Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Edict of Milan (313) : A Defence of Its Traditional Authorship and Designation
The Edict of Milan (313) : A Defence of Its Traditional Authorship and Designation
Anastos
Anastos Milton V. The Edict of Milan (313) : A Defence of its Traditional Authorship and Designation. In: Revue des études
byzantines, tome 25, 1967. pp. 13-41.
doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1967.1383
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1967_num_25_1_1383
THE EDICT OF MILAN (313)
(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
persécuteurs, 48, ed. with French translation and notes by Jacques Moreau, Sources Chré
tiennes, 39, vols. 1-2 (Paris, 1954); and in Greek in Eusebius, HE, 1.0, 5, 2-14, ed. Eduard
Schwartz, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 9, 2 (Berlin
1908); with English translation by J. ?. L. Oulton and H. J. Lawlor, Eusebius, the Eccle
siastical History, 2 (Loeb Classical Library, 1932); with French translation by Gustave,
Bardy, Sources chrétiennes, 55 (Paris, 1958). P. R. Coleman-Norton, Roman Slate & Chris
tianChurch, 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 impor
tance 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' Islituto di storia
dell' Université di Messina, 3 [Florence, 1962]); Mario Amelotti, "Da Diocleziano a Costant
ino,note in tema di costituzioni imperiali", Studio el documenta historiae et iuris, 27 (1961),
241-323; Maurilio Adriani, "La storicità dell' Editto di Milano", Studi Romani, 2 (1954),
18-32; Herbert Nesselhauf, "Das Toleranzgesetz des Licinius", Historisches Jahrbuch,
74 (1954), 44-61; Andreas Alföldi, The conversion of Constantine (Oxford, 1948), 37 f., 129
?. 13; J. R. Palanque, "A propos du prétendu Edit de Milan", Byzantion, 10 (1935), 607-16;
Norman H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (Proceedings of the Bri
tish Academy, 15 [London, 1929]), 11, 69-74 (the lecture was delivered in 1930); Richard
Laqueur, "Die beiden Fassungen des sog. Toleranzedikts von Mailand", ?????????? Heinr
ichSwoboda dargebracht (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. Knip-
fmg, "Das angebliche 'Mailänder Edikt' v. J. 313 im Lichte der neueren Forschung", Zeit
schrift für Kirchengeschichte, 40 (1.922), 206-18; Emile Chénon, "Les conséquences juri
diques de PÉdit de Milan (313), Nouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 38
(1914-15), 255-63; Pierre Batifîol, La paix conslanlinienne et le catholicisme, 2d ed. (Paris,
1914), 203-67, n. b. 229 ff.; G. L. Perugi, "La fonte giuridica deh" Editto di Milano", Borna
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 Bul-
lettino di Archeologia cristiana, 19 (1913), 71-75; Joseph Wittig, "Das Toleranzreskript von
Mailand 313", Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit, ed. Franz J. Dölger (Freiburg im Br.,
1913), 40-65; Valerian Çesan, Die Religionspolitik der christlich-röm. Kaiser von Konstantin
d. Gr. bis Theodosius d. Gr. (313-380) (Kirche und Staat im römisch-byzantinischen Reiche
14 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
seil Konstantin dem Grossen und bis zum Falle Konstantinopels, 1 Czernowitz, 191.1]), 128-
237; Guglielmo Schnyder, "L'Editto di Milano, ed i recenti studi critiei che lo riguardano",
|
Disserlazioni della, Pontificia Accademia Romana, di Archeologia, S. 2, 8 (1903), 149-79:
?. Crivellucci, "L'Editto di Milano", Studi Storici, I (1892), 239-50; idem, "Intorno all'
Editto di Milano", ibid., 4 (1895), 267-73. A. IL M. Jones, The Later Roman. Empire (284-
602), I (Oxford, 1964), 80 f., simply describes it as an edict without discussion. Heinz
Kahler, "Konstantin 313", Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts, 67, (1952),
1-30, does not deal with the Edict, but with proof that the colossal statue of Constantine,
fragments of which are preserved in the Palazzo dei Conservator)., was produced ea. 313 and
set up in the (western) apse of the Basilica of (Maxentius) Constantino.
