The edict of Milan (313)

A Defence of its Traditional Authorship and Designation (1)
Milton Anastos Revue des Etudes Byzantines 25,
Paris 1967, pp. 13-41.

This paper is intended as a refutation of the modern paradoxographers (2) who have been seduced by the temptation of trying to prove that, despite his friendly disposition towards the Christian Church, Constantine did not issue the * Edict of Milan (313) but that Licinius, whom Eusebius condemns as a persecutor ** (HE, 10, 8, 8-9, 9; see n. 11 below), did. This is a titillating conceit, heightened by the additional paradox, that Constantine did not even participate in the Edict (Seeck, loc. cit. in n. 2: “diese [Urkunde] ist erstens kein Edikt, zweitens nicht in Mailand erlassen, drittens nicht von Konstantin”). But, except possibly for the second proposition in this quotation from Seeck, these elements of the modern para- doxographic tradition concerning Constantine can be justified by neither the sources nor a priori considerations.

On the contrary. I hope to show (I) that Constantine was one o the authors of the Edict, (II) that he must be regarded as having published it in his part of the Empire, (III) that his version of it wms in essentials identical with, or very similar, to that reproduced by Eusebius in HE, 10, 5. 2-14 and by Lactantius in MP, 48, (IV) that these two texts not only constitute the Edict of Milan, but also are properly so designated, and (V) that the celebrated phrase, instinclu divinitatis, in the inscription on the Arch of Constantine was in all probability derived from the Edict, which the Roman senators took delight in imitating because by so doing they were enabled to pay a particularly delicate compliment to the Emperor Constantine, whom they knew to be its author.

In venturing to reopen these time-worn questions once again, I lay little claim to originality, and rely on only one small point, which however, I believe to be decisive. My cardinal principle here, and in my whole approach to historical research in general, is that the ancient and mediaeval historians who were contemporaries of the events they report, especially when uncontradicted by other authorities of equal weight, deserve considerably more respect than certain scholars have in recent years been willing to accord them.

I have reference above all to Eusebius, who, after a generation of abuse at the hands of scholars of high repute, is at last being vindicated (3) against his detractors. From the first, I have agreed with Norman H. Baynes, who was the most important of the earlier champions of Eusebius, that the latter’s account of the life of Constantine is not to be rejected except for the most compelling reasons, and I rejoice that a new generation of critics has been piling up impressive evidence in support of this position. Specifically, with regard to the Edict, I maintain that the critical passage on which the entire decision rests, is to be found in Eusebius’s preface to a collection of legal texts (HE, 10, 5, 1):
Φέρε δή, λοιπόν και των βασιλικών διατάξεων Κωνσταντίνου και Λικιννίου τας εκ της 'Ρωμαίων φωνής μεταληφθείσας ερμηνείας παραθώμεθα.

ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦΟΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΩΝ ΔΙΑΤΑΞΕΩΝ ΕΚ ΡΩΜΑΪΚΗΣ ΓΑΩΤΤΗΣ ΜΕΤΑΛΗΦΘΕΙΣΩΝ.

(i. e., “Now, then, let us quote the translations that have been made from the Latin of the imperial laws of Constantine and Licinius. Copy of the imperial laws translated from the Latin language”). The first of these laws is the Edict, which begins (HE, 10, 5, 4), after a brief introductory paragraph as follows:

Οπότε ευτυχώς εγώ Κωνσταντίνος ο Αύγουστος καγώ Λικίννιος ο Αύγουστος εν τη Μεδιολάνω εληλύθειμεν και πάντα όσα προς το λυσιτελές και το χρήσιμον τω κοινώ διέφερεν, εν ζητήσει έσχομεν, ταύτα μεταξύ των λοιπών άτινα εδόκει εν πολλοίς άπασιν επωφελή είναι, μάλλον δε εν πρώτοις διατάξαι εδογματίσαμεν, οις η προς το θειον αιδώς τε και το σέβας ενείχετο, τουτ’ έστιν, όπως δώμεν και τοις Χριστιανοίς και πάσιν ελευθέραν αίρεσιν του ακολουθείν τη θρησκεία η δ’ αν βουληθώσιν, όπως δε τι ποτέ έστιν θειότητος και ουρανίου πράγματος, ημίν και πάσι τοις υπό την ημετέραν εξουσίαν διάγουσιν ευμενές είναι δυνηθή.

Eusebius differs from the Latin (see below) principally in mis- ‘reading omnibus for hominibus and substituting a binomial expression όπως δε τι ποτέ έστιν θειότητος και ουρανίου πράγματος, for the simpler qnicquid < est > divinitatis. Then, in a reversal of technique, he reduces the Latin placatum ad propitium to a single adjective in Greek. In my translation, I have followed the Latin: “ When I Constantine Augustus and I Licinius Augustus (4) had met under happy auspices at Milan and discussed all questions pertaining to the general welfare and the security of the state, we decided that,

among the other things we knew would benefit the majority of men, first consideration should be given to the regulation of the affairs which affect the worship of divinity. [Hence, we resolved] to grant the Christians and all [others] the right to follow freely -whatever religion they wished, so that whatever divinity there be in heaven might be favorable and propitious to us and to all of our subjects. ”

In all material respects, then, Eusebius's Greek translation is a faithful and accurate rendering of the Latin text of the Edict as represented by Lactantius in his MP 48, 2-12. The fidelity of the Greek to the Latin can be illustrated by the corresponding portion of the Edict as it appears in Lactantius:

Cum feliciter tam ego [quam] Constantinus Augustus quam etiam ego Licinius Augustus apud Mediolanum conuenissemus atque uniuersa quse ad commoda et securitatem publicam pertinerent, in tractatu haberemus, hae inter cetera quse uidebamus pluribus hominibus profutura, Uel in primis ordinanda esse credidimus, quibus diuinitatis reuerentia continebatur, ut daremus et christianis et omnibus liberam potestatem sequendi religionem quam quisque uoluisset, quo quicquid < est > diuinitatis in sede coelesti, nobis atque omnibus qui sub potestate nostra sunt constituti, placatum ac propilium possit existere.

Despite close agreement on all essential matters, there remain enough minor discrepancies (5) (like those noted above) between Eusebius’s Greek and Lactantius’s Latin to demonstrate that Eusebius’s source could not have been the Edict as found in MP, 48. Hence, we have at least two separate and independent witnesses to the wording of this important document, which corroborate each other most impressively on all the principal questions at issue although, neither was copied or transcribed from the other. The exact relationship, however, between HE, 10, 5, 2-4, and MP, 48 cannot be precisely determined.

In view of the plain meaning and obvious implications of the texts quoted, it is a great disservice to historical scholarship to he little, minimize or ignore them; and my principal service in what follows is merely to insist not only that the passages I have cited from the HE and MP mean what they say hut also that they cannot be, and have not been, refuted.

I.-II. Constantine co-aulhor of the Edict and his promulgation of it in his own realm.

These excerpts from Eusebius and Lactantius prove beyond all doubt (1) that the Edict was issued by both Constantine and Licinius and (2) that their versions of it (on this point see p. 26 below), as posted individually and separately by Constantine and Licinius in their respective jurisdictions, must have been identical or nearly so. Otherwise, Eusebius would not have included this text among what he calls the laws both Constantine and Licinius, nor would both emperors have stated in so many words, as they do (« I Constantine Augustus and I Licinius Augustus »), that they had actively collaborated in this project. In other words, these passages from the HE and MP make it altogether impossible to deny that Constantine was one of the authors of this ordinance, or that he published it as a law for the portion of the Empire over which he ruled. (See also notes 7 a and 10 below.)

These conclusions follow inevitably from the opening sentence of the Edict (as quoted above), in which the two emperors declare that their chief objective was to grant religious freedom to all of their subjects, in order that by so doing they might win divine favor for the Empire and all of its inhabitants. It is difficult to imagine how Constantine could have discussed these matters with Licinius in Milan and then drafted, or assented to, a law couched in these terms, as both Eusebius and Lactantius agree that he did, without enacting it in his own name for his own part of the Empire.

It is much more likely that Constantine arranged the conference in Milan, as well as the matrimonial alliance between his half-sister and Licinius, at least in part so as to win over his imperial colleague to the policy of religious toleration which he had already adopted. Whether this really was his aim or not, it is inconceivable that Constantine, the first and greatest imperial benefactor (6) of the Christian Church, and in all probability its most influential patron in the early centuries, apart from its Founder, could have failed in his own realm to promulgate this great charter of Christian liberty and privilege (7), — which explicitly and systematically enacted into law the principles of which he was the most notable exponent.

If this reasoning be sound, as I believe it is, we are compelled to assume that Constantine would have taken action by means of a separate Edict of his own, specifically addressed to the people or to an official of his own portion of the Empire. This he would have had to do because, as it has been proved conclusively, in the years during which Constantine and Licinius were co-emperors (and also from 338 to 468), a law like Licinius’s edition of the Edict (MP, 48), published as it was Nicomedia (MP, 48, 1), was valid only for the jurisdiction of the emperor who issued it, i.e., for Licinius and in his own pars imperii. It had no validity outside of his domain, and would not have taken effect in the regions ruled by Constantine. For in legal documents of this kind, the names of other emperors often listed in the preface or at other points in the text did not signify that the law applied to the entire Empire (7a).
In each case, the place of emission recorded in a constitution indicates the sphere in which it was intended to operate. Hence, if it was posted in the Eastern half of the Empire (like MP, 48), it had binding effect only there and not in the West as well. Only very rarely, and under the most unusual circumstances, which do not affect the general rule under consideration, did an emperor of one pars imperii address a 1aw to an official in another. Similarly, if two emperors wished to enact the same regulation, they would and did promulgate separate laws for this purpose, each in his own territory, as Licinius did in his Edict (MP, 48) and Constantine inevitably would have done in his.

Less important than this basic matter of Constantine's direct personal connection with the Edict are two subsidiary questions which unfortunately cannot be answered categorically.

(1) The first of these concerns the date and place of promulgation of Constantine’s own copy of the Edict, as distinguished from that which Licinius, as we learn from MP, 48, 1, posted in Nicomedia on June 13, 313 (8) in Constantine’s name and his own. None of the extant sources gives any precise information on these matters. But it seems logical to assume that Constantine must have issued bis version of the Edict in Rome some time after his victory over Maxentius on October 2-8, 312, either (a) late in 312 (9) and prior to his meeting with Licinius in Milan, or (b) shortly thereafter, hut presumably before June 13, 313, the day on which the Licinian draft of the Edict was made public. On the former supposition, Constantine would have drawn up the Edict himself very much in its present form and then persuaded Licinius to join him in sponsoring it.

In view of Constantine’s attitude towards the Christians as demonstrated throughout his career from October 28, 312 on (see n. 7 above), alternative (a) seems more likely than (b), though neither is capable of proof, and both are legally (10) defensible since the emperor of one part of the Empire could, as we have seen (note 7a above), publish a law independently of his imperial colleague, who would not be bound thereby unless he wished to adopt it by a separate enactment of his own.

