Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

The plural here seems a little peculiar, for the edict was issued only in the name of Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, not in the name of Maximin. We have no record of Licinius as a persecutor before this time, and Eusebius’ words of praise in the ninth book would seem to imply that he had not shown himself at all hostile to the Church. And in fact Licinius seems ruled out by §2, below, where “they” are spoken of as having “from the beginning devised more and more severe measures against us.” And yet, since Constantine did not persecute, we must suppose either that Licinius is included in Eusebius’ plural, or what is perhaps more probable, that Eusebius thinks of the edict as proceeding from all four emperors though bearing the names of only three of them. It is true that the latter is rather a violent supposition in view of Eusebius’ own words in the first chapter of Bk. IX. I confess that I find no satisfactory explanation of the apparent inconsistency.

i.e. Galerius.

Matt. xviii. 7 .

Galerius seems to have been smitten with the terrible disease, which Eusebius here refers to, and which is described by Lactantius at considerable length ( De mort. pers. chap. 33) and with many imaginative touches (e.g. the stench of his disease pervades “not only the palace, but even the whole city”!), before the end of the year 310, and his death took place in May of the following year.

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.

τὴν δημοσίαν ἐπιστήμην . Latin: publicam disciplinam.

τῶν γονέων τῶν ἑαυτῶν τὴν αἵρεσιν . 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 ( εἰς ἀγαθήν πρόθεσιν ἐπανέλθοιεν ), 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) quæ 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 πρότερον 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.

ἐπὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχαὶων καταστ€θεντα . Latin: ad veterum instituta.

πλεῖστοι . Latin: multi.

παντοίους θαν€τους ὑπέφερον . Latin: deturbati sunt.

τῇ αὐτῇ ἀπονοί& 139· διαμενόντων . Latin: in proposito perseverarent.

τοὺς οἰκοὺς, ἐν οἷς συνήγοντο, συνθῶσιν . 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. , κατὰ π€ντα τρόπον , “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 τόπον instead of τρόπον . If, therefore, that translator was Eusebius, we must suppose that the change to τρόπον 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 τρόπον . In either case, however, τόπον must have been the original translation, and I have therefore substituted it for τρόπον , 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” ( κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν ) 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.