(2) The Fans el origo of this school was Otto Seeck, "Das sogenannte LdikL von Mailand",
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichic, 12 (1891), 381-86, whose thesis was taken up enthusiast
ically by Henri Grégoire in liyzantion, 7 (1932), 645-61; 10 (1935), 616-19 (see also bibli
ography 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 Sclnniffhenner, Annales II.
Saraviensis, Reihe: Philosophische Fakultät, 1 [Heidelberg, 1964], 106-13); "Les 'Litterae
Licinii' ", AUS, 2 (1935), 100-105 (Scripta minora, 99-105, n. b. 102: "Licinius, cl Licinius
seul, est l'auteur de l'acte de tolérance de 313"); "Vérité historique of 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. ?. 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 Grégoire and Moreau
reject.
* To which I will refer below as the Edict or, occasionally, to avoid ambiguity, as the
Edict of 313.
** HE = Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (e????s?ast??? ?st???a).
MP = Lactantius's De mortibus perseculorum.
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 15
(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:
d?at??a?
t??t' ?'st??,
?d??µat?saµe?,
dp?? d?µe? ???
?a? ?t???
p??????st?a????
t? ?e??? a?d??
?a? te
p?s??
?a? t?
??e????a?
s?ßa? ??e??et?,
a?'?es??
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 féliciter tarn ego [quam] Constantinus Augustus quam etiam
ego Licinius Augustus apud Mediolanum conuenissemus atque uniuersa
qua3 ad commoda et securitatem publicam pertinerent, in tractatu
haberemus, hsec inter cetera quae 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 cselesti, nobis atque omnibus qui sub
potestate nostra sunt constituti, placatum ac propitium 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 Euseb
ius'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 rela
tionship, however, between HE, 10, 5, 2-4, and MP, 48 cannot be
precisely determined.
(5) For a list of these with discussion, see I.A. Heikel, De Constantini imperatoris scriptis
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., 189-216, concludes from the differences between the two texts, espe
cially 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 préambule placé par Eusèbe en tête de l'Édit de Milan", Bulletin d'ancienne
littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes, 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.
18 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
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),
347; 71 (1954), 25-40; Alexander Philipsborn, "Der Begriff der juristischen Person im
römischen Recht", ibid., 71 (1954), 41.-70; Hans-Rudolf Hagemann, Die Stellung der Piae
Causae nach justinianischem Rechte (Basler Studien zur Rechtswissenschaft, 37 [Basel, 1953]);
Maurizio Borda, "Collegia funeraticia", Enciclopedia Cailolica, 3 (1949), 1950-52; Giuseppe
Bovini, La propriété ecclesiaslica e la, condizione giuridica della chiesa in età precostantiniana
(Milan, 1949); idem, s.v. Chiesa, A, VI, "Posizione giuridica della Chiesa fino 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 Krüger, Die Rechtsstellung der vor-
konstantinischen Kirchen (Kirchenrechlliche Abhandlungen, 115-16 [Stuttgart, 1935]), 234-42;
J. P. Waltzing, "Collegia," DACL, 3, 2 (1914), 2107-40; Carlo Carassai, "La politica reli-
giosa di Costantino il Grande e la propriété della Chiesa," Archivio della R. Societä Romana
di Storia Patria, 24 (1901), 95-157. Cf. also Fernand de Visscher, Le droit des tombeaux
romains (Milan, 1963), 261-76.
(?a) Against the older view that the constitutions of every emperor applied automatic
ally 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 his own pars imperii. This principle was established by
M. Antonio de Dominicis, « II problema dei rapporti burocratico-legislativi tra 'occidente
ed oriente' nel basso impero romano alia luce delle inscriptiones e subscriptiones delle costi-
tuzioni imperiali », Islilulo Lombardo di scienze e letlere, Rendiconti, Classe di lettere e Scienze
Morali e Storiche, S. 3, 18 = 87 (1954), 329-487. Similar conclusions were reached indepen
dentlyby Jean Gaudemet, « Le partage législatif au Bas-Empire d'après un ouvrage récent »,
SDHI, 21(1955), 319-31; idem, « Le partage législatif dans la seconde moitié du ive siècle »,
Studi in onore di Pietro de Francisa, 2 (Milan, 1956), 317-54 (with particular attention to
the years 364-95) ; idem, La formation du droit séculier et du droit de V Eglise au IVe et Ve siècles,
(Institut de droit romain de l'Université de Paris, 15 [Paris, 1957]), 17-26; idem, « Ortho
doxie et interpolations (à propos de CTh. xvi, 1, 4 et xvi, 4, 1) », Mélanges en l'honneur de
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT ?G MILAN 21
S. E. le Cardinal André Jullien, Revue de droit canonique, 10, 3-4; 11, 1 (1960-61), 163 f.;
idem, Institutions de l'antiquité (Paris, 1967), 673; Giovanni Gualandi, « Privilegi imperiali
e dualità legislativa nel. Basso Impero alia luce di alcuni testi di Libanio », Archivio giuri-
dico « Filippo Serafi,ni », s. 6, 25=156 (1959), 5-34; Ernst Levy, « West-östliches Vulgarrecht
und Justinian », ZSS, RA, 76 (1959), 2-5.