Both hypotheses (a) and (b), it should be emphasized, are consistent with the unambiguous statements of Eusebius (HE, 9, 9, 12; 10, 5, 1 et 4) and Lactantius (MP, 48, 2), quoted on pp. 16-17, that Constantine and Licinius -were jointly responsible for the Edict. The language used in these passages goes far beyond the normal heading of an ordinary law (as, e.g., Codex Theodosianus, 10.19.10 of August 29, 382 : Imperatores Gratianus. Valentinianus et Theodosius Augusti Floro Praefecto Praetorio... Dal. iiii Kal. Sept. Constantino poll..., which concerned Theodosius’s part of the Empire alone, as can be seen from reference to Constantinople as the place of emission: see note 7a), and proves that both emperors actively took part in the issuance of the Edict.

Nevertheless, whichever of these two alternatives may appear the more plausible, (a) is greatly to be preferred to the hypothesis recklessly advanced (11) without proof that the initiative for the Edict somehow lay with Licinius, who ended his days. Eusebius charges, as a persecutor of the Church. Whether this accusation be altogether just or not, there is not the slightest evidence which indicates that Licinius ever of his own accord took any action of any kind that was favorable to the Christians.

(2) Secondly, commentators do not agree on the identification of the “most perfect and fully detailed law on behalf of the Christians”, which, Eusebius says (HE, 9, 9, 12; cf. 9, 9a, 12) “Constantine himself and Licinius with him... with one will and purpose together drew up” (Και δη επί τούτοις αυτός τε Κωνσταντίνος και συν αυτώ βασιλεύς Λικίννιος, ...άμφω μια βουλή και γνώμη νόμον υπέρ Χριστιανών τελεώτατον πληρέστατα διατυπούνται...).

Although Eusebius does not further identify this “most perfect law”, he does say (HE, 9, 9, 9-12) that Constantine and Licinius issued it soon after (επι τούτοις) Constantine’s victory over Maxentius on October 28, 312. This description of the circumstances makes it probable that he was referring thereby to the Edict, which is the only joint declaration of these two emperors on religious liberty that he quotes. Likewise, this same text (HE, 9, 9, 9-12) makes it obvious that Eusebius could not possibly have been thinking here (a), as some have rashly supposed (12), of Galerius’s Edict of 311. which preceded by over a year the above-mentioned defeat of Maxentius. This fatal objection to the proposed identification of the “most perfect law” with Galerius’s Edict is fully borne out by internal evidence (to be discussed below, 5 (a)-(e)).

Likewise to be rejected (b) is the possibility that Eusebius had in mind the non-existing law which many believe (see (1) (a) above) Constantine issued on his own initiative, without reference to Licinius, late in 312 or early in 313, since Eusebius would never have confused such an enactment with one promulgated, as he says, by both of the emperors. Galderone argues (see n. 9) that Constantine acted in this instance by himself, on his own authority as senior Augustus, without consulting Licinius, but that, in accordance with the normal procedure (see n. 10), he then inserted Licinius’s name pro forma in the text which he made public.

According to a somewhat similar theory (13), Eusebius deliberately added Licinius’s name to HE, 9, 9, 12 as co-author with Constantine of the “most perfect law” in order to ingratiate himself with Licinius under whose jurisdiction he was residing at the time he wras writing this portion of his HE. It is not clear why Licinius should have been pleased by a back-handed compliment of this kind. However that may be, both of these guesses fall wide of the mark because of Eusebius’s express statement, as above quoted, that Licinius acted jointly in this matter with Constantine (Κωνσταντίνος και συν αυτώ βασιλεύς Λικίννιος) and that they both had agreed to publish the legislation in question (άμφω μια βουλή και γνώμη νόμον... διατυπούνταιove.

Nor (c) could there have been an earlier and now no longer surviving “most perfect law”. For there is no known reason why the two emperors, after turning out one “most perfect law” (at the earliest late in 312, subsequent to Constantine’s victory over Maxentius; see HE, 9, 9, 12), should only a few months later have deemed it necessary to frame a revised version thereof, i. e., our extant Edict of 313. Surely, if such a putative previous “most perfect law” had ever existed or had been “more perfect” than other such legislation, Eusebius would have wished to quote it, alongside of, or in preference to, the Edict of 313. Obviously, he would have preferred to transcribe the truly “most perfect law” and actually, 1 conclude, did so-in the text of the extant Edict of 313.

Such uncertainty as there is on this point arises from the fact that, by some accident in the transmission of the original manuscripts, the Edict (and a number of other legal documents), which should logically have followed closely upon Eusebius’s reference to the “most perfect law”, have been shifted to their present position (HE, 10, 5-7). Attempts (14) have been made to determine how and why this displacement came about, but none of the theories that have been propounded has won unanimous acceptance. Nor does any of them affect the reliability or authenticity of the crucial texts from Eusebius cited above.

Hence, the principal thesis of this paper, that Constantine was directly connected with the Edict and published a version of it in his own territories, stands, whatever the time and place of its promulgation and whatever the identity of the “most perfect and fully detailed law”.

III.-IV. The Edict of Milan: Constantinian and Licinian texts identical.

As we learn from Loth Eusebius (HE, 10, 5, 4) and Lactantius (MP, 48, 2), the Edict was based upon conversations between Constantine and his co-emperor Licinius that took place in Milan (15), sometime early in 313, if not in the latter part of 312, as some believe. The exact date cannot be ascertained, although it has been thought that Constantine would presumably have been present in Rome on January 1, 313, the day on which he assumed his third consulship. But this is by no means certain; and he might well have left the capital long before this, just as his predecessor, Diocletian, had absented himself therefrom (MP, 17, 2) at the beginning of the year (304) in which he became consul for the ninth time. Similarly, there is no necessity for assuming that Constantine must have been in Rome as late as January 18, 313 simply because one of his constitutions ad populum, of which two fragments have been preserved, was published (proposita) in Rome on that day (CT, 10. 10. 1; CJ,
11. 58. 1 = CT, 13. 10. 1). For it was not essential that the emperor be at hand when his laws were publicly posted.

Actually, the sources do not provide sufficient information for an accurate chronology of Constantine’s travels at this period. There is no doubt, however, that Constantine and Licinius did meet in Milan, either late in the year 312 or more probably early in 313 (16), in order to celebrate the marriage of the latter to the former’s half-sister, Constantia (17). At, the same time, they took advantage of the opportunity thus afforded them to discuss the general situation and, above all, the status of religion in the Empire. (See the texts quoted above, pp. 16-17).

It has been argued (18) that Eusebius’s version of the Edict should be regarded as the Greek translation of the original Edict which was promulgated by Constantine at Milan early in 313. But this conclusion is far from inevitable, and there is in fact no surviving document which can he proved without question to have been the Edict of Milan.

Nevertheless, this traditional title for our Edict is not inappropriate if by it is understood the joint imperial Edict of toleration which, as a consequence of the understandings reached in Milan by Constantine and Licinius, became effective throughout the Empire upon promulgation by each of the emperors separately in his owm realm. So much at the very least is undeniable.

But the traditional designation can, and probably should, be vindicated even more completely. This possibility of vindication arises because, as it should be obvious after reflection upon the normal procedures followed by lawiyers and lawmakers, the results of the Milanese conversations betwreen Constantine and Licinius must have been put into writing (19) before the parties separated. For two Roman emperors intent upon establishing a new imperial policy to be sanctioned by a law could never have been satisfied writh anything less than a written and carefully wnrded record of the points on which they had agreed. This w'ouid hardly have been less than a formal text of the law’ that wras soon to be proclaimed.

Hence, we are entitled to conjecture, each of the two emperors, or their respective legal secretaries, carried away from Milan a copy of an officially prepared text, which was then in all probability reproduced practically verbatim not only by Licinius in the Edict as we know it from MP, 48 but also by Constantine in his own no longer extant version thereof. These two promulgations, having been transcribed from the articles of agreement drawn up at Milan, would as a matter of course have been all but identical. Consequently, since our Edict (HE, 10, 5, 2-14; MP, 48) must have been a transcript of the meticulously articulated and officially approved memorandum worked out by the emperors in Milan, it deserves to be recognized as the “Edict of Milan”, although it was not promulgated in this city.

Of course, there is no formal proof that the Edict actually took shape in this way. But the logic of the situation and the clear implication of the Edict, both as quoted above (HE, 10, 5, 4; MP, 48, 2) and as analyzed below with respect to placuisse nobis and its specific provisions, which are too detailed and too circumstantial to have been transmitted orally (pp. 31-32 below), lead inevitably to this conclusion.

On the other hand, it is not surprising that there are minor but not substantial discrepancies (see n. 5 above) between the Eusebian and Lactantian texts of the Edict, just as there undoubtedly must have been between the Licinian and Gonstantinian forms thereof. Absolute identity in such texts is all but unattainable, as anyone knows who has ever revised even an ordinary typescript, and then tried to incorporate all the final changes and retouches into all the carbon copies.

Some have argued (1) that this law of 313 was not an edict (edictum) but a rescript (20) (rescriptum) or a mandatum (21). Others hold (2) that it was nothing more than a statement of principle without legal consequences (22), or (3) that it was intended solely for Licinius’s part of the Empire (23), or that Constantine would not have taken the trouble to promulgate the Edict himself (24), which would have been pointless and repetitious for him, since he had anticipated it (4) in the rescript* addressed to Anulinus (HE, 10, 5, 15-17), and above all (5) in the Edict of Sardica (25) of 311, to which his name had been attached, along with those of Galerius (the senior Emperor, its principal sponsor) and Licinius (26). Moreover, some critics maintain (6) (27), this Galerian. law of 311 was still in force in Africa in 314 (or rather, 315; see n. 43) and could not, therefore, have been superseded by the Edict, which, according to them, was for this reason devoid of legal significance.

Of course, as its advocates seem not to realize, point (5) above could equally well be used to support the impossible proposition, favored by no one, that Licinius himself, having already legislated sufficiently on this subject by joining Galerius and Constantine in promulgating the Edict of 311, would merely have extended this Edict to apply to his newly-conquered lands, as they argue Constantine had done, and would not subsequently have published the Edict of 313, from which no one has ever thought of dissociating him. Nor do they explain why Constantine could not have issued more than one law on religious toleration especially if the successive enact-ments were drafted in different terms or were designed to meet special requirements, as even the most radical critics concede he did, since no one denies that he was responsible for both the Edict to Anuiinus (312-313) and that of 311 (on which his name appears along with those of Galerius and Licinius; see n. 26 above).

