This edict was issued in April, 311 (see the previous chapter, note 1). There has been considerable discussion as to the reason for the omission of Maximin's name from the heading of the edict. The simplest explanation is that he did not wish to have his name appear in a document which was utterly distasteful to him and which he never fully sanctioned, as we learn from Bk. IX. chaps. 1 and 2, below. It is possible, as Mason suggests, that in the copies of the edict which were designed for other parts of the empire than his own the names of all four emperors appeared. Eusebius gives a Greek translation of the edict. The original Latin is found in Lactantius' De mort. pers. chap. 34. The translation in the present case is in the main accurate though somewhat free. The edict is an acknowledgment of defeat on Galerius' part, and was undoubtedly caused in large part by a superstitious desire, brought on by his sickness, to propitiate the God of the Christians whom he had been unable to conquer. And yet, in my opinion, it is not as Mason calls it, "one of the most bizarre state documents ever penned," "couched in language treacherous, contradictory, and sown with the most virulent hatred"; neither does it "lay the blame upon the Christians because they had forsaken Christ," nor aim to "dupe and outwit the angry Christ, by pretending to be not a persecutor, but a reformer." As will be seen from note 3, below, I interpret the document in quite another way, and regard it as a not inconsistent statement of the whole matter from Galerius' own point of view. ↩

ten demosian epistemen. Latin: publicam disciplinam. ↩

ton goneon ton heauton ten hairesin. Latin: parentum suorum sectam. There has been some discussion as to whether Galerius here refers to primitive Christianity or to paganism, but the almost unanimous opinion of scholars (so far as I am aware) is that he means the former (cf. among others, Mason, p. 298 sq.). I confess myself, however, unable, after careful study of the document, to accept this interpretation. Not that I think it impossible that Galerius should pretend that the cause of the persecution had been the departure of the Christians from primitive Christianity, and its object the reform of the Church, because, although that was certainly not his object, he may nevertheless, when conquered, have wished to make it appear so to the Christians at least (see Mason, p. 302 sq.). My reason for not accepting the interpretation is that I cannot see that the language of the edict warrants it; and certainly, inasmuch as it is not what we should a priori expect Galerius to say, we are hardly justified in adopting it except upon very clear grounds. But in my opinion such grounds do not exist, and in fact the interpretation seems to me to do violence to at least a part of the decree. In the present sentence it is certainly not necessarily implied that the ancestors of the Christians held a different religion from the ancestors of the heathen; in fact, it seems on the face of it more natural to suppose that Galerius is referring to the earlier ancestors of both Christians and heathen, who were alike pagans. This is confirmed by the last clause of the sentence: ad bonas mentes redirent (eis agathen prothesin epanelthoien), which in the mouth of Galerius, and indeed of any heathen, would naturally mean "return to the worship of our gods." This in itself, however, proves nothing, for Galerius may, as is claimed, have used the words hypocritically; but in the next sentence, which is looked upon as the main support of the interpretation which I am combating, it is not said that they have deserted their ancient institutions in distinction from the institutions of the rest of the world, but illa veterum instituta (a term which he could hardly employ in this unqualified way to indicate the originators of Christianity without gross and gratuitous insult to his heathen subjects) quae forsitan primum parentes eorumdem constituerant, "those institutions of the ancients which perchance their own fathers had first established" (the Greek is not quite accurate, omitting the demonstrative, and reading proteron for primum). There can hardly have been a "perchance" about the fact that the Christians' ancestors had first established Christian institutions, whatever they were--certainly Galerius would never have thought of implying that his ancestors, or the ancestors of his brother-pagans, had established them. His aim seems to be to suggest, as food for reflection, not only that the ancestors of the Christians had certainly, with the ancestors of the heathen, originally observed pagan institutions, but that perhaps they had themselves been the very ones to establish those institutions, which would make the guilt of the Christians in departing from them all the worse. In the next clause, the reference to the Christians as making laws for themselves and assembling in various places may as easily be a rebuke to the Christians for their separation from their heathen fellow-citizens in matters of life and worship as a rebuke to them for their departure from the original unity of the Christian Church. Again, in the next sentence the "institutions of the ancients" (veterum instituta) are referred to in the most general way, without any such qualification as could possibly lead the Christians or any one else to think that the institutions of the Christian religion were meant. Conformity to "the ancient laws and public discipline of the Romans" is announced in the beginning of the edict as the object which Galerius had in view. Could he admit, even for the sake of propitiating his Christian subjects, that those laws and that discipline were Christian? Veterum instituta in fact could mean to the reader nothing else, as thus absolutely used, than the institutions of the old Romans. Still further it is to be noticed that in §9 Galerius does not say "but although many persevere in their purpose...nevertheless, in consideration of our philanthropy, we have determined that we ought to extend our indulgence," &c., but rather "and since (atque cum) many persevere in their purpose," &c. The significance of this has apparently been hitherto quite overlooked. Does he mean to say that he feels that he ought to extend indulgence just because they do exactly what they did before--worship neither the gods of the heathen nor the God of the Christians? I can hardly think so. He seems to me to say rather, "Since many, in spite of my severe measures, still persevere in their purpose (in proposito perseverarent) and refuse to worship our gods, while at the same time they cease under the pressure to worship their own God as they have been accustomed to do, I have decided to permit them to return to their own worship, thinking it better that they worship the God of the Christians than that they worship no God; provided in worshiping him they do nothing contrary to discipline (contra disciplinam), i.e. contrary to Roman law." Thus interpreted, the entire edict seems to me consistent and at the same time perfectly natural. It is intended to propitiate the Christians and to have them pray for the good of the emperor to their own God, rather than refuse to pray for him altogether. It is not an acknowledgment even to the Christians that their God is the supreme and only true God, but it is an acknowledgment that their God is probably better than no god, and that the empire will be better off if they become loyal, peaceable, prayerful citizens again (even if their prayers are not directed to the highest gods), than if they continue disaffected and disloyal and serve and worship no superior being. That the edict becomes, when thus interpreted, much more dignified and much more worthy of an emperor cannot be denied; and, little respect as we may have for Galerius, we should not accuse him of playing the hypocrite and the fool in this matter, except on better grounds than are offered by the extant text of this edict. ↩

