedly asked Constantine in the Socratic manner, “How would you
define your ideal?” (τὶ καλὸν ἐνόμισας;) “To have great riches,” was
Constantine’s reply, “and to be able to give away lavishly, and satisfy
all one’s own desires and those of one’s friends.” The answer is
significant. Julian, like Constantine’s other critics, keeps harping on
the same string. It is the luxury, extravagance, and self-indulgence of
the Emperor that he singles out as the most glaring defect of his
character and his squandering of the Imperial resources upon
effeminate and un-Roman pomps, useless buildings, and greedy and
unworthy favourites. Silenus, the bibulous buffoon of Olympus, a
moral rebuke from whose lips would be received with shouts of
laughter, tells Constantine with mock gravity that he has led a life fit
only for a cook or a lady’s-maid (ὀψοποίος καὶ κομμώτρια), and so
the episode ends. We cannot doubt that there was quite sufficient of
truth in these accusations to make the sharp-witted Greeks of the
Empire, for whom Julian principally wrote, thoroughly enjoy his biting
sarcasms.
But we must be careful not to push too far any argument based
upon this lampoon of Julian or upon the obvious bias of Zosimus.
They disclose to us, undoubtedly, the least worthy side of
Constantine’s character, viz., a tendency to effeminacy and luxury,
and it is morally certain that no one who had given way to his worst
passions, as Constantine had done in Rome in the year 326, could
ever be quite the same man again. He had on his conscience the
assassination of his son and wife. These were but two out of a
terribly long list of victims, which included his father-in-law,
Maximian; his brother-in-law, Licinius, and Licinius’s young son,
Licinianus; another brother-in-law, the Cæsar Bassus; and many
more besides. Some fell for reasons of State—“it is only the winner,”
as Marcus Antonius had said three centuries before, “who sees
length of days”—but there was also the memory, even in the case of
some of these, of broken promises and ill-kept faith. Constantine’s
Christianity was not of the kind which permeates a man’s every
action and influences his entire life; or, if that be claimed for him, it
must at least be admitted that there were periods in his career when
he suffered most desperate lapses from grace.
On the whole perhaps the general statement of Eutropius, which
we have already quoted, that Constantine degenerated somewhat
(aliquantum mutavit) as he grew older, fairly meets the case. It is
worth while, indeed, to quote the reasoned estimate which this
excellent epitomist gives of the Emperor’s character. He says[132]:

“At the opening of his reign Constantine was a man who

challenged comparison with the best of Princes; at its close he
merited comparison with those of average merit and demerit. Both
mentally and physically his good points were beyond computation
and conspicuous to all. He was passionately set on winning military
glory; and in his campaigns good fortune attended him, though not
more than his zealous industry deserved.... He was devoted to the
arts of peace and to the humanities, and he sought to win from all
men their sincere affection by his generosity and his tractability,
never losing an opportunity of enriching his friends and adding to
their dignity.”