This logical flaw is characteristic of all six of these objections, not one of which can withstand critical examination. (1) In the first place, according to the usage of the Later Empire, such an enactment would have been regarded as an edict. The opposition to this term in the present context rests mainly upon the theory (28) that it should be restricted to documents which begin Imperator Caesar... dicit (i.e., “the Emperor... says”). On this account, some have thought, mandatum (29) would be a more accurate term than edict. But this suggestion overlooks the fact that by this time (30) mandata had become quite rare, and did not re-enter popular usage until the reign of Justinian. Furthermore, since the mandatum was the medium for transmitting administrative instructions to provincial magistrates, it would have been unsuitable for a formal pronouncement like the Edict of 313, which applied to the Empire as a whole. It may also be relevant that, by a terminological accident, the mandatum was never described as a constitutio (imperial enactment) by a Roman writer, whereas the Edict is defined by Eusebius (HE, 10, 5, 1) as a διάταξις, i.e., as a constitutio.

Likewise, it is not likely that the legal provisions arising out of the conference of Constantine and Licinius in Milan would have been set forth in a rescript (31), which was the form customarily used by the emperors to reply to queries from officials or petitions from private persons.

These proposals of alternative and putatively preferable designations for the Edict look back primarily to the practice of the earlier Empire (32), in which several types of laws (edicta, decreta, rescripta, etc.) had been distinguished. In later times, however, the difference between one form and another became less significant, and after the reign of Diocletian (284-305) the principal distinction was between laws of general application (the leges generales) (33), which were promulgated for the Empire as a whole, and those which were granted ad hoc to bestow a favor or to deal with some extraordinary situation, but were not intended to serve as legal precedents that would be regularly applicable in the future.

A lex generalis could be issued in various ways, and if it was specifically so designated or promulgated as a law of general application, it had the force of an edict. This definition was laid down in a constitution of 426 (CJ, 1.14.3), which provided: Sed et si generalis lex vocata est vel ad omnes iussa est pertinere, vim obtineat edicti. These conditions were clearly fulfilled by the Edict of 313 since it prescribed rules that were directed to all the inhabitants of the Empire, to whom it specifically referred {as omnibus [“all”] twice in MP, 48, 2, and as quisque [“each”] thrice: MP, 48, 2, 4, 6), etc., and was therefore indubitably ad omnes iussa est pertinere.

Actually, whether or not this definition is relevant for the fourth century, as it probably is, there is no need to quibble about terminology, since, under the Dominate (i.e., from the time of Diocletian) and even before, the legal channel by which the emperor chose to proceed was of little consequence and could not affect the final result. For no one could challenge his authority; and whatever method he preferred or the moment seemed to demand — whether he chose to take action through an edict or some other legal device —• his decision as thus expressed became without question (34) the law of the Empire. This principle, which is traceable to Gaius and Ulpian, is set forth twice in the Corpus Iuris Civilis, in the Institutes (1.2.6) and in the Digest (1.4.1), and is almost too well-known to quote: Quod principi placuit legis habet vigor cm (“Wliat the emperor ordains (35) has the force of law”).

It is significant, therefore, that the emperors used this technical term (in this instance, placuisse nobis: MP, 48, 4) to introduce the principal subject of their Edict (vid., that the restrictions on the Christians were to be removed). For, as any bureaucrat or educated man of the fourth century would have recognized at once, these two words (whose legal significance has been ignored by nearly (36) all of the modern commentators on the Edict) invest the text under consideration with full legal authority as a law. This would have been obvious to any Romanist, not only from the use of the wholly unambiguous terminus technicus just cited, but also from the form of the preface, the stress on its universal application, and a number of other legal tags (37). 5 There is, of course, it should be added to conclude this phase of the argument, no reason to object that what we have been describing as the Edict cannot be accepted as such because it is otherwise unattested. For, as every student of Roman history knows, there is a huge corpus (38) of materials which by one accident or another were never taken up into any of the existing codes of law, and are known only from inscriptions, papyri, or the works of historians, whose authority, as in this instance, cannot be questioned.

Thirdly, although the Edict was, according to Lactantius (MP, 48, 1), addressed to the governor of Bithynia, it is not reasonable to infer that it was on this account restricted to Licinius’s portion of the Empire. If any such limitation had been envisaged, Eusebius would hardly have failed to draw attention to it. But he does not even mention the addressee designated by Lactantius. Besides, even in the Lactantian text (MP, 48, 2), both Constantine and Licinius are named as the authors of the Edict (tarn ego Constantinus Augustus quam etiam ego Licinius Augustus... ordinanda esse credidimus), in a manner which proves that this was not a purely formal listing of the reigning monarchs but an official statement of actual collaboration and joint sponsorship. (See also HE, 10, 5,1, quoted at the beginning of this article and p. 16 above.)

Fourthly, the letter (HE, 10, 5, 15-17) to Anulinus (39), proconsul of Africa, which some (see n. 24 f. above) deem to have been sufficient expression of Constantine’s official attitude on toleration to have precluded his active collaboration in the Edict of 313, cannot be dated with certainty. Though Eusebius, our sole source for this document, quotes it after the Edict (HE, 10, 5, 15-17), logically, it would appear to be prior thereto, since it deals ad hoc with only one of the problems with which the Edict was concerned (i.e., with nothing but the restoration of Christian properties that had been seized by the State during the persecutions) and would in all likelihood have been unnecessary thereafter. Moreover, it lacks two of the most characteristic and indispensable elements of the Edict, (a) the promise of indemnification for pagans whose interests were damaged by the execution of this measure, and (b) the unequivocal declaration of the principle of absolute equality in the law to all religions. It was this last provision, which went far beyond the mere toleration already accorded by Galerius and Maxentius, that makes the Edict one of the most memorable monuments in the history of human freedom. No one in the fourth century, therefore, for which egalitarian ideas were, it need hardly be said, incomparably more revolutionary than they are in the twentieth, could ever have supposed that Constantine’s simple instructions on a single point of law constituted an adequate substitute for the Edict.

In addition, the proponents of (4) overlook the fact that, as the emperors explain (HE, 10, 5, 2 f.; MP, 48, 4), the Edict was needed in order to remove certain condiciones in a previous enactment of theirs which had denied freedom of worship to many Christians. Thus, the emperors would have felt obliged to issue the Edict, even if the letter to Anuiinus had been far more satisfactory a pronouncement on the religious question than it really was.

There is some dispute as to what these vexatious condiciones (40) were. But the most reasonable explanation seems to be that the clauses to which the emperors objected were contained in the special instructions (§e in the section immediately following) Galerius (41) sent his governors to supplement the Edict of 311.
The same objections that have been urged against (4) in the preceding paragraphs apply a fortiori against the contention that Constantine was content merely to reinstate Galerius’s Edict of 311 (42) and felt no necessity to issue the Edict of 313. This hypothesis, though confidently asserted, is purely an assumption, rests on no ancient or mediaeval evidence, and completely ignores the fact, which is obvious on even a casual examination, that the Edict of 313 is fuller, more decisive, and more advanced (in terms of the relations between Christianity and the State) than any of the previous constitutions which had dealt with this problem. None of the critics explains why Constantine should have preferred the inadequate measure grudgingly yielded to the Christians by one of the most ruthless persecutors of the Church to the much more humane document (the Edict of 313) which bears his own name (HE, 10, 5, 2-14; MP, 48).

Indisputably, Constantine would have found Galerius’s Edict intolerable and in need of emendation for several reasons, (a) It granted the Christians nothing for their own sake and was, as Galerius frankly admitted, nothing but a last desperate attempt on his part to win over the Christians in the hope that they might then pray for his recovery from a foul disease, (b) It contained harsh language on the stubbornness and folly of the Christians in abandoning the [heathen] religion of their ancestors (HE, 8, 17, 6 f., 9; MP, 34, If., 4). (c) In a manner that could only have been offensive, it authorized them to “resume being Christians and build their meeting-places, on condition that they refrain from disorderly conduct” (HE, 8, 17, 9; MP, 34, 4: ut denuo sint christiani et conuenticula. sua componant. ita ut ne quid contra disciplinam agant). (d) It ignored the problem of the restoration of the property which the Christians had forfeited to the government in previous years, (e) It tied the new privileges now vouchsafed to other, but unspecified and no longer extant, requirements, which Galerius said he would communicate to his governors (HE, 8,17, 9; MP, 34, 5: Per aliam autem epistulam iudicibus significaturi sumus quid debeant observare).

These imperfections are so numerous and so glaring that Eusebius could not possibly have pronounced the document embracing them to be “the most perfect and fully articulated law” promulgated by Constantine and Licinius in behalf of the Christians (HE, 9, 9, 12 ; cf. 9a, 9, 12). The scholars who have propounded this unfortunate theory did not compare the two texts and, still worse, detached Eusebius’s sentence on the most perfect law from the paragraph in which Eusebius makes it clear (see p. 23 above) that the “most perfect law” appeared some one and a half years later than Galerius’s, Edict.

Indeed, the very existence of the Edict of 311, bearing his name as one of its imperial sponsors, would have been enough to persuade Constantine of the necessity for superseding it with one that would be more expressive of his own sentiments. He had joined Galerius in the pronouncement of 311 bon gre mal gre, when, as a junior Augustus, he bad no alternative but to accede to the senior Emperor’s demands. But• after he had won his way to the rank of senior Augustus as a result of his victory over Maxentius (MP, 44, 11), he would surely have wished to assert himself in the spirit of his overwhelming spiritual experience on the eve of October 28, 312.

Notwithstanding all the compelling reasons Constantine would have had for preparing new legislation of his own on religious freedom,

it has been argued that he never did so, that Galerius’s edict of 311 was still in force as late as 315 (n. 27 above), and that it had not been superseded by Constantine’s Edict of 313, which, accordingly, it is said, never had the force of law. Proof of these propositions is found in the proceedings of a trial held in 315 before a certain Aelian, who was proconsul in Carthage and is quoted as having said (43): Constantinus Maximus semper Augustus et Licinius Caesares ita pietatem christianis exhibcre dignantur, ut disciplinam corrumpi nolint, sed potius observari relegioneni (sic) istam et coli uelint.

These words have been taken to be a citation of the Edict of Galerius (ita ut ne quid contra disciplinam agant). Even if this interpretation be correct, however, and even if Aelian was not merely giving his own exegesis of the Edict of 313 (which, like any other new law, overthrew certain regulations without abolishing the legal system as a whole), it has been shown (44), he was not citing the Edict of Galerius as his authority on religious toleration (since this was not at issue) but only as his justification for requiring the Christians, like all others, to obey the ordinary civil law.