epi ta hupo ton archaion katast?thenta. Latin: ad veterum instituta. ↩

pleistoi. Latin: multi. ↩

pantoious than?tous hupepheron. Latin: deturbati sunt. ↩

te aute aponoi& 139; diamenonton. Latin: in proposito perseverarent. ↩

tous oikous, en hois sunegonto, sunthosin. Latin: conventicula sua componant. ↩

contra disciplinam, i.e. "against the discipline or laws of the Romans." Galerius does not tell us just what this indefinite phrase is meant to cover, and the letter to the magistrates, in which he doubtless explained himself and laid down the conditions, is unfortunately lost. The edict of Milan, as Mason conclusively shows, refers to this edict of Galerius and to these accompanying conditions; and from that edict some light is thrown upon the nature of these conditions imposed by Galerius. It has been conjectured that in Galerius' edict, Christianity was forbidden to all but certain classes: "that if a man chose to declare himself a Christian, he would incur no danger, but might no longer take his seat as a decurion in his native town, or the like"; that Galerius had endeavored to make money out of the transaction whereby Christians received their church property back again; that proselytizing was forbidden; that possibly the toleration of Christianity was made a matter of local option, and that any town or district by a majority vote could prohibit its exercise within its own limits (see Mason p. 330 sq.). These conjectures are plausible, though of course precarious. ↩

The Greek reads, in all our mss., kata p?nta tropon, "in every manner." The Latin original, however, reads undique versum. In view of that fact, I feel confident that the Greek translator must have written topon instead of tropon. If, therefore, that translator was Eusebius, we must suppose that the change to tropon is due to the error of some scribe. If, on the other hand, Eusebius simply copied the Greek translation from some one else, he may himself have carelessly written tropon. In either case, however, topon must have been the original translation, and I have therefore substituted it for tropon, and have rendered accordingly. I find that Crusè has done likewise, whether for the same reason I do not know. ↩

Eusebius does not say whether the translating was done by himself or by some one else. The epistle of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 9, above, was translated by himself, as he directly informs us (see ibid. chap. 8, note 17). This might lead us to suppose him the translator in the present case; but, on the other hand, in that case he directly says that the translation was his work, in the present he does not. It is possible that Greek copies of the edict were in common circulation, and that Eusebius used one of them. At the same time, the words "translated as well as possible" (kata to dunaton) would seem to indicate that Eusebius had supervised the present translation, if he had not made it himself. Upon his knowledge of Latin, see the note just referred to. ↩

The words of this title, together with the section which follows, are found in the majority of our mss. at the close of the eighth book, and are given by all the editors. The existence of the passage would seem to imply that the work in only eight books came into the hands of some scribe, who added the appendix to make the work more complete. (Cf. chap. 13, note 15, above.) Whoever he was, he was not venturesome in his additions, for, except the notice of Diocletian's death and the statement of the manner of the death of Maximinus, he adds nothing that has not been already said in substance by Eusebius himself. The appendix must have been added in any case as late as 313, for Diocletian died in that year. ↩

