2 The significance of the of Milan1 Noel Lenski

The debate over the Edict of The term Edict of Milan is a modern construct used to describe a document datable to summer 313 CE that survives in two copies, one in ’s On the Deaths of Persecutors and the second in the Ecclesiastical History of .2 It makes up a legal text that purports to have been written by Constantine and during a joint meeting at Milan, with the aim of granting religious free- dom to Christians and others and the restoration of property confiscated during the Great Persecution. The title “Edict of Milan” came to be attached to this document in the counter- reformationTaylor historiography of the andsixteenth century Francis and remained a fixed point in subsequent scholarship down to 1891. In that year, Otto Seeck published a brief but ingeniousNot article, in forwhich he asserteddistribution that “Edict of Milan” is a misnomer and that it overinflates the significance of the document it purports to describe.3 He argued that the text we have is not an edict, a particular type of constitution written to have widespread applicability, but rather a letter (epistula), as in fact it is termed by Lactantius. The Lactantian copy was issued in epistolary form to the governor of Bithynia and posted by him in Nicomedia, and the Eusebian version was probably, though not certainly, sent as a letter to the governor of Palaestina. The text was thus intended for a regional audience and had more limited remit than an edict. Moreover, Seeck argued, this particular letter did not convey new legal content but merely extended the privileges granted by in his Edict of Toleration, issued in April 311, to the far eastern part of the empire, where Maximinus Daia had refused to enforce the provisions of Galerius’s law down to the eve of his fall in summer 313. In sum, Seeck argued that the “so-called Edict of Milan” was limited in its application to the empire’s far eastern domains, was issued as a letter by Licinius alone without the involvement of Constantine, and should no longer be referred to with the exaggerated title “Edict of Milan” but at best with the anodyne moniker “Law of Nicomedia.” Initially, Seeck’s argument met with little support from the scholarly commu- nity, but by the 1910s, it began winning an increasing number of adherents.4 In the wake of a broader trend toward more critical approaches to Constantine and 28 Noel Lenski his impact, many turned to Seeck’s case as further confirmation that Constantine was neither the first imperial defender of nor the first proponent of the principle of religious toleration. That said, the term Edict of Milan has contin- ued to appear in the scholarship up to the present, in some instances due to blind fealty to received tradition, in others because of a feeling that although the term is not strictly accurate as a designation for this document, it seems adequate as the commonly accepted title for a law that many believe was highly significant in the history of world religion. The failure of Seeck’s argument to gain universal acceptance has provoked strong reaction from several scholars, none more vociferous than T. D. Barnes, who has argued consistently since at least 1981 that the term is inaccurate, incorrect, and even threatening. His position is stated most emphatically in his 2011 mono- graph Constantine: Dynasty, Religion, and Power in the Later :

Christianity was only one of the weighty matters of state which Constantine and Licinius discussed in Milan. What action or actions did they take on this matter while they were in the city? The correct answer to this question is amazingly simple. They agreed to extend to the rest of the Roman Empire the freedom of worship and the restoration of property confiscated in 303 which the Christians of the West already enjoyed. No public pronouncement was probably made in Milan because none was needed. Unfortunately, there is a deeply ingrained scholarly tradition of using the term “Edict of Milan,” with or without the definite article, with or without quotation marks around the bogus phrase which contradicts historical reality. . . . It will therefore be worthwhileTaylor to explain andin detail with Francis reference to recent writing about ConstantineNot why thefor term is sodistribution misleading, even dangerous.5 Interestingly, although Barnes’s larger argument on the question grows out of Seeck’s original position, it differs from it in several respects. In brief, Barnes proceeds from six suppositions that overlap only tangentially with Seeck’s thesis:

1 Barnes believes that already at the beginning of his reign in summer 306, Constantine revoked the persecuting issued by in 303 and replaced them with religious liberty; 2 This initial grant of religious liberty by Constantine included the restitution of property confiscated from Christians by the state; 3 Maxentius made a similar grant of liberty and restoration of property around the same time; 4 The letters published seven years later by Licinius and now preserved in Eusebius and Lactantius (the “Edict of Milan”) were composed by Licinius alone; 5 These represent only the execution of the order of restitution of property in the territories of Maximinus Daia after his defeat in the summer of 313; 6 These did not involve new principles of toleration or religious liberty since both had already been guaranteed by Galerius’s Edict of Toleration. The significance of the Edict of Milan 29 Clean and emphatic though Barnes’s case may be, few of its planks stand up to detailed scrutiny. In this study, I will interrogate the six suppositions just stated in an effort to show this. In the process, I hope also to prove that although the texts extant in Eusebius and Lactantius are in fact letters, they would seem to take their origins from an edict, issued by Constantine and Licinius jointly in Milan, and that this edict both was newly constructed in early 313 and included revolutionary ideas first articulated and implemented only in this year. I will begin by show - ing the shaky basis for Barnes’s argument for Constantine’s grant of religious liberty and restoration of property in 306. I will then show the powerful influence of Constantine over Licinius in the period when the documents were issued and the clear imprint of Constantine’s rhetoric on the documents. Next, I will turn to a broader look at the nature of late antique legislation, in order to prove that the firm distinction between edicts and letters, so essential to Barnes’s case, was not a feature of late Roman lawgiving. A close examination of the texts will show that they derive from a separate original text, which was, most likely, an edict. Finally, an investigation of the rhetoric of the Edict of Milan and related contem- porary documents will demonstrate both that this key source arrived at the end of a lengthy dialogue regarding the grant of religious freedom and also that its emphasis on religious liberty traces back to Lactantius’s Divine Institutes. Thus, while not denying that the copies of the Edict of Milan preserved to us are in fact letters, the article sets out to prove: (1) that the content of these letters was formu- lated primarily by Constantine and not Licinius; (2) that the letter we now have derives from a no longer extant original that was almost certainly an edict; and (3) that its Taylorconcept of religious libertyand was thoroughly Francis Constantinian and was calqued onNot philosophical for principles distribution first outlined by Lactantius. The Edict of Milan and religious toleration in the early fourth century The Edict of Milan was the last of a number decrees designed to put an end to the persecutions unleashed by a series of edicts issued by Diocletian, beginning in February 303. The first of these had the effect of removing from Christians all honors and offices, limiting their access to justice, and denying- themlib erty and juridical rights—making them nonexistent before the law. As many as three further edicts followed in eastern territories, such that in a general way, the persecutions were more intensive in the East, where they persisted down to the spring of 311, than in the West, where some territories—Gaul and Britain especially—suffered very little.6 Famously, with his Edict of Toleration issued in 311, Galerius attempted to put an end to the persecutions empire-wide. The dispositive part of this constitution reads:

. . . bearing in mind our own most gentle clemency (mitissimae nostrae clementiae) and our perpetual habit of showing indulgent pardon (veniam indulgere) to all men, we believed that in the case of these people too we should extend our speediest indulgence (promptissimam . . . indulgentiam), 30 Noel Lenski so that once more there may be Christians, and they may reconstruct their meetingplaces, provided they do nothing against good order. But in another letter we shall indicate to governors what they ought to observe.7