This estimate agrees in its main particulars with that of Aurelius

Victor, who, after speaking of his wonderful good luck in war (mira
bellorum felicitate) and his avidity for praise, eulogises his
exceptional versatility (commodissimus rebus multis), his zeal for
literature and the arts, and the patient ear which he was always
ready to lend to any provincial deputation or complaint.
 We have spoken of a marked degeneracy observable in
Constantine as his life drew to a close. Perhaps the clearest proof of
this is to be found in a momentous step taken by him in 335, when
he divided the sovereignty of the world among his heirs. Such a
partition meant the stultification of his political career, for he thus
destroyed at a blow the political unity which he had so laboriously
restored out of the wreck of the system of Diocletian.
Eusebius gives us the truth in a single sentence when he says that
Constantine treated the Empire for the purposes of this division as
though he were apportioning his private patrimony among members
of his own family.[133] He was much more concerned to make
handsome provision for his sons and nephews than to secure the
peace and well-being of his subjects. Crispus had now been dead
nine years, and the three sons of Constantine and Fausta were still
young, the eldest being only just twenty-one. Eusebius tells us how
carefully they had been trained. They had been instructed in all
martial exercises, and special professors had been engaged to make
them proficient in political affairs and a knowledge of the laws. Their
religious education had been personally supervised by their father,
who zealously sowed “the seeds of godly reverence” and impressed
upon them that “a knowledge of God, who is the king of all things,
and true piety were more deserving of honour than riches or even
than sovereignty itself.” Admirable precepts and Eusebius declares
again and again that this “Trinity of Princes”—so he calls them in one
place—were models of deportment, modesty, and piety.
Unfortunately, we know how emphatically their future careers belied
their early promise and the eulogies of the Bishop of Cæsarea. We
do not doubt his statement that Constantine spared no effort to
educate them aright, but it was most unfortunate that the remarkable
success of their father’s political career bore testimony rather to the
efficacy of ambition without scruple than of “godly reverence and true
piety.”
In this new partition of the Empire the Cæsarship of the West,
including Gaul, Britain, and Spain, fell to Constantine, the eldest of
the three princes. To the second, Constantius, were assigned the
rich provinces of the East, including the seaboard provinces of Asia
Minor, together with Syria and Egypt. Constans, the youngest,
received as his share Italy, Illyria, and Africa. But there was still a
goodly heritage left over, sufficient to make a handsome dowry for a
favourite daughter. This was Constantina, eldest of the three
daughters of Constantine and Fausta, and she had been married to
her half-cousin, Annibalianus, whose father had been the second
son of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora. To support worthily the
dignity of his new position as son-in-law of Constantine, the new title
of Nobilissimus was created in his honour, and a kingdom was made
for him out of the provinces of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Lesser
Armenia. Gibbon expresses surprise that Annibalianus, “of the whole
series of Roman Princes in any age of the Empire,” should have
been the only one to bear the name of Rex, and says that he can
scarcely admit its accuracy even on the joint authority of Imperial
medals and contemporary writers. The explanation is surely to be
found in the fact that Pontus, Cappadocia, and Lesser Armenia had
for centuries been accustomed to be ruled by a king and that, in
creating a new kingdom, Constantine simply retained the title which
would be most familiar to the subjects over whom Annibalianus was
to rule. Annibalianus was himself a second son: his elder brother,
Dalmatius, was raised to the full title of Cæsar and given command
over the important provinces of Thrace and Macedonia, with Greece
thrown in as a make-weight. The position was a very important one,
for it fell to the Cæsar of Thrace to guard the frontier chiefly
threatened by the Goths, and we may suppose, therefore, with some
probability that Dalmatius—who had been consul in 333—had given
proof of military talent.
But to what extent, we may ask, was this a real partition? In what
sense were the Cæsars independent of Constantine himself?
Eusebius expressly tells us[134] that each was provided with a
complete establishment—βασιλικὴ παρασκευὴ,—with a court, that is
to say, which was in every respect a miniature copy of the court at
Constantinople. Each had his own legions, bodyguards, and
auxiliaries, with their due complement of officers chosen, we are told,
by the Emperor for their knowledge of war and for their loyalty to
their chiefs. It is hardly to be supposed that Constantine
contemplated retirement: had he done so, he would have retired at
the Tricennalia which he celebrated in the following year. In all
probability, he did not intend that his supreme power should be one
whit abated, though he was content to delegate his administrative
authority to others acting under his strict supervision. His Cæsars, in
short, were really viceroys, though it is difficult to understand how
such an arrangement can have worked harmoniously without some
modification of the powers of the four Prætorian præfects. But the
division, as we have said, was not made in the interests of the
Empire but in the interests of the Princes of the Blood, and it was
one which could not possibly endure. As soon as Constantine died
chaos and civil war were bound to ensue, and, as a matter of fact,
did ensue. For there is no evidence that the Emperor made any
arrangement as to who should succeed him on the throne.
Constantinople itself lay in the territory assigned to Dalmatius; yet it
was entirely unreasonable to suppose that the three sons of