(8) Moreau in his translation, SC, 39, 1, 131 f., translates die Iduum luniarum by le
quinze 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 Maxontius.
This traditional date, called into question by Patrick Bruun, "The Battle of the Milvian
Bridge," Hermes, 88 (1960), 361-65; idem, Studies in Constantinian chronology (Numismatic
Notes and 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 crono-
logia costantiniana," Latomus, 23 [(1964), 537-42; Maria R. Alföldi, Die constantinische
Goldprägung (Mainz, 1963), 32; eadem and Dietmar Kienast, "Zu P. Bruuns Datierung der
Schlacht an der Milvischen Brücke," Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geld geschickte, 11
(1961), 33-41.
(9) Calderone, Costanlino (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 angebliche Toleranzedikt Konstantins von 312. Mit Beiträgen zur Mailänder Konsti
tution (313)," Theologische Quartalschrift, 96 (1914), 65-100, 198-224, denies that Constant
ine issued any such a law in 312 either before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge or thereafter.
Knipfing, 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, Histoire du Bas-Empire, 1, 1 (1959), 92; 1, 2, 459, ?. 145; Pane-
gyrici latini, XII (IX), 21, 5-23, 4, ed. Mynors (see n. 51 below), 286-88; IX (12), ed. Galletier,
22 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
v. 2, p. 106, 140 (T.; Zosinius, Historia nova, 17, 2 f., ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1887),
74.15 ff. Cf. Excerpta 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) II. F. Jolovvicz, Historical introduction lo the study of Roman law, 2d cd. (Cambridge,
England, 1952), 438, 481. See also Codex Theodosianus, 1. 1. 5; Leges Novellae Theodosii II,
1, 5; 2 pr. ; Leges Novellae Valenliniani III, 26 (Haenel 25), ed. T. Mommsen & P. M. Meyer,
Tkeodosiani libri xvi... et Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, 1, 2 (reprinted,
Berlin, 1.954), 29, 4-10; 2 (ibid.), 4L, 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,"
Bulleltino dell' Istilulo di diritto romano, 44 (1936-37), 363-84; M. A. von BoLhmann-Hollweg,
Der Civilprozess des gemeinen Rechts, 3, Der römische Civilprozess (Bonn, 1866), 215 f. Fritz
von Schwind, Zur Frage der Publikation im römischen Hecht (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrus
forschung und antiken Rechts geschickte, 31 [1940]), 157 ff. (on the Publikation der kaiser
lichen Edikte), provides no information on publication during the Dominate. The view held
by Jolowicz and von Bethmann-Hollweg, loc. cit., that the system of promulgation di
scussed in the text was a later development and did not obtain ca. 313 is erroneous. See note
7a above.