Apart from its general import, which is, of course, profound, this quotation stands out for two reasons of relevance to the discussion that follows. First, its notice that a letter will be sent informing governors of what actions they should take on the basis of the edict conveys the sense that edicts were often explained, elabo- rated, or enacted through an accompanying letter. Second, its restoration of legal rights to members of the Christian community stops well short of granting reli- gious freedom, a point that vitiates Seeck’s claim that the “so-called Edict of Milan” merely extended the principles of the Edict of Toleration to the territories of Maximinus Daia. Given the former’s emphasis on religious freedom, rather than mere toleration, as well as its provisions for the restitution of property, both of which are entirely absent from Galerius’s law, Seeck’s position is untenable. Perhaps for this reason, Barnes does not follow Seeck precisely but holds instead that the letter of Licinius that we call the “Edict of Milan” actually extends principles laid out in a law of Constantine’s issued already at the beginning of his reign in 306. Barnes believes, in other words, that Constantine had already granted religious liberty and the restitution of property to Christians shortly after his proclamation. A more careful reading of the sources makes it clear that this cannot be confirmed. Testimonies on the matter number just two, both found in the Lactantius. The more significant,On the Deaths of Persecutors 24.9, reports: “After having assumed power, Constantine Augustus did nothing before returning ChristiansTaylor to their worship and andtheir god (christianos Francis cultui ac deo suo reddere). This wasNot his first sanctioning for of thedistribution restoration of the holy religion (sanctae reli- gionis restitutae).” The second, Divine Institutes 1.1.13, praises Constantine for having “expiated the horrific crime of the others by restoringreducens ( ) justice, which had been overturned and subverted.” To be sure, these phrases indicate an early grant of toleration to Christians by Constantine, but Barnes’s contention that they confirm a grant of religious liberty and the restitution of confiscated property obviously far exceeds their vague and allusive verbiage. Although both use the language of restoration (reddere, restituire, reducere), they do so in reference to religion in general, while making no mention of property, and the word liberty is entirely absent from both. Although Constantine was the earliest emperor to explore religious tolera- tion in this early fourth-century period, he was soon joined by others. Maxentius is reported to have initiated a program of toleration and even to have restored Christian property at some point in his six-year reign (306–12).8 Precisely when this occurred is a matter of debate. The most carefully argued chronology places Maxentius’s concession of toleration in 308 and his restitution of property as late as 311.9 Nevertheless, Maxentius’s relationship with the Christian commu- nity in his territories of Italy and Africa was fraught with ambivalence. To be sure, Eusebius’s portrayal of Maxentius as a savage persecutor in his — written a quarter century after the events it describes—is exaggerated.10 Nevertheless, The significance of the Edict of Milan 31 we know from a law of 314 that Constantine felt compelled to liberate from slavery those condemned to servitude by Maxentius, probably because of their practice of Christianity, and from the Liber Pontificalis, we learn that Maxentius dealt with the upheavals experienced by the see of in the wake of the Great Persecution first by apparently inhibiting the election of a new bishop and then by deposing and exiling two consecutive pontiffs.11 Furthermore, Eusebius preserved a letter of Constantine’s to his governor Anullinus, which indicates that when Constantine gained control of Africa in late 312, property had yet to be restored to many Christians, an indication that although Maxentius did indeed initiate a program of property restitution, he implemented it only slowly and with hesita- tion.12 Thus, although Maxentius formally renounced persecution and ordered the restoration of confiscated property to Christians, he did not enact his order in any systematic way, and he may even have reneged on it or at least soft-pedaled its implementation later in his reign. The same was true of Licinius, who certainly cooperated in enacting the philochristian program outlined in the Edict of Milan in 313 but then backed away from this initial support. The high number of martyrs attested from the Balkans during the years of the Great Persecution indicates that in his earliest years, Licinius was a zealous enforcer of the persecuting edicts.13 Moreover, Eusebius is surely to be believed that Licinius returned to persecutions after his relationship with Constantine collapsed in 321: he forbade assemblies of Christian clergy; expelled Christian personnel from his court; enslaved a number of Christians to imperial service or chattel servitude; prohibited Christian liturgies within city walls; confiscated Church property; and sanctioned or permitted a small number of executions.Taylor14 For this reason, afterand he gained Francis control of Licinius’s territories, ConstantineNot was compelled for to reinvigorate distribution the program of liberation and the res- toration of property initiated in the East by the Edict of Milan, which had then been reversed by Licinius from 321 to 324.15 The politics of toleration thus proceeded in desultory fashion, two steps forward and one step back. The issuance of orders of toleration did not resolve the problems created by the persecutions in one fell swoop, nor were pro-Christian ordinances put into effect in decisive or enduring fashion everywhere. This hesitation and ambivalence was particularly apparent in the years between 311 and 313, when the Edict of Milan was issued. The situation is best outlined in schematic fashion:

Table 2.1 List of legislative acts relevant to religious toleration (306–13 CE)16

(Arab numerals [1–13] indicate rules that were fundamentally tolerant; Roman numerals [i–iii] indicate rules that were fundamentally persecutory; and bullet points indicate related events not involving legislation.)