Constantine would acquiesce in leaving the capital to the quiet
possession of their cousin. The division of the Empire, therefore, in
335 carried with it the early ripening seeds of civil war, bloodshed,
and anarchy. If the system of Diocletian had proved unworkable,
because it took no account of the natural desire of a son to succeed
his father, the system of Constantine was even worse. It was
absolutely certain that of the five heirs the three sons would combine
against the two cousins, whom they would regard as interlopers, and
that then the three brothers would quarrel among themselves, until
only one was left.
Constantine’s reign was now hastening to its end. In 336 he
celebrated his Tricennalia, and his courtiers would not fail to remind
him that he alone, of all the successors of the great Augustus, had
borne such length of days in his left hand and such glory in his right.
The principal event of the festival seems to have been the dedication
at Jerusalem of the sumptuous Church of the Anastasis on the site
of the Holy Sepulchre. As we have seen in another chapter, the year
was one of acute religious contention, rendered specially memorable
by the awe-inspiring death of Arius, and the Emperor’s last months
of life must have been embittered by the thought that, despite all his
efforts, religious unity within the Church seemed as far as ever from
realisation.
 Eusebius tells us[135] that Constantine sought to find a remedy in
the hot baths of Constantinople for the disorder from which he was
suffering, and then, obtaining no relief, crossed the straits to
Drepanum, or Helenopolis, as it was now called in honour of the
Emperor’s mother. There his malady grew worse and special prayers
were offered for his recovery in the Church of Lucian the Martyr.
But Constantine had a presentiment that the end was near, and he
determined, therefore, that the time had come for him formally to
become a member of the Christian Church and so obtain purification
for the sins which he had committed in life. Falling upon his knees on
the church floor, he confessed his sins, received the laying-on of
hands, and so became a catechumen. Then, travelling down to the
palace which stood on the outskirts of Nicomedia, the now dying
Emperor summoned to his side a number of bishops and made
confession of his faith. He told them that the moment for which he
had thirsted and prayed had come at last, the moment when he
might receive “the seal which confers immortality.” He had hoped, he
said, to be baptised in Jordan: God had willed otherwise and he
bowed to His will. But he assured them that his resolve was not due
to any passing whim. He had fully made up his mind, that even if
recovery were vouchsafed him, he would set before himself such
rules and conduct of life[136] as would be becoming to God.
Eusebius of Nicomedia then performed the rite of baptism.
Constantine, clad in garments of shining white, lay upon a white bed,
and, down to the hour of his death, refused to touch the purple robes
he had worn in life. “Now,” he exclaimed, with all the fervour of a
neophyte, “now I know in very truth that I am blessed; now I have
confidence that I am a partaker of divine light.” When his captains
came to take leave of him and wept at the thought of losing their
chief, he told them that he had the assurance of having been found
worthy of eternal life, and that his only anxiety was to hasten his
journey to God. He wished to die, and the wish was soon granted.
Constantine drew his last breath on May 22d, 337.
They bore the body, enclosed in a golden coffin covered by a
purple pall, from Nicomedia to Constantinople and placed it with
great pomp in the throne room of the palace. There the dead
Emperor lay in state, guarded night and day by the chief officers of
the army and the highest officials of the court. Even in death, says
Eusebius, he still was king, and all the elaborate bowings and
genuflexions with which men had entered his presence in his lifetime
were still observed. Constantine’s illness had declared itself very
suddenly, and had run its course so quickly that not one of his sons
was at hand to take up the reins of administration. It looks too as
though the Emperor had made no preparations with a view to his
demise, but had left his three sons and his two nephews to
determine among themselves who should be supreme. His second
son, Constantius, was the first to arrive at Constantinople, and it was
he who arranged the obsequies of his father. We are told that the
Roman Senate earnestly desired the body of the Emperor to be laid
to rest in the old capital and sent deputations begging that this last
honour should not be denied them. But it had been Constantine’s
express wish to be buried in the Church of the Apostles, at
Constantinople, where he had prepared a splendid sarcophagus,
and there can have been no hesitation as to the choice of a resting-
place. The body was borne with an imposing military pageant to the
Church. Constantius was the chief mourner, but he and his soldiers
quitted the sanctuary before a word of the burial-service was spoken
or a note of music sounded. He was not a baptised Christian and,
therefore, could not be present as the last rites were performed. The
great Emperor was buried by the bishops, priests, and Christian
populace, whose zealous champion he had been and to whose
undying gratitude he had established an overwhelming title. Coins
were struck bearing on one side the figure of the Emperor with his
head closely veiled, and, on the other, representing Constantine
seated in a four-horse chariot, and being drawn up to heaven by a
celestial hand stretched out to him from the clouds. It was a device
which could offend neither Christian nor pagan. To the former it
would recall the triumphant ascent of Elijah; the latter would regard it
as the token of a natural apotheosis. The hand might equally well be
the hand of God or of Jupiter.
THE SUPPOSED SARCOPHAGI OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT
AND THEODOSIUS
THE GREAT.
FROM GROSVENOR’S “CONSTANTINOPLE.”]