In this case, a certain Ingentius, a Donatist who had forged a letter libelling Bishop Felix of Aptungi as a Iraditor (i.e., one who had “handed over” the Scriptures to imperial officials in order to escape persecution), pleaded that he was a Christian in order to avoid confessing the crime of which he had been guilty. To this defence Aelian replied (45): Noli itaque tibi blandiri, quod cum miki dicas dei cultorem te esse, [ac delendum] propterea nun possis torqueri. Torqueris, ne mentiaris, quod alienum christianis esse uidetur. Et ideo die simpliciter, ne torquearis. (“Don’t deceive yourself that, since you tell me you are a worshipper of God, you are for this reason exempt from torture. The rack is to prevent lies, which, I hear, the Christians abhor. So, tell the truth, and you will not he tortured.”) Ergo, this allusion to the Edict of Galerius (if that is what it really be), does not by any means prove that Aelian was unaware of the Edict of 313, but only that, as a competent magistrate, he lmew what precedents to cite on the precise question that• was being adjudicated.

Since we have disposed of all possible objections, there can be no doubt that in 313 Constantine and Licinius issued an Edict which clarified and restated in new terms the principle of religious freedom as set forth by Galerius in 311. What the two emperors now did was to put the Christians on a plane of complete equality with the pagans in all matters of religion and worship (HE, 10, 5, 4-8; MP, 48, 2-6). At the same time, the restrictions previously imposed upon the Christians were lifted, and immediate restitution was ordered of all the property which had been confiscated from the churches (HE, 10, 5, 9-11; MP, 48, 7-11). Pagans who suffered financial loss as a result of complying with this regulation were to be indemnified by the State (HE, 10, 5, 10f., MP, 48, 8f.).

Nothing was said about making similar amends to individual Christians (46). But the Christian communities as a whole gained immeasurably more than this in now being accorded by both emperors the status of legal corporations (47) (corpus, σώμα in Greek: HE, 10 5, 10-12; MP, 48, 8-10). It has been argued (48) that Constantine had granted this right to the Christians of Africa somewhat earlier, in his Edict to Anulinus (HE, 10, 5, 15-17). But there are objections tο this view, and the Edict the first document that indubitably recognizes both the corporate legal capacity of the Church and the principle of freedom of worship.

At the same time, the new privilege of religious liberty granted the Christians was specifically extended to all others (HE, 10, 5, 4 f., 8; MP, 48), so that no one might feel any restraint in the free exercise of his predilections with regard to belief or cultus. On the contrary, the emperors expressed the hope (HE, 10, 5, 4f., 13; MP, 48, 2f., 11, quoted above) that in this way they might placate for themselves and their subjects every form of divinity that there might he, and thus hold the favor of the highest divinity, to which, they averred without naming it, they paid homage without reserve (summa divi-nitas, cuius religioni liberis mentibus obsequimur). Eusebius omits the last relative clause and the adjective summa, but he shares with Lactantius the abstract noun divinitas, which he translates simply by το θειον.

Although the Edict guaranteed freedom to all religions, the emphasis throughout is on the Christians, who had never before been granted this privilege so unreservedly. The studied ambiguity in the references to the Godhead, on the other hand (HE, 10, 5, 4 & 5; Greek quoted above; MP, 48, 2: quicquid est divinitatis in sede caelesti: ibid., 3: summa divinitas), as many have remarked, was both acceptable to the Christians, whom it was the primary purpose of the Edict to conciliate, and also at the same time inoffensive to the pagans, who were too numerous (49) to alienate. Since the latter constituted the majority throughout the Empire, especially in his portion of it, Constantine, despite the sincerity of his conversion to Christianity, would have made a special effort (as in the choice of an innocuous substitute for the divine name in this Edict) to avoid alarming them or goading them into rebellion under the banner of the ancient gods. Similar considerations would have weighed heavily also with Licinius, in whose part of the Empire the Christians, though more numerous than in the West, were nevertheless outnumbered by the pagans.

V. Imitation of the Edict on the Arch of Constantine.

Under these circumstances, it was inevitable that Constantine’s panegyrists and others who wished to honor him (like the designers of the Arch of Constantine [dedicated in 315]) (50) would have imitated the terminology which the Edict had by its example established as proper for reference to the imperial tutelary deity. In other words, there can be little doubt that the Edict was the obvious, but so far as I can see hitherto unrecognized, source for the new caution in the use of religious language which now came into style.

Thus, in an oration delivered soon after the Edict, in the summer or fall of 313, an unknown panegyrist (51), addressing Constantine directly, asks what god or favoring divinity it was which inspired him to make his daring assault upon Rome [in October, 312], against, the advice of his advisers and soothsayers:

Quisnam te deus, quae tam praesens hortata [est?] maiestas ut... contra consilia hominum, contra haruspicum monita ipse per temet liberandae urbis tempus uenisse sentires (2,4).

Later, the orator touches upon the diuina praccepia (4, 4) to which Constantine hearkened, and the divine guidance which directed him (f1., 4: divino monitus instinctu). Likewise in the spirit of the Edict, at the end of this discourse, there is an apostrophe (26) to the lord of the universe, who is described as either some divine force or intellect or a power exalted above the heavens, in whome the highest goodness dwells. Several years later, in 321, the panegyrist Nazarius (52) took over the same terminology: ilia divinitas (13, 5), divinitus (14,1), uis divinitatis (27, 5).

The influence of the Edict upon these vague and circumlocutory expressions can be illustrated by comparison with two other panegyrics, both anonymous, which were pronounced in 310 and 312, respectively. In the former of these (53), the unknown author, while celebrating Constantine’s virtues, catalogues his divine sponsors without reticence and lists, among others, Jupiter (7, 3; 8, 5; cf. 15, G), the di boni (8, 2; 9, 4), Iris (8, 5), Ceres (9, 2), Liber, i.e., Bacchus (9, 2 & 4), Mercury {9, 4), Apollo (21, 4 & 7; 22, 1), the di immortal.es (22, 1), and so on. In the second of these, the anonymous Gratiarum Actio Constantino Augusto (54). mention is made of the di immortales (7, 6; 13, 1), the “statues of all our gods” (8, 4: omnium deorum nostrorum simulacra), and Jupiter (13, 6).

The new restraint and meticulous avoidance of the names of the pagan divinities which characterizes the oration of 313 are inexplicable except as an acknowledgement of Constantine’s momentous experience on the eve of October 28, 312, and, more particularly, as a sign of deference to his terminological approach to divinity in the Edict.

Even more striking is the celebrated inscription on the Arch of Constantine (55), which copied the ambiguous and neutral language of the Edict of 313 in declaring that Constantine had won his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (on October 28, 312) instinctu, divinitatis (“under the guidance [or inspiration] of divinity”). Obviously, these ambivalent words were chosen deliberately in order to express gratitude for supernatural intervention without indicating a preference for either the Christian God or any of the pagan divinities. This is exactly the kind of appeal to unnamed divine powers which Constantine and Licinius had made in the Edict.

The reappearance of divinitas in this inscription is doubly significant, since the Roman Senate was predominantly pagan (56). Hence, their adoption of this equivocal term proves that the senators, like the anonymous panegyrist of 313, had been informed about Constantine’s religious experience on the eve of October 28, 312. In addition, and more specifically, they showed thereby that they were consciously following the Constanlinian religious policy and deferring to his method of referring to God as set forth in the Edict. For this reason, in order not to offend the Emperor or violate the terms and spirit of the Edict, they scrupulously refrained from naming his former divine champion (Sol Invictus (the unconquered, i.e., unconquerable Sun), whom they would presumably have found congenial. At the same time, they also abstained from mentioning the Emperor’s new God, and no doubt were pleased to be able to cloak their own religious feelings under the ambiguity of the colorless divinitas, which Constantine had invested with imperial sanction in the Edict.

It is therefore improper to interpret the inscription on the Arch as if it were connected with the solar iconography (57) of the fourth century. The attempt to read elements of a Neoplatonized solar mysticism into instinctu divinitatis has been popular in recent years. But this interpretation ignores both the political consequences of Constantine’s conversion on the night of October 27-28, 312, and the true significance of the Edict. The solar and lunar sculptural elements in the decoration of the Arch were from Constantine’s point of view purely adventitious, like most of the sculptures on this famous monument, which, as L’Orange and von Gerkan have demonstrated, were taken from other imperial structures of various kinds.
Therefore, the panegyric of 313 and the inscription of 315 prove not only that Constantine’s subjects in the West were aware of the revolutionary change that had taken place in his religious beliefs in 312, but also that they realized that he was the author of the Edict.
University of California
Los Angeles. Milton V. ANASTOS

NOTES

(1) I am deeply indebted to the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for indispensable support (in 1954-55 and 1966-67) of my study of Byzantine intellectual history, the Mind of Byzantium, of which this paper forms a part.
I acknowledge gratefully assistance from my colleague, Professor Lynn White, Jr., Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, UCLA, who has made a number of valuable suggestions.
The most convenient text of the Edict is to be found in Lactance, De la mort des persecuteurs, 48, ed. with French translation and notes by Jacques Moreau, Sources Chretiennes, 39, vols. 1-2 (Paris, 1954); and in Greek in Eusebius, HE, 10, 5, 2-14, ed. Eduard Schwartz, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Juhrhunderte, 9, 2 (Berlin 1908; with English translation by J. E. L. Oulton and H. J. Lawler, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2 (Loeb Classical Library, 1932); with French translation by Gustave, Bardy, Sources chreliennes, 55 (Paris, 1958). P. R. Coleman-Norton, Roman State & Christian Church, 1 (London, 1966), 30-35, gives an English translation of Lactantius’s version of the Edict and Eusebius’s variants therefrom.
Of the vast bibliography on the Edict, I cite the following works, both for their importance in the history of the subject and for their references to the older literature, which it is profitless to repeat: Mario Agnes, “Alcune considerazioni sul cosiddetto 'Editto’ di Milano”, Studi romani, 13 (1965), 424-32: does not discuss the “problem” of the Edict; Salvatore Calderone, Costantino e il cattolicesimo, 1 (Pubblicazioni dell Istituto di storia dell' Universita di Messina, 3 [Florence, 1962)); Mario Amelotti, “Da Diocleziano a Costantino, note in tema di costituzioni imperiali”, Studia el documenta historiae et iuris, 27 (1961), 241-323; Maurilio Adriani, “La storicith dell’ Editto di Milano”, Studi Romani, 2 (1954), 18-32; Herbert. Nesseihauf, “Das Toleranzgesetz des Licinius”, Historisches Jahrbuch, 74 (1954), 44-61; Andreas Alfoldi, The conversion of Constantine (Oxford, 1948), 37 f., 129 n. 13; J. R. Palanque, “A propos du pretendu l’Edit de Milan”, Byzantiun, 10 (1935), 607-16; Norman II. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (Proceedings of the British Academy, 15 [London, 1929]), 11, 69-74 (the lecture was delivered in 1930); Richard Laqueur, “Die beiden Fassungen des sog. Toleranzedikts von Mailand”, ΕΠΙΤΥΜΒΙΟΝ Heinrich Swoboda dargebrachl (Reichenberg, 1927), 132-41: I see no way to reconcile with texts or logic L’s tortuous theory (n. b. p. 140) that Eusebius’s version of the Edict included interpolations from Maximinus’s rescript to Sabinus (HE, 9, 9a, 1-9), which L deems to have been issued before the Edict but dishonestly represented by the Constantinian party (and Eusebius) as Maximinus’s reply to the Edict (HE, 9, 9,12/.; 9, 9a, 10-12); John R. Kaipfing, “Das angebliche ‘Mailander Edikt’ v. J. 313 im Lichte der neueren Forsehung”, Zeitschrift. fur Kirchengeschichte, 40 (1922), 206-18: Emile Chenon, “Les consequences juridiques de l’Edit de Milan (313), Nouvelle Revue historique de droit francais et etranger, 38 (1914-15), 255-63; Pierre Batiffol, La paix constantinienne el le catholicisme, 2d ed. (Paris, 1914), 203-67, n. b. 229 (I.; G. L. Perugi, “La fonte giuridica dell’ Editto di Milano”, Roma e l’Oriente, 6, fasc. 35-36 (1913), 13-40: chiefly of interest for detailed references to the earlier bibliography; Carlo Santucci, “L’Editto di Milano nei riguardi del diritto”, Nuovo Bullettino di Archeologia cristiana, 19 (1913), 71-75; Joseph Wittig, “Das Toleranzreskript von Mailand 313”, Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit, ed. Franz J. Dolger (Freiburg im Br., 1913), 40-65; Valerian Sesan, Die Religionspolilik der chrisllich-rom. Kaiser von Konstantin d. Gr. bis Theodosius d. Gr. (313-350) (Kirche und Staat im romisch-byzantinischen Reiche ssit Konstantin dem Grossen and bis zum Falls Konstantinopels, 1 [Czernowitz, 1911]), 128- 237; Guglielmo Schnyder, “L’Editto di Milano, ed i recenti studi critici che lo riguardano”, Disseriazioni della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, S. 2, 8 (1903), 149-79; A. Crivellucci, “L’Editto di Milano”, Studi Storici, I (1892), 239-50; idem, “Intorno ail Editto di Milano”, ibid., 4 (1895), 267-73. A. Η. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (2S4- 602), I (Oxford, 1964), 80 f., simply describes it as an edict without discussion. Heinz Kahler, “Konstantin 313”, Jahrbuch, des deutschen archalogiechen Instituts, 67, (1952), 1-30, does not deal with the Edict, but with proof that the colossal statue of Constantine, fragments of which arc preserved in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, was produced ca. 313 and set up in the (western) apse of the Basilica of (Maxentius) Constantine.