1 Summer 306: Constantine issues a law ending persecutions in his territory (Lact., DMP 24.9; and DI 1.1.13). 2 308(?): Maxentius issues a law ending persecutions in his territory (Optat. 1.18.1; Eus., HE 8.14.1; and cf. Eus., MP 13.12–14. (continued) 32 Noel Lenski Table 2.1 (continued)

3 April 30, 311: Galerius issues the Edict of Toleration, which permits Christians to exist and to reestablish their assemblies (Lact., DMP 34.1–35.1; and Eus., HE 8.17.3–10).

• May 311: Death of Galerius; the Edict of Toleration is promulgated in Asia and neighboring provinces; Maximinus Daia refuses to promulgate it in the East (Eus., HE 9.1.1). • Spring 311: Maximinus Daia occupies the territories of Galerius up to the Bosporus (Lact., DMP 36.1–2). 4 Summer 311: Maxentius initiates a program for the restitution of property to Christians in his territory (Augustine, Breviculus conlationis cum Donatistis, col. 3.18[34] (CCSL 149A: 299); idem, Contra Partem Donati post Gesta 13[17] (CSEL 53: 113–14); and cf. Gesta collatio Carthinagensis cap. gest. 3: 498–500 (CCSL 149A: 47). 5 Summer 311(?): At some point prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and perhaps even before the restoration program initiated by Maxentius in summer 311, Constantine probably introduced a program for the restitution of property to Christians in his territory, but there is no firm indication confirming this order. 6 June–October 311: Maximinus Daia communicates the content of the Edict of Toleration to eastern governors verbally but refuses to do so with a written order (Eus., HE 9.1.1; cfr. 9.9a.2); his Praetorian Prefect Sabinus communicates the emperor’s wishes in a letter in Latin to eastern governors (Eus., HE 9.1.2), which is preserved in Eus., HE 9.1.3–6; imperial rationales free eastern Christians from the mines and curatores and praepositi of cities free them from civic prisons (Eus., HE 9.1.7–9; cfr. HE 9.9a.2–3; and Lact., DMP 35.2). i OctoberTaylor 311: Renewal of persecutionsand in theFrancis territories of Maximinus, who, after six months of peace, issues an order against Christians meeting at the tombs of their dead (Eus., HE 9.2.1; and Lact., DMP 36.3). ii NovemberNot 311: Maximinusfor welcomesdistribution a petition from the citizens of Nicomedia, who ask permission to exile Christians from their territories (Eus., HE 9.9a.4–6). iii Spring–Summer 312: Maximinus receives an embassy from the city of Antioch presenting a petition analogous to that presented by the Nicomedians, which he also accepts (Eus., HE 9.2.1; and cfr. Lact., DMP 36.3); Maximinus does the same with other cities (Eus., HE 9.7.3–14 [Tiro]; TAM 2.3: 785 = CIL 3: 12132 = OGIS 569 = IKArykanda 12 [Arycanda]; and AE 1988: 1046, cfr. AE 1995: 38 [Colbasa]); as a result, the persecutions are renewed in the East (Eus., HE 9.4.2; 9.6.1–4; and cfr. 7.32.31); these rescripts have the effect of preventing the reconstruction of churches in the East (Lact., DMP 36.3–4).17

• October 312: Constantine defeats Maxentius and receives the right to the title Maximus Augustus from the Roman senate (Lact., DMP 44.1–11; cfr. Eus., HE 9.9.2–8; and idem, VC 1.37.1–38.5). 7 November–December 312: Constantine sends a letter to the Proconsul Africae Anullinus that he should see to the restoration of property to the churches of Africa (Eus., HE 10.5.15–17). 8 November–December 312: Constantine sends to Maximinus a missive containing news of his victory at the Milvian Bridge and of his new title; Maximinus mocks the letter (Lact., DMP 44.11–12; and cfr. 37.1); to this letter, Constantine attaches a “most perfect law” (nomos teleōtatos), which, Eusebius reports, was issued by Constantine conjointly with Licinius (Eus., HE 9.9.12; and cfr. 9.9a.12).18 9 December 312: In response to the missive of Constantine, Maximinus issues a letter to the Praetorian Prefect Sabinus, one year after his visit to Nicomedia, ordering that The significance of the Edict of Milan 33 Christians should not be persecuted any longer (Eus., HE 9.9a.1-9; cf. 9.9.13; and 9.10.8). 10 Early February 313: Constantine and Licinius meet in Milan (Lact., DMP 45.1; Origo Constantini Imperatoris 13; Epitome de Caesaribus 41.4; and Zosimos, Historia Nova 2.17.2); Licinius marries the sister of Constantine; both issue the Edict of Milan (Lact., DMP 48.1–12; and Eus., HE 10.5.1–14).