Such is the story of the Emperor’s baptism, death, and burial as

recounted by Eusebius. There is, however, one important detail to be
added and one important question to be asked. Constantine was
baptised by an Arian bishop. To the Athanasian party and to the
ecclesiastical historians of succeeding ages this was a lamentable
circumstance which greatly exercised and troubled their minds. It
sorely grieved them to think that their patron Constantine should
have been admitted into the communion of the faithful by the
dangerous heretic who had been the bitterest enemy of their idol,
Athanasius. But with a forbearance to which they were usually
strangers, they agreed to pass over the episode in comparative
silence and remember not the shortcomings but the virtues of the
first Christian Emperor.
It still remains to be asked why Constantine did not formally enter
the Church until he was on his death-bed. There had been no
lukewarmness about his Christianity. He was not one to be afflicted
with doubts. There had never been any danger of his reverting to
paganism. In the last few years, indeed, he had been distracted by
the clamour of Arians and Athanasians, and his was a mind upon
which a clever and acute ecclesiastic, who enjoyed his confidence,
could play at will. When Hosius of Cordova stood by his side he was
the champion of the Catholic party; when Hosius fell from favour and
Eusebius of Nicomedia took his place Constantine strongly inclined
to the Arian side. But in neither case was there any doubt of his
Christianity. Why then did he not become a member of the Church?
Was it because the rite of baptism conferred immediate forgiveness
of sin and therefore a death-bed baptism infallibly opened the gate of
Heaven? By putting off entrance into the Church until the hour had
come after which it was hardly possible to commit sin, did
Constantine count upon making sure of eternal happiness? Such is
the motive assigned by some historians. It certainly is not a lofty one.
Yet the idea may very well have presented itself to Constantine’s
mind and the impression left by Eusebius’s narrative is that
Constantine only determined to receive the rite because he felt his
end to be near and dared not put it off any longer. On the other hand,
Constantine’s statement that his ambition had been to be baptised in
Jordan is rather against this theory. Possibly, too, he was to some
degree influenced by the wish not to alienate entirely the support of
his pagan subjects, especially the more fanatical of them, who would
bitterly resent their Chief Pontiff becoming a baptised member of the
Christian Church. No one can say, but we shall be the better able to
form an opinion if we look a little more closely at the religious life and
policy of Constantine.
Eusebius represents the daily life of the Emperor on its religious
side to have been almost that of a monk or of a saint. Every day, we
are told, he used to retire for private meditation and prayer. He
delighted in delivering sermons and addresses to his courtiers, Bible
in hand. He would begin by exposing the errors of polytheism and by
proving the superstition of the Gentiles to be a mere fraud and cloak
for impiety, and would then expound his theory of the sole
sovereignty of God, the workings of Providence, and the sureness of
the Judgment, invariably concluding with his favourite moral that God
had given to him the sovereignty of the whole world. Such a
discourse could not possibly be short, but Constantine liked his
religious exercises long. He once insisted on standing throughout the
reading of an elaborate disquisition by Eusebius himself, who
evidently tired of the exertion and begged that the Emperor would
not fatigue himself further. But Constantine was resolved to hear it
out, and the courtier Bishop, while profoundly flattered at the
compliment, ruefully admitted that the thesis was very long. Probably
the courtiers found it interminable. But it was their duty to listen,
applaud, and appear duly impressed when, for example, Constantine
traced on the ground the dimensions of a coffin, and solemnly
warned them against covetousness by the reminder that six feet of
earth was the utmost they could hope to enjoy after death, and they
might not even get so much as that if burial were refused them or
they were burnt or lost at sea. No one ever accused Constantine of
covetousness; his failing was reckless extravagance, and we fear he
is to be numbered among those who

“Compound for sins they are inclined to

By damning those they have no mind to.”