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 23
(11) Moreau, Scripta minora, 102 f.; Seeck, ZKG, 12 (1891), n.b. 381, 386. Contra, see
inter alios Joseph Vogt, Constantin der Grosse, 168 f., 284; Calderone, Costanlino, 164 f.;
Dörries, Selbstzeugnis (n. 1 above), 229 ff.; J. R. Palanque, « A propos du prétendu Edit
de Milan. » Byzantion, 10 (1935), 612 ff.; André Piganiol. L'empereur Constantin (Paris,
1932), 92-97; Pierre Batiffol, La paix conslantinienne 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 (1960), 3-23. On the almost hopeless task of attempting
to determine whether some of the legal texts now attributed to Constantine had originally
been issued by Licinius, see Roberto Andreotti, "L'imperatore Licinio ed alcuni problemi
della legislazione costantiniana," Studi in onore di Emilio Belli, 3 (Milan, 1962), 41-63;
Mario Amelotti, SDIII, 27 (1961), 300-23; Jean Gaudemet, "Constantin, restaurateur de
l'ordre," Studi in onore di Siro Solazzi nel cinquantesimo anniversario del suo insegnamento
universitario (1899-1948) (Naples, 1948), 652-74, who analyzes the Constantinian legisla
tionwhich he 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 Cal
derone, Costanlino, 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
by Roberto Andreotti, s.v., in the Dizionario epigrafico di antichità 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 posi
tive encouragement of Christianity. See HE, 8, 14, 1 and. Hans von Schoenebeck, Beiträge
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.
24 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
(12) E.g., Moreau, Scripta minora, 102 f., without proof and relying on Grégoire, Byzant
ion,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 Grégoire and his faithful disciple
that their error about the Edict of Galerius has not previously been refuted.
(13) Nesselhauf, H J, 74 (1954), 51 f., 54. Many authorities, e.g., Calderone, Costanlino,
163-204, Nesselhauf, loc. cit., Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 71 (1954), 38, & 72 (1955), 1.71 f., and
Jochen Martin, "Toleranzedikt v. Mailand," Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2d ed., 10
(Freiburg im Br., 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 Chris
tians "in the fullest and most perfect manner" (te?e?tata ?a?. p????stata d?ata??µe???).
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 25
(14) Henri Grégoire, Byzantion, 7 (1932), 649, and Jacques Moreau, Scripla 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 Gonstantine 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 of 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 f., and idem, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 9, 3 (Leipzig,
1909), xlviii-1, who maintains that the 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,
2-14), 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, convocat
ion of ecclesiastical synods, grants of money, immunity of the clergy from public offices).
Hence, it seems better to suppose, with Lawior, 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 ff., 207 f., who argues, quite implaus
ibly,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 Chrétiennes, 55 (Paris, 1958),
104-13; 73 (1960), 129-32.
26 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
III. -IV. The Edict of Milan: Constantinian and Licinian texts ident
ical.
(15) The date is fully discussed by Calderone, Cosiantino, 158-63. Otto Seeck, Begeslen
der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre Sll bis 476 η. Chr. (Stuttgart, 1919), 50, 35 IT., contends
that the texts cited indicate that Constantine was in Rome on January 18, 313. On posting,
etc., see idem,, 8 ff.
(16) The long delay between the sessions in Milan (which were held in January, 313,
or possibly even as late as February or March) and Juno 13, on which Licinius's Edict
appeared, is best to be explained as the interval Licinius needed to bring Maximinus's
part of the Empire under his effective control. See Galderone, Cosiantino, 182 ff.
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 27
(17) Excerpia Valesiana, 4, 13, ed. Jacques Moreau (Leipzig, 1961), 4, 12-18; Zosimus,
Historia nova, 2, 17, 2, ed. L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig, 1887), 74, 15 ff. ; Epitome de Caesaribus,
41, 1, edd. F. Pichlmayr and R. Gruondel, with Sextus Aurelius Victor (Leipzig, 1961),
166, 12 ff. 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 Lippold, 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 ff., 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 préambule placé par Eusèbe en tête de PBdit
de Milan1", Bulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes, 4 (1914), 45. So also
Hermann Dörries, Wort und Stunde, 1 (Göttingen, 1966), 20 n. 35, who goes almost as far
as I do when he says (ibid., 23) "Der herkömmliche Name 'Mailänder Edikt' ist zwar formal
unrichtig, sachlich aber völlig zutreffend."
28 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
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 Constant
ine 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 Anulinus (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
(28) On this definition of the imperial edict, see Leopold Wenger, Die Quellen des römischen
Rechts (Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, 2
[Vienna, 1953]), 425, η. 2.
(29) So, e.g., Seeek, ZKG, 12 (1891), 381-86. For the mandaium, see Wenger, op. cit.,
425 f.