See above, chap. 13, §11. ↩

Diocletian died in 313, at the age of sixty-seven. The final ruin of all his great plans for the permanent prosperity of the empire, the terrible misfortunes of his daughter, and the indignities heaped upon him by Maximin, Licinius, and Constantine, wore him out and at length drove the spirit from the shattered body. According to Lactantius (De mort. pers. 42), "having been treated in the most contumelious manner, and compelled to abhor life, he became incapable of receiving nourishment, and, worn out with anguish of mind, expired." ↩

Upon the death of Maximian, see above, chap. 13, note 23. ↩

homen hustatos, i.e. Galerius, who was the second Caesar and therefore the last, or lowest, of the four rulers. Upon his illness and death, see chap. 16, above. ↩

Constantius was first Caesar, and thus held third rank in the government. The following passage in regard to him is found also in chap. 13, §12-14, above. ↩

Constantius was first Caesar, and thus held third rank in the government. The following passage in regard to him is found also in chap. 13, §12-14, above. ↩

i.e. Constantine. ↩

i.e. Galerius. ↩

I read loipon which is found in some mss. and is adopted by Stephanus and Burton. Valesius, Schwegler, Laemmer and Heinichen follow other mss. in reading lipon, and this is adopted by Stroth, Closs and Crusè in their translations. The last, however, makes it govern "the above-mentioned confession," which is quite ungrammatical, while Stroth and Closs (apparently approved by Heinichen) take it to mean "still alive" or "still remaining" ("Der unter diesen allein noch Ueberlebende"; "Der unter diesen noch allein uebrige"), a meaning which belongs to the middle but not properly to the active voice of leipo. The latter translation, moreover, makes the writer involve himself in a mistake, for Diocletian did not die until nearly two years after the publication of Galerius' edict. In view of these considerations I feel compelled to adopt the reading loipon which is nearly, if not quite, as well supported by ms. authority as lipon. ↩

Leben Konstantins I 57. ↩

Wie oft er diese Gewalt erhalten hatte, ist aus der handschriftlichen Überlieferung nicht zu erkennen. ↩

In diesem Praeskript zum folgenden Erlaß stand wohl ursprünglich auch der Regent Maximinus. Er hatte seine Stelle jedenfalls unmittelbar nach Galerius. Die Reihenfolge der Regenten war wohl: Galerius, Maximinus, Konstantinus, Licinius, da man damals die Namen der Regenten nach dem Alter bzw. Range zu stellen pflegte. — Über die Bedeutung der oben aufgezählten Titel, ihre Aufeinanderfolge und normale Gestaltung vgl. Mommsen, „Römisches Staatsrecht“ II3 S, 777 ff.; Liebenam, „Fasti“ 101—103 (ebd. 119 über Galerius, 120 über Licinius und Konstantin). — Über Mängel und Unrichtigkeiten in der Aufzählung obiger Ehren- und Amtstitel vgl. Schwartz z. St. und in Göttinger Nachrichten 1904, S. 524. ↩

αἵρεσις ↩

πλεονεξία ↩

Nach dieser Erklärung bezweckte die Christenverfolgung nicht den Kampf gegen den Christengott. Was er bezweckte, kann vielleicht aus der oben erwähnten πλεονεξία geschlossen werden. Vielleicht hatte auch der Neuplatonismus die Kaiser beeinflußt, zwischen dem Christengott und der christlichen Kirche nicht nur zu unterscheiden, sondern sogar beide als Gegensätze aufzufassen. ↩

Das lateinische Original des Ediktes (ohne die überschriftliche Nennung der Kaiser) findet sich bei Laktantius, „Über die Todesarten der Verfolger“ 34. — Das Edikt wurde März oder April 311 erlassen; nach Laktantius a. a. O. 35 wurde es am 30. April 311 in Nikomedien öffentlich angeschlagen, — J. Belser, „Grammatisch-kritische Erklärung von Laktantius De mortibus persecutorum cap. 34: „Toleranzedikt des Galerius“ (Progr. Ellwangen 1889); H. Hülle, „Die Toleranzerlasse römischer Kaiser für das Christentum bis zum Jahre 313“ (Dissert. Berlin 1895) S. 41—59; K. Bihlmeyer, „Das Toleranzedikt des Galerius von 311“, in Theol. Quartalschritt 94 (Tübingen 1912) 411—427 und 527—589. ↩