• Early 313: Maximinus crosses the Bosporus and invades the territories of Licinius (Lact., DMP 45.28). • April 30, 313: Licinius defeats Maximinus at the Battle of Campus Ergenus, near Adrianople (Lact., DMP 46.8–47.4; and Eus., HE 9.10.4). 11 June 13, 313: Licinius publishes an epistolary version of the Edict of Milan at Nicomedia, from which Lactantius makes his copy (Lact., DMP 48.1). 12 Summer 313: Maximinus flees toward Cilicia and issues anedict (diatagma = Eus., HE 9.10.10) that grants to Christians the right: (1) to practice their cult, (2) to construct their own churches, and (3) to receive all buildings and estates that had been confiscated by the fisc or by cities (Eus.,HE 9.10.7–11).

• Late summer 313: Licinius decisively defeats Maximinus, who commits suicide (Lact., DMP 49.1–7; and Eus., HE 9.10.12–15). 13 Late summer–autumn 313: Publication of the epistolary version of the Edict of Milan in Palestine, from which Eusebius made his copy.

As this scheme indicates, the period between 306 and 313 represented a water- shed in the history of the legitimization of the Christian faith. As often happens in periods of social change, this process did not occur all at once but was slow and confusing.Taylor In contrast with theand scheme of SeeckFrancis (for whom toleration ema- nated entirely from Galerius’s edict of 311) or Barnes (for whom it grew instead from a singleNot enactment for of Constantine’s distribution in 306), the reality was much more complex. Arriving at the Edict of Milan took seven years of dialogue between emperors such as Maximinus Daia, who resisted the introduction of any measures guaranteeing toleration to Christians; Licinius and Maxentius, who enacted such measures but with hesitation and ambivalence; and Constantine, who remained friendly toward Christians from early on. Even in the case of Constantine, how- ever, it is clear from the preceding table that his approach developed over time, for he appears first to have granted mere toleration, then to have begun restoring confiscated property, and ultimately to have pushed for the full implementation of his program in the territories of his co-rulers and former rivals. The Edict of Milan represents the culmination of this process and stands apart from other related legal pronouncements of the era in its combination of the three principles of the restora- tion of public rights, the restitution of churches, and the return of other confiscated real estate to Christians. The concatenation of these three principles in a single legal text is attested for the first time ever in the Edict of Milan.