(2) The Fans el origo of this school was Otto Seeck, “Das sogenannle Edikt von Mailand”, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 12 (1891), 381-86, whose thesis was taken up enthusiastically by Henri Gregoire in Byzantion, 7 (1932], 645-61; 10 (1935), 616-19 (see also bibliography in Moreau, SC, 39, 1, 159 f.); and then in three papers by Jacques Moreau, “Zur Religionspolitik Konstantins des Grossen”, Annales Universitatis Saraviensis, Philosophie et Lettres, 1 (1952), 160-68 (idem, Scripta minora, ed. Walter Schmitthenner, Annales U. Saraviensis, Reihe; Philosophische Fakultat, 1 [Heidelberg, 1964], 106-13); “Les 'Litterae Licinii”’, AUS, 2 (1935), 100-105 (Scripta minora, 99-105, n. b. 102; “Licinius, et Licinius seul, est l’auteur de l’acte de tolerance de 313”); “Verite historique et propagande politique chez Lactance et dans la Vita Constantini ”, AUS, 4 (1955), 89-97 (Scripta minora, 135-43); and in his notes on the MP in SC, 39, 2, 456-64, n. b. 458. The most recent exponent of these views about the Edict is Joseph Vogt, Constantin der Grosse (see next note), 168 f., 284. Cf. n. 13 below.
Seeck and Vogt, however, were content to attack the view that Constantine was the author of the Edict or issued it in his own realm. They accept the other elements of the historical tradition about Constantine (the conversion, etc.), which Gregoire and Moreau reject.
* To which 1 will refer below as the Edict or, occasionally, to avoid ambiguity, as the Edict of 313.
** HE = Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία).
MP= Lactantius’s De morτibus persecutorum.

(3) Of the many excellent scholars who have devoted themselves to this task, the latest is Friedheim Winkelmann, beginning with his dissertation, Die Vita Constantini des Eusebius, ihre Authentizitut, ihre Textbezeugung (Halle, 1959); then in Die Textbezeugung der Vita Constantini des Eusebius von Caesarea (Texte und Untersuchungen, 84 [Berlin, 1962)), and also in a number of articles: “Die Beurteilung des Eusebius von Casarea und seiner Vita Constantini im griechischen Osten, ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung der griechischen hagiographischen Vitae Constantini”, Byzantistische Beitrage (Berlin, 1964), 91-119; “Zur Geschichte des Authentizitats problems der Vita Constantini”, Klio, 40 (1962), 187-243: an admirable and fair-minded survey of the literature; “Konstantins Rcligionspolitik und Motive im Urteil der literarischen Quellen des iv und v. jahrhunderls”, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 9 (1961), 239-56. Among his most notable predecessors nota bene: Joseph Vogt, “Pagans and Christians in the family of Constantine the Great”, The conflict between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century, ed. Arnaldo Mouiigliano (Oxford, 1963), 38-54; idem, Constantin der Crosse, 2d cd. (Munich, I960); idem, “Constantinus der Grosse", Realexikon fur Antike und Christentum, 3 (Stuttgart, 1957), 306-79; idem, “Die constantinische Frage”, Comitato Internazionale di Scienze Storiche, X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storiehe (Rome), Belazioni, 6 (Florence, 1955), 731-79; Kurt Aland, Kirchengeschichtliche Entwurfe (Gutersloh, 1960), 165 239, including a reprint of his paper, “Die religiose Haltung Kaiser Konstantins", from Studia Patristica (Texte und Unlersuchungen, 63 [Berlin, 1957]); Heinz Kraft, Caiser Konstantins religiose Entwicklung (Beitrage zur historischen Theologie, 20 [Tubingen, 1955); Johannes Straub, “Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol”, Historia, 4 (1955), 297-313; idem, Vom Herrscherideal in der Spatantike (Forschungen zur Kitchen- und Geistesgeschichte, 18 [Stuttgart, 1939, reprinted 1964]); Hermann Dorries, Das Selbszieugnis Kaiser Konstantins (Abhandlungen der Akademiae der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 3. F., 34 [Gottingen, 1954]); A.H.M. Jones, “Notes on the genuineness of the Constantinian documents in Eusebius’s Life of Constantine", Journal of ecclesiastical history, 5 (1954), 196-200 (With an appendix by T.C. Skeat); A.H.M. Jones, Constantine and the conversion of Europe (reprinted, N.Y., 1962); Friedrich Vittinghoff, “Eusebius als Verfasser der Vita Constantini”, Bheinisches Museum, N.F., 96 (1953), 330-73; Andrew Alfoldi, The conversion of Constantine and pagan Rome (Oxford, 1948); Norman H. Baynes, Constantine the Great (η. 1 above).

(4) It makes no difference to my argument whether Emperor Maximinus’s name was included in the prooimion of the Edict, as some contend. But I doubt that it was, since none of the texts above quoted refer to it. Knipfing, ZKG, 40 (1922), 213-15, lists authorities on botli sides of this question. Moreau, SC, 39, 2, 452, agrees that Maximinus was not mentioned. For the latter’s defeat by Licinius on April 30, 313, near Adrianople, in the Campus Ergenus (MP, 4"), erroneously called Campus Serenns by Lactantius (MP, 46, 9), see Moreau, SC, 39, 1, 130, 28 f.; Gregoire, Byzantion, 13 (1938), 585.

(5) For a list of these with discussion, see I.A. Heikel, De Constantini imperatoris scripiis edendis (Helsinki, 1916), 17-28; Wittig, loc.cit. (n. 1 above), 58-61; Sesan, Kirche und Staat, 1, 169-73, 226 f. Cf. also Moreau, Scripta minora, 103 f., nn. 27 f.; and idem, SC, 39, 2, 456 ff. Sesan, op. cit., 175 ff ff., 189-216, concludes from the differences between the two texts, especially from the omission in MP, 48 of the preface to the Edict as given in HE, 10, 5, 2, that Eusebius had translated directly from the original Edict of Milan, not from Licinius’s version thereof (as in MP, 48) or any other such copy. Somewhat similarly, J. Maurice, “Note sur le preambule place par Eusebe en tete de l’edit de Milan”, Bulletin d'ancienne literature et d’archeologie chreliennes, 4 (1914), 45-47, looks upon the presence of this preface in HE, 10, 5, 2 f., and its omission in MP, 48, as proof that Eusebius’ text represents the Litterae Constantini, which Constantine had addressed to the governors of the Western provinces, as contrasted with the Litterae Licinii, which Licinius promulgated in his part of the Empire.

(6) For the gifts, privileges, and immunities Constantine bestowed upon the Christian Church, see Ludwig Voelki, Die Kirchenstiftungen des Kaisers Konstantin im Lichte des romischen Sakralrechts (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geisteswissenschaften, 117 [Cologne-Opladen, 1964]); Clemence Dupont, “Les donations dans I«s constitutions do Constantin”, Revue Internationale des droits de I’antiquite, S. 3, 9 (1962), 291-324, n. b. 319 ft,; Biondo Biondi, II diritto romano cristiano, 1 (Milan, 1952), 21-30, 358, 361 f.; Jean Gaudeimet, “La legislation religieuse de Constantin”, Revue d'histoire de I’Eglise de France, 33 (1947), 25-61.
On Constantine as a lawgiver in general, see Gudrun Stuhff, Vulgarrecht im Kaiserrecht unter besonderor Berucksichtigung der Gesetzgebung Konstantins des Grossen ( Forschungen zum romischen Recht. 21 [Weimar, 1966]); Clemence Dupont, “Les successions dans les constitutions de Constantin”, Ivra, 15 (1964), 57-116; four volumes by eadem, published in Lille; La reglementation economique dans les constitutions de Constantin (1963); Le droit criminel dans les constitutions de Constantin, Les infractions (1953); Les peines (1955); Les constitutions de Constantin et le droit prive au debut du IVe siecle (1937); Arnold Ehrhardt, “Constantin d. Gr. Religions-politik und Gesetzgebung”, Zcitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung, 72 (1955), 154-90; Joseph Vogt, “Zur Frage des christlichen Einilusses aut die Gesetzgebung Konstantins des Grossen”, Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 35, Festschrift fur Leopold Wenger, 2 (Munich, 1945), 118 48. Cf. B. Voiterra, “Quelques remarques sur le style des Constitutions de Constantin”, Droits de l’antiquite et de sociologie juridique, Melanges Henri Levy-Bruhl (Publications de l’Inslitut de droit romain de l’Universite de Paris, 17 [Paris, 1959]), 325-34; Manlio Sargenti, II diritio prioalo nella legislazione di Costantino; persone e famiglia (Pubblicasioni dell’ Istituto di diritto romano dei diritti dell' Oriente mediterraneo e di storia del diritto, 3 [Milan, 1938]).
The vast literature on the episcopalis audentia is summarized by Max Kaser, Das romische Zivilprozessrecht (Iwan von Muller, Walter Otto, Hermann Bengtson, ed., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 10, 3, 4 [Munich, 1966]), 527-29; see also J. N. Bakhuizen van den Brink, “Episcopalis audiuntia,” Mededelingen der koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Welenschappen, Afdeling Letterhunde, Nieuive Reeks, 19, 8 (Amsterdam, 1956), 245-301.