Constantine ordered all the bishops throughout the Empire to offer

up daily prayers for him; he had coins struck at the Imperial mints
which depicted him with eyes uplifted to heaven, and he had pictures
of himself—probably in mosaic—set over the gates of his palaces, in
which he was seen standing erect with hands in the attitude of
prayer. For our part we like better the chapters in which Eusebius
describes the Emperor’s open-handed generosity to the poor and
needy and to the orphan and the widow, extols the kind-heartedness
which was carried to such a length as to raise the question whether
such clemency was not excessive, and claims that his most
distinctive and characteristic virtue was the love of his fellow-men,
his φιλανθρώπια, a virtue which the typical Roman rarely developed
to his full capacity.
Constantine’s whole career testified to the zeal with which he had
embraced Christianity. We have seen the enthusiasm with which he
set to work to build churches throughout the Empire. In Rome there
are ascribed to him the Church of Saint Agnes, the Church of St.
John Lateran, and another which stood on part of the site of the
present St. Peter’s. In Constantinople he built the Churches of the
Apostles, St. Eirene, and St. Sophia. In Jerusalem he built the
Church of the Anastasis as the crowning memorial of his thirty years
of reign, and in Antioch, Nicomedia, and a score of other cities his
purse was constantly at the service of the Faith. The building of
churches was a passion with him, and he also took care that they
were provided with the Scriptures. Eusebius[137] gives the text of a
letter written to him by the Emperor ordering fifty copies of the
Scriptures to be executed without delay. Constantine published an
edict commanding that the Lord’s day should be scrupulously
observed and honoured, and that every facility should be given to
Christian soldiers to enable them to attend the services. Even his
pagan soldiers were to keep that day holy by offering up a prayer to
the “King of Heaven,” in which they addressed him as the “Giver of
Victory, their Preserver, Guardian, and Helper.”

“Thee alone we know to be God; Thee alone we recognise as

King; Thee we invoke as Helper; from Thee we have gained our
victories; through Thee we are superior to our enemies. To Thee we
give thanks for the benefits we now enjoy; from Thee we look for our
benefits to come. All of us are Thy suppliants: and we pray that Thou
wilt guard our King Constantine and his pious sons long, long to
reign over us in safety and victory.”

