Above: in the county there is considerable evidence of a cult of St Helen among the villages on the southern slopes of the central hills. This fragment of stained glass shows the Emperor Constantine with the text In Hoc Signo Vinces (with this sign will come victory). As well as churches dedicated to Helen (the mother of Constantine) there are Helen farms, Helen wells, Helen woods - and a persistent legend that St Helen came from the area.
Yesterday I watched Michael Portillo's documentary on the Emperor Constantine's adoption of Christianity as an approved religion of the Roman Empire. It was a clever programme, inverting the usual analysis and stating that instead of Constantine converting the Roman Empire to Christianity he had converted Christianity into an mechanism of imperial control (with heavy implication that it has remained an imperial organisation to this day). Michael Portillo had an assured voice throughout the production, with an ability to state with complete confidence even the most shakiest of hypothesis.
Anyone who hadn't examined the period in detail might have been taken in by his cynical comparison of the power-politics of Constantine with the spin-doctoring of modern politicians. There was a lot of Michael Portillo in the commentary ("when I was in the Cabinet", "when I was Defence Secretary", "if I examine myself"). Was it possible Michael Portillo saw himself as a reincarnation of Constantine?
Where the programme fell down was in the details. There were so many errors and omissions that I stopped taking it seriously after the first fifteen minutes. For instance, there was a lot of confused commentary at Ephesus in modern Turkey (was he implying Nike and Artemis/Diana were one and the same?). When discussing the church of the Holy Sepulchre built by Helen in Jerusalem the film showed us the later Crusader church (the Helen structure had been destroyed in 1009 by the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah). Michael Portillo listed the "bad" Christian emperors who had persecuted pagans, but failed to mention Julian's revival of paganism 331 - 363. Most dodgy of all, he relied upon "author" Jonathan Bartley for quasi-erudite pronouncements throughout the documentary (a Google search reveals that Jonathan Bartley is a Tory crony from John Major's regime 1991-97).
The biggest ommission of all was the absence of any credible motive. If Constantine wanted a religion he could use as an agent of social control why did he pick on a minority sub-sect of Judaism? The cult of Mithras would have been a much more likely candidate.
At the end of the programme Michael Portillo adopted a kindly-wise tone of voice and told us reassuringly "I believe power is for politicians" Really? I thought power belonged to the people.












