(7) Emile Chenon, «Les consequences juridiques de l’edit de Milan», Nouvelle Revue historique de droit francais et etranger, 38 (1914-15), 255-63, suggests that the Edict has great significance because it constitutes the first, formal recognition of the Christian Church as a legal corporation authorized to receive, hold, and administer property. It is possible that it should be so regarded since Constantine’s order to Anulinus [HE, 10, 5, 15-17) is limited in scope (see section 4 below) and does not connect the grant of these rights with freedom of worship. But this is not altogether certain, nor have scholars been able to explain satisfactorily the legal basis or origin of the system by which the Christian communities acquired and held real estate and other property dining the first three centuries of their existence.
In view of these uncertainties, I refrain from pressing this argument, despite its appeal. On the legal status implied by Constantine’s Edict to Anulinus, see Ehrhardt, loc. cit. (in previous n.), 172 f., who takes (το δίκαιον) here as the equivalent of corpus or σώμα (corporation), though it is nevertheless interesting, and surely significant, that Eusebius uses this term in preference to σώμα, which occurs in his translation of the Edict (HE, 10, 5, 10-12). See note 48 below.
On this topic see the following (with references to the older literature); Giannetto Longo, "Sul diritto sepolcrale romano”, Ivra, 15 (1964), 137-58; idem, “Community cristiane primitive e ‘res religiosae’,” Bullettino dell Istituto di diritto romano, N.S., 18-19 = 59-60 (1956), 237-57; W. W. Bnckland, A text book of Roman Law from Augustus to Justinian, 3rd ed. by Peter Stein (Cambridge, England, 1963), 177-79; Charles Saumagne, “Corpus Christianorum,” Revue international des droits de l’antiquite, S. 3, 7 (1960), 437-78; S. 3, 8 (1961), 257-79; Max Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht (Iwan von Muller, etc., edd., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 10, 3, 3, 2 [Munich, 1959]), 105, nn. 17-22, 106, 348, n. 21; Arnold Ehrhardt, “Das Corpus Christi und die Korporationen im spat-romischen Recht,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fur Recktsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung 70, 347; 71 (1954), 25-40; Alexander Philipsborn, “Der Begriif der juristischen Person im romischen Rechi”, ibid., 71 (1954), 41-70; Hans-Rudolf Hagemann, Die Stellung der Piae Causae nach justinianischen. Rechte (Basler Studien zur Rcchtswissenschaft, 37 [Basel, 1953]); Maurizio Borda, "Collegia funeralicia”, Enciclopedia Cattolica, 3 (1949), 1950-52; Giuseppe Bovini, La proprieta ecclesiastica e lα condizione giuridica della chiesa in eta precostantiniana (Milan, 1949); idem, s.v. Chiesa, A, VI, “Posizione giuridica della Chiesa flno a Giustiniano,” Enciclopedia Cattolica, 3 (1949), 1504-6, who gives the Bibliography of the subject and a summary of the leading theories up to his time; Gerda Kruger, Die Rechtsstellung der vorconstantinischen Kircken (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, 115-16 [Stuttgart, 1935J), 234-42; J. P. Waltzing, “Collegia,” DACL, 3, 2 (1914), 2107-40; Carlo Carassai, “La politica religiosa di Costantino il Grande e la proprieta della Chiesa," Archivio della R. Societa Romana di Storia Patria, 24 (1901), 95-157. Cf. also Fernand de Visscher, Le droit des tombeaux romains (Milan, 1963), 261-76.

(7a) Against the older view that the constitutions of every emperor applied automatically to the entire Empire, without specific enactment in each part thereof, it has now been proved that imperial legislation (from 338 on) was valid only for the jurisdiction of the emperor who issued it, i. e., in Ids own pars imperii. This principle was established by M. Antonio de Dominicis, « II problema dal rapporti burocratico legislativi tra ‘occidente et oriente’ nel basso impero romano alia luce delie inscriptiones e subscripliones delle costi- tuzioni imperiali », Istitulo Lombardo di scienze e lettera, Rendiconli, Classe di lettere e Scienze Marali e Storiche, S. 3, 18=87 (1954), 329-487. Similar conclusions were reached independently by Jean Gaudemet, «Le partage legislatif au Bas-Empire d’apres un ouvrage recent», SDHI, 21(1955), 319-31; idem, «Le partage legislatif dans la seconde moitie du IVe siede », Studi in onore di Pietro de Francisci, 2 (Milan, 1956), 317-54 (with particular attention to the years 364-95); idem, La formation du droit seculier el du droit de l'Eglise au IVe et Ve siecles,(Institut de droit romain de l’Universite de Paris, 15 [Paris, 1957]), 17-26; idem, Orthodoxie et interpolations (ή propos de CTh. xvi, 1, 4 et xvi, 4, 1) , Melanges en I’honneur de S. E. le Cardinal Andre Jullien, Revue de droit canonique, 10, 3-4; 11, 1 (1960-61), 163 f.; idem, Institutions de l’antiquite (Paris, 1967), 673; Giovanni Gualandi, ‘Privilegi imperiali e dualita legislative nel Basso Impero alia luce di alcuni testi di Libanio », Archivio giuridico Filippo Serafini», s. 6, 25=156 (1959), 5-34; Ernst Levy,« Westostliches Vulgarrecht und Justinian », ZS3, BA, 76 (1959), 2-5.

(8) Moreau in his translation, SC, 39, 1, 131 f., translates die Iduum luniarum by le quince juin, momentarily forgetting the school-boy rule that the Ides fall on the thirteenth, except in March, May, July, and October, although he subsequently gives the date correctly, SC, 39, 2, 464.
The terminus a quo is October 28, 312, the day of Constantine’s victory over Maxentius. This traditional date, called into question by Patrick Bruun, “The Battle of the Milvian Bridge," Hennes, 88 (1960), 361-65; idem, Studies in Constantinian chronology (Numismatic Notes und Monographs, 146 [New York, 1961]), 7, who pushes it back one year to October 28, 311, has, however, been vindicated by Roberto Andreotti, “Recenti contributi alia cronologia costantiniana,” Latomus, 23 [(1964), 537-42; Maria R. Aifoldi, Die constaninische Goldpragung (Mainz, 1963), 32; and Dietmar Kienast, "Zu P. Bruuns Datierung der Schlacht an der Milvischen Brucke,” Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, 11 (1961), 33-41.

(9) Calderone, Costantino (n. 1 above), 157-64; Sesan, Kirche und Staat, 1, 216-21, 358 f. (published by Constantine and Licinius). See also Nesselhauf, n. 13 below. Karl Bihlmeyer, “Das angeblicae Toleranzedikt Konstantins von 312. Mit Beitragen zur Mailander Konstitution (313),” Theologische Quartalschrift, 96 (1914), 65-100, 198-224, denies that Constantine issued any such a law in 312 either before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge or thereafter. Knipiing, ZKG, 40 (1922), 209 f., agrees with Bihlmeyer and lists the modern authorities on both sides of this question.
Theoretically conceivable but hardly worthy of consideration is a third possibility, that Constantine might have held back his own Edict until after June 13. Such a delay on his part is extremely improbable because, unlike Licinius (see note 16 below), he exercised full dominion in his territories as early as October 28-29, 312. The uprising in Gaul with which he had to contend in the spring and summer of 313 affected only a small area and did not loosen his grip on Italy and North Africa, in which he legislated freely and without hin- drince. For his legislation in the early months of 313, see T. Mommsen, op. cit. in note 10 below, vol. 1, 1, p. ccix; Seeck, op. cit. in note 15 below, 160 f. The insurrection in Gaul is mentioned by Ernest Stein, Hisloire du Bas-Empire, 1, 1 (1959), 92; 1, 2, 459, n. 145; Panygyrici latini, XII (IX), 21, 5-23, 4, ed. Mynors (see n. 51 below), 286-88; IX (12), ed. Galletier, v. 2, p. 106, 140 ft.; Zosimus, Historia nova, 17, 2 f., ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1887), 74.15 ff. Cf. Excerpla Valesiana, 13, ed. Jacques Moreau (Leipzig, 1961), 4.17 f.; Camille Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, 7 (reprinted Brussels, 1964 without date of original edition), 111. Of course, there was nothing to prevent an emperor from legislating even in unsettled times.

(10) H. F. Jolowicz, Historical introduction to the study of Roman law, 2d ed. (Cambridge, England, 1952), 438, 481. See also Codex Theodosianus, 1. 1. 5; Leges Novellae Theodosii II, 1, 5; 2 pr.; Leges Novellae Valentiniani III, 26 (Haenel 25), ed. T. Mommsen & P.M. Meyer, Theodosiani libri xvi... et Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, 1, 2 (reprinted, Berlin, 1954), 29, 4-10; 2 (ibid.), it., 6, 121 f., Cf. for Zeno Biondo Biondi, "La L. 12 cod. de aed. priv. 8, 10 e la questione delle relazioni legislative tra le due parti dell’ impero,” Bulletino dell' Istituto di diritto romano, 44 (1938-37), 363-84; M. A. von Bethmann-IIolhveg, Der Civilprozess des gemeinen Rechts, 3, Der romische Civilprozess (Bonn, 1866), 215f. Fritz von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im romischen Recht (Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrus- forschung and antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 31 [1940]), 157 ff. (on the Publikation der kaiserlichen Edikte), provides no information on publication during the Dominate. The view held by Jolowicz and von Bethmann-Hollwag, loc. cit., that the system of promulgation dis-cussed in the text was a later development and did not obtain ca. 313 is erroneous. See note