No pagan soldier could be offended at being required to offer this

prayer to the King of Heaven. If he were sincere in his faith he would
hope that it might reach the throne of Jupiter; Constantine evidently
expected that, as it was addressed to the King of Heaven, it would
be intercepted in midcourse and wafted to the throne of God. He was
at any rate determined that no soldier of his, whether pagan or
Christian, should wear on his shield any other sign than that of the
Cross—“the salutary trophy.”
But what was Constantine’s policy towards the old religion? Let us
look first at the explicit statements of Eusebius. He says in one
place[138] that “the doors of idolatry were shut throughout the whole
Roman Empire for both laity and military alike, and every form of
sacrifice was forbidden.” In another passage[139] he says that edicts
were issued “forbidding sacrifice to idols, the mischievous practice of
divination, the putting up of wooden images, the observance of
secret rites, and the pollution of cities by the sanguinary combats of
gladiators.” In a third passage[140] he speaks of Constantine’s having
“utterly destroyed polytheism in all its variety of foolishness.”
Eusebius also tells us that Constantine was careful to choose,
whenever possible, Christian governors for the provinces, while he
forbade those with Hellenistic, i. e., pagan, sympathies to offer
sacrifice. He also ordered that the synodal decrees of bishops
should not be interfered with by the provincial authorities, for, adds
Eusebius, he considered a priest of God to be more entitled to
honour than a judge. The same authority expressly states[141] that
Constantinople was kept perfectly free from idolatry in every shape
and form, and was never polluted with the blood or smoke of
sacrifice, and the general impression which he leaves upon the
reader’s mind is that paganism was proscribed and the practice of
the old religion declared to be a crime.
It is evident, however, that this was not the case. Eusebius, as
usual, supplies the corrective to his own exaggerations. He quotes,
for example, in full the text of an edict which Constantine addressed
to the governors of the East, wherein it is unequivocally laid down
that complete religious freedom is to be the standing rule throughout
the Empire. He beseeches all his subjects to become Christians, but
he will not compel them. “Let no one interfere with his neighbour. Let
each man do what his soul desires.”[142] This edict was issued after
the overthrow of Licinius and is remarkable chiefly for the fervent
profession of Christianity which the Emperor makes in it. “I am most
firmly convinced,” he says, “that I owe to the most High God my
whole soul, my every breath, my most secret and inmost thoughts.”
And then he continues: “Therefore, I have dedicated my soul to
Thee, in pure blend of love and fear.[143] For I truly adore Thy name,
while I reverence Thy power which Thou hast manifested by many
proofs and made my faith the surer.”
But did Constantine maintain this attitude of strict neutrality, only
tempered by ardent prayer that his pagan subjects might be brought
to a knowledge of the truth? In its entirety he certainly did not, and it
was impossible that so zealous a convert should. When the smiles of
Imperial favour were withdrawn from the old religion it was inevitable
that the Imperial arm which protected it should grow slack in its
defence. Yet, throughout his reign Constantine never forgot that the
majority of his subjects were still pagan, despite the hosts of
conversions which followed his own, and he took care not to press
too hardly upon them and not to goad the more fanatical upholders
of the old régime to the recklessness of despair. We have seen how
the Emperor refused to witness the procession of the Knights in
Rome at the time of his Vicennalia. He also forbade his statue or
image to be placed in a pagan temple. But he, nevertheless, retained
through life the office of Pontifex Maximus, and as such continued to
be supreme head of the pagan religion. Nor was it until the time of
Gratian fifty years afterwards that this title—no doubt in deference to
the repeated representations of the bishops—was dropped by the
Christian Emperors. Some historians have expressed surprise that
so enthusiastic a convert to Christianity should have been willing to
remain Chief Pontiff; a few have even been genuinely concerned to
explain and excuse his conduct. But Constantine was statesman as
well as convert. If he had resigned the Chief Pontificate that office
might conceivably have passed into dangerous hands. By holding it
as an absolute sinecure, by never performing its ceremonial duties
or wearing its distinctive robes, Constantine did far more to destroy
its influence than if he had resigned it. Imperial titles, moreover,
sometimes signify very little. Every one knows the gibe of Voltaire at
the Holy Roman Empire which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an
Empire. For centuries after the loss of Calais the lilies of France
were quartered on the Royal arms of Great Britain, and the coins of
our Protestant monarch still bear the F. D. bestowed by the Pope
upon the eighth Henry. The King of Portugal is still Lord of All the
Indies. It is not titles that count but actions. Whether or not
Constantine’s ecclesiastical friends were troubled by his retaining the
title, we may be sure the question never troubled the Emperor
himself, as the title of “Supreme Head of the English Church” is said
to have troubled the scrupulous conscience of James II. after he
became a convert to Rome. But in the latter case the practical
advantages of retention outweighed the shock to consistency in the
eyes of those whom James consulted.
Constantine helped forward the conversion of the Empire with true
statesmanlike caution, desirous above all things to avoid political
disturbance. He abolished outright, we are told, certain of the more
offensive and degraded pagan rites, to which it was possible to take
grave exception on the score of decency and morality. For example,
some Phœnician temples at Heliopolis and Aphaca, where the
worship of Venus was attended with shameless prostitution, were
ordered to be pulled down. The same fate befell a temple of
Æsculapius at Ægææ, and a college of effeminate priests in Egypt,
associated with the worship of the Nile, was disbanded and its
members, according to Eusebius, were all put to death. But these
are the only specific examples of repression instanced by Eusebius,
[144]
and they assuredly do not suggest any general proscription of
paganism. Eusebius is notoriously untrustworthy. He distinctly says
that Constantine determined to purify his new capital of all idolatry,
so that there should not be found within its walls either statue or altar
of any false god. Yet we know that the philosopher Sopater was
present at the ceremony of dedication and that he enjoyed for a time
the high favour of the Emperor, though he was subsequently put to
death on the accusation of the præfect Ablavius, who charged him
with delaying the arrival of the Egyptian corn ships by his magical
arts. We know too that there were temples of Cybele and Fortuna in
the city, and Zosimus expressly declares that the Emperor
constructed a temple and precincts for the Dioscuri, Castor and
Pollux. At Rome the temple of Concord was rebuilt towards the close
of his reign, and inscriptions shew that the consuls of the year still
dedicated without hindrance altars to their favourite deities. The
famous altar of Victory, around which a furious controversy was to
rage in the reign of Valentinian, at the close of the fourth century, still
stood in the Roman Curia, and in the two great centres of Eastern
Christianity, Antioch and Alexandria, the worship of Apollo and
Serapis continued without intermission in their world-renowned
temples.

