Still Another Citation Examination

It's time for another examination of a quote I've sometimes seen online. Namely, this one:

"In order to attach to Christianity great attraction in the eyes of the nobility, the priests adopted the outer garments and adornments which were used in pagan cults." -Life of Constantine, Eusabius, cited in Altai-Nimalaya, p. 94

This is one of those copy/pasted quotes one sees online. Proof that people have just copy/pasted it without verifying anything in it can be seen by the errors in the quote itself; Life of Constantine was by Eusebius, not Eusabius, and the work being cited here is named Altai-Himalaya, not Altai-Nimalaya. Even if someone was unable to figure out that the word was Altai-Himalaya, surely nothing more than a simple search for "Life of Constantine" would reveal the correct spelling of Eusebius, and the fact one could find no "Altai-Nimalaya" on something like WorldCat would show the fact there was something wrong in the title. 

So as soon as you see someone give this quote, at least if they have not corrected the errors (and they rarely if ever have), you can be pretty sure that they have not put forward any kind of effort to make sure it is accurate. One doesn't even need to look at the works themselves to check, just a cursory search on their part would reveal their errors. However, now that we have the correct citation, we now come to the key question: Is the quote accurate?

Altai-Himalaya is a 1929 book by Nicholas Roerich. This quote is indeed found in Altai-Himalaya (page 94), though he spells Eusebius correctly, so I'm not sure how this quotation ended up getting the name wrong. However, although Altai-Himalaya claims it is in "Life of Constantine," it does not tell us where in the work it is found.

Before looking Life of Constantine itself, there is actually good reason to be skeptical right away. Roerich follows up this quote with another inaccurate one, saying:

"Pope Leo X exclaimed, "How useful to us is this allegory of Christ!""

This seems to be a variant of the supposed quote of Leo X where he said "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us". The problem is that, as is well explained here, this quote appears a hoax. If Roerich bungles this quote, we should be cautious trusting other ones he offers. Someone who has offered inaccurate quotes before has a good chance of doing so again.

But putting the question of the reliability of Roerich as a source aside, is the Eusebius quote legitimate? I cannot find it anywhere in Life of Constantine, which is available here. I have searched it for various words found in the quote (Christianity, priest, pagan, nobility, etc.) and find nothing relevant. Obviously there can be differences of translation, but one would think at least one of these would find a relevant match. And surely, if Eusebius actually said something like this in his work, it would have gained more attention and people would be citing it directly, rather than our only reference to it being a secondhand citation through Altai-Himalaya who does not even tell us where in Life of Constantine this quote is supposed to be found.

So by all appearances, this supposed quote of Eusebius is a hoax that is not found in the work being cited. Not only have I been unable to find it in Life of Constantine, the person who claimed it was there referred to at least one other inaccurate quote, meaning it is more likely this one is inaccurate too. And those who spread this quote around have clearly not bothered to verify it at all given the errors in the copy/pasted citation. We know this because if they had, they would be getting the spelling of Eusebius correct and wouldn't be incorrectly citing it as Altai-Nimalaya.

UPDATE: Originally this post was left off there, but I do think I have discovered where Roerich got this quote from. In Chapter 8 of his work "An Essay on the Development of Doctrine," John Henry Newman makes the following remark:

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own."

This isn't exactly the same as the quote being offered. However, the basic structure and substance are so similar it is virtually certain Altai-Himalaya's quote is somehow derived from the above. Perhaps the changes occurred from Roerich misremembering what was said, or perhaps someone before Roerich paraphrased it and Roerich just copied it from them.

However, we run into immediate problems. Newman is not quoting Eusebius, but is offering a summary of what he thinks Eusebius said. Thus it was false to refer to Newman's summary as the actual words of Eusebius (especially when even Newman's summary is not quoted properly). But did Eusebius make this claim, as Newman asserts? Newman gives a footnote for the remark saying "V. Const. iii. 1, iv. 23, &c." This obviously refers to Vita Constantini, or Life of Constantine, a work by Eusebius. It seems quite clear, therefore, that Roerich (directly or through someone else) took this remark by Newman about Eusebius and mistook it for an actual quote by Eusebius, with the quote being garbled further along the way.

But is Newman's description accurate? Let's look at his citations; he is referring to Book 3 Chapter 1 and Book 4 Chapter 23. Book 3 Chapter 1 is Eusebius contrasting Constantine's behavior with the emperors before him that persecuted Christianity, mentioning how he worked to undo the actions the prior ones took. However, I am unable to see anything in here that shows Constantine did any transferring of outward ornaments or anything of the sort. Book 4 Chapter 23 describes Constantine taking action to allow Christians to more easily observe their festivals, but again nothing about any adoption of pagan adornments. Newman does say "&c" which was the way they wrote "etc." back then, indicating he had more in mind, but he does not specify them. Given that "etc." essentially admits you have already exhausted your best examples, and these examples do not back him up, I expect there was nothing stronger than these. However, as just said, these do not appear to back up Newman's claim. It looks to me like Newman his misread or misunderstood Eusebius.

So it seems we most likely now know where it derives from. Roerich offered as the actual words of Eusebius a mistaken paraphrase of Newman's (not quite accurate) summary of what Eusebius said. At some point later on, someone copied Roerich's claim and then erroneously rendered the name of Roerich's work along the way, and this inaccurately cited version of Roerich's paraphrased quote of Newman offering an inaccurate summary of Eusebius ends up being presented as the actual words of Eusebius! So we ultimately reach the same conclusion: Eusebius said no such thing.