(30) Jolowicz, op. cit. (η. 10 above), 376, 380 f., 480; Jean Gaudemet, La formation du
droit séculier et du droit de V église aux IVe et V& siècles (institut de droit romain de V Univers
ité de Paris, 15 [1957]), 26 f.; idem, Institutions de l'antiquité (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 ff.; Kipp, s.v. Ediclum, RE, 5, 2 (Stuttgart, 1905),
1947. 64 ff.
(33) Jolowicz, op. cit., 478 f.; Wenger, op. cit., 433 f. F. Martroye, "A propos de Tédit
de Milan,' " Rulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes, 4 (1914), 48 f., inexpli
cablydenies that the Edict "s'agit... d'une déclaration de droits s'adressant à la population
tout entière. "
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 31
(34) On this text, see Fritz Schulz, "Bracton on kingship", U Europa e il diriuo romano,
Studi in memoria di Paolo Koschaker, 1 (Milan, 1954), 44 ff.; Pietro de Francisci, Arcana
imperil, 3, 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 unidioraatically, "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 tech
nical 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, pr
esumably after consultation with his legal advisers (GJ, 1. 14. 2) or at least after due reflec
tionon juridical matters. The full text is of great importance: Inslitutiones, 1. 2. 6: 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 potestatem concessit. Quodcumque igitur
imperator per epistulam constituit vel cognoscens decrevit vel edicto praecepit, legem esse
constat: haec sunt quae constitution.es appellantur. The parallel text, Digest, 1. 4. 1, differs
in only a few minor particulars.
32 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
(36) An exception is Amelotti, SDHI, 27 (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 IT., accepts it as an edict, as does Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 72 (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 Védit, 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 Iustinianum latarum
quae extra constilulionum codices supersunt, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1857, repr. Aalen, 1965); 1,
187 ff.
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 33
(4) Fourthly, the letter (HE, 10, 5, 15-17) to Anulinus (39), pro
consul of Africa, which some (see n. 24 f. above) deem to have been
sufficient expression of Constantine's officiai 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 Cons
tantine'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 Anulinus had been far more satisfactory a pronounce
ment on the religious question than it really was.
There is some dispute as to what these vexatious condiciones (40)
(39) On this document, see, Calderone, Costanlino, 144 f.; Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 72 (1955),
171-73; Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, 10, 68 f.; Kraft, Kaiser
Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung, 160 f.; Dörries, Selbstzeugnis, 16.
(40) According to Knipflng, 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, "ΑΙΡΕΣΙΣ — 'condicio' nelle Litter ae 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 condition, 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 by C. to have been
34 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
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
pietatern, christianis exhibere dignantur, ut disciplinam corrumpi nolint,
sed potius obseruari relegionem (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 traditor (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 mihi
dicas dei cultorem te esse, [ac delendurn] propterea non possis torqueri.
Torqueris, ne mentiaris, quod alienum, christianis esse uidetur. Et ideo
die simpliciter, ne lorquearis. ("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
(43) Acta purgationis Felicis, ed. C. Ziwsa, S. Optali Milevilani libri vii (Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiaslicorum Latinorum, 26 [1893]), 203, 5 ff. On the identity of Ingentius, Bishop Felix
of Aptungi, etc., see Ernst L. Grasmiick, Coercilio, Staat und Kirche im Donaiislenstreit
(Bonner historische Forschungen, 22 [Bonn, 1964J), 65 ff., 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 ff.
(4 4) By J. It. Palanque, in a masterly article, "A propos du prétendu Edit de Milan,"
Byzanlion, 10 (1935), 607-16. In Histoire de l'Église, 3, edd. ?. Fliehe & V. Martin, De la
paix Constanlinicnne à la mort de Théodose (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'État romain à l'Etat byzantin (284-476) ([Bruges], 1959),
92, 458, edited by Palanque, still clings "à la réalité de la décision de tolérance de Milan,"
which he ascribes to both Constantine and Licinius, although he prefers to call it a man-
datum rather than an edict.
(45) CSEL, 26, 203, 8 ff.
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 37
Christians abhor. So, tell the truth, and you will not be 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 knew
what precedents to cite on the precise question that was being adju
dicated.