COPPER DENARIUS OF CONSTANTINE THE

GREAT.
SHOWING THE LABARUM.

DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF CONSTANTIUS II.

WITH THE LABARUM.
 DOUBLE SOLIDUS OF DIOCLETIAN.

SOLIDUS OF MAXIMIAN.

No doubt in districts where the Christians were in a marked

majority and paganism found only lukewarm adherents, there was
occasional violence shewn to the old temples and statues, especially
if the governor happened to be a Christian. Ornaments might be
stolen, treasures ransacked, and probably few questions were
asked. Christianity had been persecuted so long and so savagely
that when the day of revenge came, the temptation was too strong
for human frailty to resist, and as long as there was no serious civil
disturbance the authorities probably made light of the occurrence.
Paganism was a dying creed; where it had to struggle hard to keep
its head above water, the end was not long delayed. The case would
be different where the temples were possessed of great wealth and
where there were powerful priestly corporations to defend their
vested interests. There can be no greater mistake than to suppose
that Constantine declared war on the old religion. He did nothing of
the kind. When he showered favours on the Christian clergy, what he
did in effect was merely to raise them to the same status as that
already enjoyed by the pagan priesthood. He did not take away the
privileges of the colleges: and inscriptions have been found which
tend to shew that, he allowed new colleges to be founded which bore
his name. In short, to the old State-established and State-endowed
religion he added another, that of Christianity, reserving his special
favour for the new but not actively repressing the ancient. He had
hoped to convert the world by his own example; but, though he failed
in this, he never contemplated a resort to violence. His religious
policy, throughout his reign, may fairly be described as one of
toleration. That is what Symmachus meant when he said, half a
century later, that Constantine had belonged to both religions.
There was one exception to this rule. Constantine came down with
a heavy hand on secret divination and the practice of magic and the
black arts. But other Emperors before him had done the same,
Emperors whose loyalty to the Roman religion had never been
questioned—for these mysterious rites formed no part of the
established worship. They might be employed to the harm of the
State; they might portend danger to the Emperor’s life and throne. It
was not for private individuals to experiment with and let loose the
powers of darkness, for, as a rule, beneficent deities had no part or
lot in these dark mysteries. As a Christian, Constantine would have a
double satisfaction in issuing edicts against the wonder-working
charlatans who abounded in the great cities; but the point is that in
attacking them he was not technically attacking the old State religion.
The public and official haruspices were not interfered with; if any
devout pagan still desired to consult an oracle, no obstacle was
placed in his way; and, as a tribute to the universal superstition of
the age from which he himself was not free, even private divination
was permitted when the object was a good one, such as the
restoration of a sick person to health or the protection of crops
against hail. But it is evident that Constantine and his bishops were
far more apprehensive of evil from the unchaining of the Devil than
expectant of good from the favour of the ministers of grace. They
were terrified of the one: they indulged but a pious hope of the other.