(11) Moreau, Scripta minora, 102 Seeck, ZKG, 12 (1891), n.b. 381, 386. Contra, see inter alios Joseph Vogt, Constantin der Grosser, 168 S., 284; Calderone, Costantino, 164 f.; Dorries, Selbstzeugnis (n. 1 above), 229 ff.; J. R. Palanque, « A propos du pretendu iSdit de Milan » Byzantion, 10 (1935), 612 ff.; Andre Piganiol. L’empereur Constantin (Paris, 1932), 92-92; Pierre Batiffol, La paix constantinienne el le catholicisme, 2d ed. (Paris, 1914), 231.
See also Marcello Fortina, “La politica religiosa dell’ imperatore Licinio,” Rivista di studi classici, 7 (1959), 245-65; 8 (I960), 3-23. On the almost hopeless task of attempting to determine whether some of the legal texts now attributed to Constantine had originally bcen issued by Licinius, see Roberto Andreotti, “L’imperatore Licinio ed alcuni problemi della legislazione costantiniana," Studi in onore di Emilio Betti, 3 (Milan, 1962), 41-63; Mario Amelotti, SDHI, 25 (1961), 300-23; Jean Gaudemet, "Constantin, restaurateur de l’ordre,” Studi in onore di Siro Solazzi nel cinquantesimo anniversario del suo insegruimento universitario (1899-1948) (Naples, 1948), 652-94, who analyzes the Constantinian legislation which lie believes annulled and replaced the laws enacted by Maxentius and Licinius.
On Licinius as persecutor, see Eusebius, HE, 10, 8, 8-9, 9, etc., with discussion by Calderons, Costantino, 205-30, who, however, is too eager to explain away all the data Eusebius presents on Licinius’s harshness towards the Church. From what Eusebius says, it appears that, though Licinius did not persecute the Christians in the manner of the earlier pagan emperors, he was unsympathetic towards them and enacted a number of measures which were designed to harass them. The best recent study of the whole career of Licinius is that hy Roberto Andreotti, s.v., in the Dizionario epigrafico di antichita romane, 4, fasc. 31-33 (Rome, 1958-59), 979-1041, n.b. 994-97 on the Edict.
It cannot be proved that Constantine was the first to terminate active persecution of the Christians. He seems to have done so ca. 306-7, but apparently no sooner and no more completely than did his rival, Maxentius, who may once have outstripped him in the positive encouragement of Christianity. See HE, 8, 14, 1 and Hans von Schoenebeck, Beitrage zur Religionspolitik des Maxentius und Constantin, Klio, Beiheft 43 (1939, reprinted Aalen, 1962), 4-27; Alberto Pincherle, “La politica ecclesiastica di Massenzio,” in idem, Cristianesimo antico e moderno (Rome, 1956), 38-50.

(12) E.g., Moreau, Scripta minora, 102 f., without proof and relying on Gregoire, Byzantion, 7 (1932), 649, who guesses that Eusebius did not reproduce the text of this “most perfect law” since it was nothing but Galerius’s Edict of 311. So universal is the respect and admiration for the erudition of the effervescent Henri Grigoire and his faithful disciple that their error about the Edict of Galerius has not previously been refuted.

(13) Nesselhauf, H,T, 74 (1954), 5i f., 54. Many authorities, e.g., Calderone, Costantino, 163-204, Nesselhauf, loc. cic., Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 71 (1954), 38, & 72 (1955), 171 f., and Jocken Martin, “Toleranzedikt v. Mailand,” Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche, 2d ed., 10 (Freiburg im Er., 1965), 246, believe that Constantine issued a law in 312 which served as the model for the Edict (attributed to Licinius by all four).
A curiosity worthy of mention is Eusebius’s remark (HE, 9, 10, 6) that Maximinus, whom he denounces elsewhere as a stubborn enemy of the Church, legislated for the Christians “in the fullest and most perfect manner'’ (τελεώτατα καί πληρέστατα διαταξάμενος).

(14) Henri Gregoire, Byzantion, 7 (1932), 649, and Jacques Moreau, Scripta minora, 102 f., make much of the fact that some MSS omit HE, 10, 5, 1-7, 2 (which contains the Edict and a number of laws issued by Constantine alone). But these omissions by no means prove that the Edict is not fully attested since, of course, it still remains in MP, 48 and five out of nine MSS and versions of the HE.
Hugh J. Lawlor, Eusebiana, essays on the Ecclesiastical History oj Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (Oxford, 1912), 243-54, holds that there was only one edition of HE, 10, but that some MSS are defective. His argument is directed against Eduard Schwartz, RE, 6, 1 (Stuttgart, 1907), 1405 Γ., and idem, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 9, 3 (Leipzig, 1908, xlviii, who maintains that tiio passages in question were eliminated by Eusebius in the fourth and last edition of the HE, so as to remove all references favorable to Licinius, whose name would have been obnoxious to Constantine after the war of 324. f But. Schwartz’s argument is unconvincing since, apart from the Edict itself HE (10, 5,14), the portion of the HE that is missing in some of the MSS consists entirely of decrees of various kinds (HE, 10, 5, 15-7, 2) by which Constantine conferred on the Church special benefits of which he would have been proud (restoration of confiscated property, convocation of ecclesiastical synods, grants of money, immunity of the clergy from public offices). Hence, it seems better to suppose, with Lawlor, that the omissions in the defective MSS are to be attributed to accident rather than design. Even if Schwartz’s theory were tenable, however, the text of the Edict (in HE, 10, 5, 1-14) cannot be impugned, as he himself concedes (GCS, 9, 3, xlviii-1). 5 Cf. Richard Laqueur, Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit [Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 11 [Berlin-Leipzig, 1929]), 201 ft., 207 f., who argues, quite implausibly, that the Edict was omitted in the last edition of the HE, not because of the damnatio memoriae of Licinius, but because ca. 324 (his date for the last edition of the HE) these laws on Christian freedom of worship were taken for granted and no longer seemed vital or relevant. For a brief summary see Gustave Bardy, Sources Chretiennes, 55 (Paris, 1958), 104-13; 73 (I960), 129-32.

(15)The date is fully discussed by Caldercne, Costantino, 158-63. Otto Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fur die Jahre 377 bis 47G n. Chr. (Stuttgart, 1919), 50, 35 ff., contends that the texts cited indicate that Constantine was in Rome on January 18, 313. On posting, etc., see idem, 8 if.

(16) The long delay between the sessions in Milan (which were held in January, 313, or possibly eyen as late as February or March) and June 13, on which Licinius’s Edict appeared, is best to be explained as the interval Licinius needed to bring Maximinus’s part of the Enpiro under his effective control. See Calderone, Costantino, 182 ff.

(17) Excerpta Valesiana, 4, 13, ed. Jacques Moreau (Leipzig, 1961), 4, 12-18; Zosimus, Historia nova, 2, 17, 2, ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1887), 74, 15 ft; Epitome de Caesaribus, 41, 1, edd. F. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel, with Sextus Aurelius Victor (Leipzig, 1961), 166, 12 ft. Constantia is not mentioned by name in MP, 43, 2 or 45, 1 f. Constantia, the daughter of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora, is not to be confused with Constantine’s daughter of the same name: Adolf Lippoid, s.v. Constantia, Der Kleine Pauly, edd. K, Ziegler & W. Sontheimer, 1 (Stuttgart, 1964), 1283 f.

(18) By Sesan, Kirche und. Staat, 1, 181-207, 207 ft., n. b. 190-92. See n. 5 above. Wittig, loc. cit. (η. 1 above), agrees with Sesan except that he prefers to describe this law as a rescript rather than an edict, and ascribes it to Licinius rather than to Constantine.

(19) So inter alios J. Maurice “Note sur le preambule place par Eusebe en tete de l’fidit de Milan", Bulletin d’ancienne litterature et d’archeologie chretiennes, 4 (1914), 45. So also Hermann Doorries, Wort und Stunde, 1 (Gottingen, 1966), 20 n. 35, who goes almost as far as I do when he says [ibid., 23) “Der herkommliche Name ‘Mailander Edikt’ ist zwar formal unrichtig, sachlich aber vollig zutreffend.”

(20) Vogt, Constantin, 1/0.

(21) Ernest Stein and J. R. Palanque, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 1, 2 (n. p., 1959), 458, n. 143; Moreau, Scripta minora, 103.

(22) So Vogt, Constantin, 169, who concludes of Constantine and Licinius at Milan: “dass sie auf die Abfassung eines Edikts verziehteten und sich damit begaugten, die Grundlinien einer kiinfligen Politik zu umreissen.”

(23) Moreau, Scripta minora, 101-103; SC, 39, 2, 458.
* It is usually so.described, though Eusebius (HE, 10, 5, 15) calls it a διάταξις (= constitutio), and it probably merits the designation edict as much as the Edict of 313. See notes 28-33 below and Elirhardt, he. cit. (n. 6 above), 171.

(24) Baynes, Constantine the Great, 11, 74 1; Moreau, Scripta minora, 102.

(25) Moreau, Scripta minora, 101-3; Seeck, ZKG, 12 (1891), 381 86.

(26) Eusebius, HE, 8,11, 3-5. Some of the MSS (see GCS and LCL editions) omit Liciniixs’s name.

(27) Erich Caspar, Geschichte des Papstuums, 1 (Tubingen, 1930), 581, followed by Jacques Moreau, Scripta minora, 101, who does not attempt to deal with J. R. Palanque’s ingenious refutation of Caspar’s theory in Byzantion, 10 (1935), 607-16; but see n. 44 below. Vogt, Constantin der Grosse, 2d ed. (Munich, 1960), 169, 284, accepts Caspar’s conclusion without discussion, although he cites Palanque.
In BZ, 32 (1932), 117 f., Ernest Stein accepts Caspar’s argument that the Edict of Galerius was being cited in Africa in 314 (as we now know 315: see n. 43 below). But lie interprets this circumstance as proof that the Edict of 313 was then actually in effect. According to him, since the actorum rescissio operated to expunge ail the legislation of a tyrant (in this case, Maxentius), Galerius’s Edict could not have been re-instated after the death of Waxenlius except by a law of Constantine, i.e., by the Edict of 313. This is a complex notion, and it is difficult to follow Stein’s argument that Constantine’s Edict of 313 re-instated Galerius’s Edict, which it simultaneously replaced. On the rescissio, see Calderone, Costantino, 152-55; Theodor Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht, 2, 2, 3rd ed. (reprinted, Graz, 1952, with no reference to the original date), 1129-32.

(28) On this definition of the imperial edict, see Leopold Wenger, Die Quellen des romischen Rechts (Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, 2 [Vienna, 1953]), 425, n. 2.

(29) So, e.g., Seeck, ZKG, 12 (1891), 381-86. For the mandatum, see Wenger, op. cit., 425 f.

(30) Jolowicz, op. cit. (n. 10 above), 376, 380 f., 480; Jean Gaudemet, La formation du droit seculier et du droit de l'eglise aux IVe et Ve siecles [Instilut de droit romain de l’Universite de Paris, 15 [1957]), 26 f.; idem, Institutions de l’antiquite (Paris, 1967), 481, 585, 733.

(31) On rescripts, see Wenger, op. cit., 427-32; Jolowicz, op. cit., 378-80, 479: Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic dictionary of Roman law (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 43, 2 [Philadelphia, 1953]), 574, 680.

(32)Jolowicz, op. cit., 479, cf. 376 IT.; Kipp, s.v. Edictum, RE, 5, 2 (Stuttgart, 1905), 1947. 64 ft.