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 principio 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, s?µa 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 to 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,
(46) It was not until a few years later, ca. 319, that Constantine ordered that indemnif
icationbe made to private individuals: Vita Constantini, 1, 41, 3; 2, 20, 2, ed. Ivar A. Heikel,
Eusebius Werke, 1 (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderle,
7 [Leipzig, 1902]), 27, 10 ff., 49, 13 ff., discussed by Arnold Ehrhardt, ZSS, RA, 72 (1955),
171-75.
(47) See literature cited in ?. 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 t? d??a??? in HE, 10, 5, 15-17
can be equated with corpus and s?µa in the sense of a legal corporation, as does Artur Stein-
wenter, "Die Rechtsstellung der Kirchen und Klöster nach den Papyri", ZSS, KA, 19
(1930), 31-35.
38 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
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 be, and
thus hold the favor of the highest divinity, to which, they averred
without naming it, they paid homage without reserve (summa diui-
nitas, cuius religioni liberis mentibus obsequimur). Eusebius omits
the last relative clause and the adjective summa, but he shares with
Lactantius the abstract noun diuinitas, which he translates simply
by t? ?e???.
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 diuinitatis in sede caelesti;
ibid., 3: summa diuinitas), 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.
(?9) The best and most detailed treatment of the size of the Christian population remains
Adolf von Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhund
erlen,
(Ausbreitung),"
4th ed. (Leipzig,
Reallexikon
1924),für
2, 946-58.
Antike For
und later
Christentum,
surveys, see
2 (Stuttgart,
?. Köfting, 1954),
"Christentum
1138-59;I
Kenneth S. Latouretfe, A history of the expansion of Christianity, 1 (New York, 1937),
158-60 and passim.
(50) Hans P. L'Orange and Armin von Gerkan, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Konstantins-
bogens (Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschichte, 10 [Berlin, 1939]), 4-28 ; Antonio Ciuliano,
Ar co di Costantino (Milan, 1955). Alföldi, The conversion of Constantine, 69 ff., comes close
to enunciating my theory of the connection between Constantine's Edict and the Arch.
M. ANASTOS : THE EDICT OF MILAN 39
Later, the orator touches upon the diuina praecepta (4, 4) to which
Constantine hearkened, and the divine guidance which directed
him fll, 4: diuino 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 whom
the highest goodness dwells. Several years later, in 321, the panegyrist
Nazarius (52) took over the same terminology: ilia diuinitas (13, 5),
diuinitus (14,1), uis diuinitatis (27, 5).
The influence of the Edict upon these vague and circumlocutory
expressions can be illustrated by comparison with two other panegyr
ics, both anonymous, which were pronounced in 310 and 312, respec
tively. In the former of these (53), the unknown author, while cele-
(51) XII panegyrici latini, ed. R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford, 1964), no. XII (IX), p. 271 ff.;
Panégyriques latins, ed. with French translation, by Edouard Galletier, 2 (Paris, 1952),
no. IX (12), p. 103 ff. (with essay on the date, etc., 105 ff.). 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 dici uelis, scire non possumus), siue tute quaedam
uis mensque diuina es, ... siue aliqua supra omne caelum potestas es quae hoc opus tuum
ex altiore Naturae arce despicias... Et certe summa in te bonitas est et potestas (26, 3).
On the emperor as deus, etc., see François Burdeau, "L'empereur d'après les panégyri
ques latins," Aspects de l'empire romain (Travaux el recherches de. la faculté de droit el des
sciences économiques de Paris, Sciences historiques, 1 [Paris, 1964]), 1-60, n. b. 10 ff.; and
on the panegyrists in general, besides the introductions in Gallctier's edition, cf. René Pichon,
Les derniers écrivains profanes (Paris, 1906), 97 f., 101 f., 103-8. On the passages cited, in
notes 50-55, see also Johannes Straub, Vom Herrscherideal in der Spätantike (n. 3 above),
99 ff.
(52) Mynors, IV (x), p. 145 ff.; Galletier, X (4), v. 2, 147 ff.
(53) Mynors, VI (vu), p. 186 ff.; Galletier, VII (6), v. 2, p. 31 ff.
40 REVUE DES ÉTUDES BYZANTINES
(57) E. g., L'Orange and von Gerkan, op. cit. (?. 50 above), 5 f., 174 ff.; Franz Altheim
Aus Spätantike und Christentum (Tübingen, 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.