(33)Jolowicz, op. cit., 478 f.; Wenger, op. cit., 433 f. F. Martroye, “A propos de l’edit de Milan,’ ” Bulletin d’ancienne litterature et d’archecologie chretiennes, 4 (1914), 48 f., inexplicably denies that the Edict “s’agit... d’une declaration de droits s’adressant a la population tout entiere. ”

(34) On this text, see Fritz Schulz, “Bracton on kingship”, L'Europa e il diritto romano, Studi in mcntoria di Paolo Koschaker, 1 (Milan, 1954), 44 ff.; Pietro de Francisci, Arcana imperii, ’, 2 (Milan, 1948), 203-23.

(35) It is hardly necessary to warn the reader that Quod principi placuit is not to be translated crudely and unidiomatically, “What has pleased the king," as many of even the most erudite scholars persist in rendering it. The impersonal placet here is used in the technical meaning of rule, determine, decide, ordain, etc.; and the clause as a whole means: “What the emperor rules,” i.e., what he has determined in his judicial capacity as lawgiver, pre-sumably after consultation with his legal advisers (CJ, 1. 14. 2) or at least after due reflection on juridical matters. The full text is of great importance: Inslitutiones, 1. 2. 5: Sed et quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem, cum lege regia, quae de imperio eius lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et polestatem concessit. Quodcumque igitur imperator per epistulam constituit vel cognoscens decrevit vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat: haec sunt quae constitutiones appellantur. The parallel text, Digest, 1. 4. 1, differs in only a few minor particulars.

(36) An exception is Amelotti, SDHI, 2? (1961), 288-95, n. b. 292, n. 142, 308 (who ascribes it to Licinius alone, but admits it to have been an edict); Adriani, SR, 2 (1954), 24 (I., accepts it as an edict, as does Ehrhardt, ZSS, R.A, 52 (1955), 171. Even Moreau, who argues that this document cannot be described as an edict, himself (SC, 39, 2, 459, on 1, 15), refers to it as Vedit, and fails to comment on either CJ, 1. 14. 2 f. or placuisse nobis, which provide the key to its legal character.
A detailed study of the phraseology of the Edict and its use of legal terminology would be rewarding,

(37) Nesselhauf, HJ, 74 (1954), 46 f.

(38) See Gustav Haenel, Corpus legum ab imperatoribus romanis ante justinianum latarum quart extra constitutionum codices supersunt, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1857, repr. Aalen, 1965); 1, 187 fl.

(39) On this document, see. Calderone, Costantino, 144f.; Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 72 (1955), 171-73; Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, 10, 68 f.; Kraft, Kaiser Konstantins religiose Entwicklung, 160 f.; Dorries, Selbstzeugnis, 16.

(40) According to Knipfing, ZKG, 40 (1922), 211, the letter stated by Eusebius to have required correction is the one Sabinus sent at Maximinus’s behest to replace the Edict of Galerius (HE, 9, 1-6). But I fail to see why Constantine and Licinius would have assumed responsibility for this document, with which they had had no connection.
Salvatore Calderone, “A1ΡΕΣΙΣ — ‘condicio’ nelle Litterae Licinii," Helikon, 1 (1961), 283-94, suggests that the word condiciones (in MP, 48, 4), which Eusebius translates by αιρέσεις (HE. 10, 5, 6), in this context means, not rendition, stipulation, proviso, etc., as it usually does, but something like social condition and, hence, heretical sect. This exegesis requires us to suppose that the law to which the emperors refer (said hy C. to have been that promulgated lby Constantine alone in 312) put limitations on freedom of worship because it listed certain Christian sects which were to be tolerated but did not, and could not, include them all. The notion then arose, C. theorizes, that only the groups named were to be free. Accordingly, the clause, amotis omnibus omnino condicionibus (αφαιρεθεισών παντελώς των αιρέσεων), means that the Edict eliminated this catalogue and thereby extended the scope of the religious privileges which it granted.
This is an ingenious hypothesis. But it is unnecessarily complicated, and assumes that Eusebius, or his translator, on coming upon condicio in the Latin original, took it to be the equivalent of secta. No one, it may be said categorically, would ever arrive at such a translation automatically, or without protest, even after the lexicographical analysis that has been mustered in its behalf.
Somewhat similarly, Ch. Saumagne, “Du mot αίρεσις dans l’edit licinien de l’annee 313," Theologische Zeitschrift, 10 {1954), 376-87, maintains that Lactantius saw amotis omnibus omnino sectis in the text of the Edict which he was transcribing but could not understand it and therefore corrected sectis to condicionibus.
My view is that the latter word stood in the original Edict and that αιρέσεων in Eusebius’s translation is to be understood as restriction, condition, etc., a sense which the word can, and does occasionally, bear (see Saumagne, loc. cit., 382). But it must be admitted that αϊρεσις does not normally have this connotation. Perhaps, Eusebius, or his Latinist, simply made a mistake.

(41) Against this assumption, Knipiing, ZKG, 40 (1922), 210 f., argues, inter alia, that Galerius died too soon after issuing his Edict to have had an opportunity to circulate the letters in question. It seems more probable, however, that Galerius had these special instructions in mind from the very beginning and sent them out simultaneously with the Edict.

(42) For the text see HE, 8, 17, 3-15; MP, 34, with textual notes in Moreau, SC, 39, 1,117; Haenel, Corpus leguin, 1, 185. The latest study is Hans U. Instinsky, Die alie Kirche und das Heil des Staates (Munich, 1963). Karl Bihlmeyer, “Das Toleranzedikt des Galerius von 311." Theologische Quartalschrift, 94 (1912), 411-27, 527-89, still merits attention.

(43)Acta purgationis Felicis, ed. C. Ziwsa, S. Optati Milevitani libri vii (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 26 [1893]), 203, 5 it. On the identity of Ingentius, Bishop Felix of Aptungi, etc., see Ernst L. Grasmuck, Coercitio, Staat und Kirche im Donatistenstreit (Bonner historische Forschungen, 22 [Bonn, 1964]), 65 it., 68 ff., and passim, who puts this episode in 315 rather than 314 (p. 68, n. 300); W. H. Frend, The Donatist Church (Oxford, 1952), 150 IT.

(44) By J. R. Palanque, in a masterly article, “A propos du pretendu Edit de Milan,” Byzantion, 10 (1935), 607-16. In Histoire de l'Eglise, 3, odd. A. Fliche & V. Martin, De la paix Constantinienne a la mort de Theodose (Paris, 1935), 23 f., however, he abandons his former position, which was sound, and attributes the Edict to Licinius. But Ernest Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 1, De l’Etat romain a l’ Etat byzantin (284-476) ([Bruges], 1959), 92, 458, edited by Palanque, still filings “a la realite de la decision de tolerance de Milan,” which he ascribes to both Constantine and Licinius, although he prefers to call it a man- daium rather than an edict.

(45) CSEL, 25, 203, 8 ff.

(46) It was not until a few years later, ca. 319, that Constantine ordered that indemnification he made to private individuals: Vita Constantini, 1,41,3:2, 20, 2, ed. Ivar A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke, 1 (Die griechischen christlichen Schrifistetler der ersten drei Jahrhunderte,(Leipzig, 1902J). 27, 10 ff., 49, 13 ft, discussed by Arnold Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 72 (1955), 171-75.

(47) See literature cited in n. 7 above.

(48) So Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 72 (1955), 172 f. Ludwig Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Geschichte der juristischen Person, 1 (Munich, 1933), 206 f., denies that τo δίκαιον in HE, 10, 5, 15-17 can be equated with corpus and σώμα in the sense of a legal corporation, as does Artur Steinwenter, “Die Rechtsstellung der Kirchen und Κloster nacη den Papyri”, ZSS, KA, 19 (1930), 31-35.

(49)The best and most detailed treatment of the size of the Christian population remains Adolf yon Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 4th ed. (Leipzig, 1924), 2, 946-58. For later surveys, see B. Kotting, “Christentum I (Ausbreitung),” Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum, 2 (Stuttgart, 1954), 1138-59; Kenneth S. Latourette, A history of the expansion of Christianity, 1 (New York, 1937), 158-00 and passim.

(50) Hans P. L’Orange and Armin von Gerkan, Der spatantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens (Studien zur spatantiken Kunstgeschichte, 10 [Berlin, 1939]), 4-28; Antonio Giuliano, Area di Costantino (Milan, 1955). Alfoldi, The conversion of Constantine, 69 ff., comes close to enunciating my theory of the connection between Constantine’s Edict and the Arch.

(51) XII panegyrici latini, ed. Β.Λ.Β. Mynors (Oxford, 1964), no. XII (IX), p. 251 ft.; Panegyriques latins, ed. with French translation, by Adouard Galletier, 2 (Paris, 1952), no. IX (12), p. 103 ft. (with essay on the dale, etc., 105 ft.). The passage summarized in the text (26,1) runs; Quamobrem te, summe rerum sator, cuius tot nomina sunt quot gentium linguas esse uoluisti (quem enim te ipse did uelis, scire non possumus), sive tule quaedam uis mensque divina es, ... sive aliqua supra omne caelum potestas es quae hoc opus luum ex altiore Naturae arce despicias... Et certe summit in te bonitas est et potestas (26, 3).
On the emperor as deus, etc., see Francois Burdeau, “L’empereur d’apres les panegyriques latins,” Aspects de l’empire romain [Travaux el recherches de la faculle de droit et des sciences economiqucs de Paris, Sciences historiques, 1 [Paris, 1964]), 1-60, n. b. 10 ff.; and on the panegyrists in general, besides the introductions in Gallelier’s edition, cf. Rene Pichon, Les derniers ecrivains profanes (Paris, 1906), 9/ f., 101 f., 103-8. On the passages cited in notes 50-55, see also Johannes Straub, Vom Herrscherideal in der Spatantike (n: 3 above), 99 ffv.

(52) Mynors, IV (x), p. 145 ff.; Galletier, X (4), v. 2, 147 ff.

(53) Mynors, VI (vii), p. 186 ff.; Galletier, VII (6), v. 2, p. 31ff.

(54) Mynors, V (viii), p. 174 ff. Galletier, VIII (5), v. 2, p. 76 ff.

(55)For the texte of the inscription, see Hermann (us) Dessaeau, Inscriptiones latinae selectee, 3rd ed. (repr. Berlin, 1962) orinal date unfortunately not given.

(56) On the Paganisme of the Senate, see Aldoldi, The conversion of Constantine, 61’ 73.

(57) E. g., L’Orange and von Gerkan, op. cit. (n. 50 above), 5 f., 174 ff.; Franz Altheim, Aus Spatantike und Christentum (Tubingen, 1951), 49 ff. Bernard Berenson, The Arch of Constantine, or the decline of form (London, 1954), who concerns himself with style rather than iconography, is unsympathetic to the art of the fourth century.