The supremacy of Constantine Those such as Seeck and Barnes, who wish to minimize the role of Constantine and his meeting with Licinius in the construction of the Edict of Milan in 34 Noel Lenski winter 313, must inevitably downplay the explicit testimony of the preamble of our extant documents: “When with good fortune I Constantine Augustus and I Licinius Augustus met at Milan and considered all that pertains to public advantage and security, etc. . . .”19 Here we see not only explicit testimony to the composi- tion of the constitution in Milan and by both emperors but also the cataloging of Constantine’s name first as the senior Augustus and thus, ultimately, the motivat- ing force behind the decree. Constantine’s claims first to the Augustal title and then later to precedence within the augustal college had been a matter of dispute among his colleagues since the very beginning of his reign in July 306. The years down to 312 saw him constantly lobbying for recognition of the title by his co-rulers, but his defeat of Maxentius in 312 allowed him to bolster his assertion of precedence. Late in this year, he convinced the Senate to vote him the “title of the first name” (primi nominis titulum), and soon this new honor came to be reflected in his use of the designation Maximus Augustus and his insistence that his name be listed first at the head of all jointly issued legislative acts.20 As an early example of this phenomenon, the preamble of the Edict of Milan would seem to indicate Licinius’s readiness to concede supreme authority to his western colleague. Nevertheless, Constantine’s role as supreme leader in this period is reflected in much more than this artifact of imperial titulature. Indeed, in the years following 312, Licinius displayed a marked penchant for following the politics and propa- ganda of his western colleague, in what can only be understood as a pronounced tendency toward imitatio Constantini. Thus, in the months after his meeting with Constantine in Milan, Licinius is said to have experienced a dream in which an angel of the summus deus appeared to him and promised victory in his battle with MaximinusTaylor Daia, if only he and and his troops recited Francis a prayer the angel had transmit- ted to himNot in this vision. for The story distribution represents a clear imitation of Constantine’s purported dream and/or vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, and the prayer itself finds a close parallel in one that Eusebius claims Constantine made his own troops recite.21 Further imitating Constantine, Licinius attempted to cor- ner Maximinus into fighting on the anniversary of his accession to power on May 1, 313, just as Maxentius had been forced to fight on his owndies imperii six months earlier.22 At around the same time, Licinius began issuing coins featuring on their reverse the sun god under the legend SOLI COMITI AVGVSTORVM NOSTRORVM (to the Sun, Companion of Our Augusti), as if to proclaim his own adherence to Constantine’s favorite deity up to that time.23 The Historia Augusta reports that Licinius invented a purported family tie to a long-forgotten third-cen- tury imperial ancestor, Philip the Arab (r. 244–9).24 This represents a clear imitation of Constantine’s claim to have rediscovered his own family’s connection to Claudius Gothicus (r. 268–70), beginning in 310.25 One could even argue that Licinius was fol- lowing Constantine in prosecuting and executing those considered most responsible for having provoked Maximinus to renew persecutions.26 Although it is impossible to prove precisely who motivated these trials, given Licinius’s readiness later in his reign to revert to persecutions, it seems more likely than not that at a minimum, Constantine encouraged such judicial actions during his meeting with Licinius in Milan. Licinius thus structured his propaganda and even his policies with an eye The significance of the Edict of Milan 35 to the successful program of public self-aggrandizement and pro-Christian postur- ing promoted by his colleague, the Senior Augustus Constantine. Constantine’s role as the leading Augustus of these years is also clear from the fact that Licinius was forced to travel to the court of Constantine in Milan for their February 313 meeting, rather than vice versa. Several ancient sources indicate that a level of compulsion was involved, and others even appear to explain why this may have been necessary.27 Lactantius reports that the winter of 312–13 was particularly severe and unsuitable for travel, and a passage preserved from the veterinary manual of one of Licinius’s horse doctors indicates that the weather was so severe that many of Licinius’s soldiers froze to death on their journey over the Alps to Milan.28 Moreover, in journeying so far westward, Licinius was compelled to leave his Balkan territories open to attack by Maximinus Daia, who then took advantage of his rival’s absence to invade. The journey was thus ill advised and no doubt unwelcome on at least two levels, a fact that explains why Constantine had to command that Licinius show up to this mid-winter meeting at a city under his own control. For that matter, the role Constantine played in the construction of the text of the Edict of Milan is evident from the verbiage of the document itself. Its regular recourse to the theme of divine support for the success of the emperors is taken straight from the pages of Constantinian propaganda. This is expressed most obvi- ously at three points in the version transmitted by Lactantius:

• At the beginning of the document the emperors claim to have restored liberty to the Christians in an act they hoped would be looked on with favor “by the divinityTaylor in his heavenly abode” and (in sede caelesti Francis–Lact., DMP 48.2).29 • ImmediatelyNot following, for the emperors distribution ask that the “highest divinity (summa divinitas), whose religion we follow with free minds, may grant us his cus- tomary favor (solitum favorem suum) and benevolence in all things” (Lact., DMP 48.3). • Toward the end, they once again pray that “the divine favor toward us, which we have experienced in such great matters (divinus iuxta nos favor, quem in tantis sumus rebus experti), may remain through all times favorable to our successes along with the wellbeing of our public.” (Lact., DMP 48.11)

These passages are distinctly marked by the linguistic style and mental framework of Constantine. This is especially true of the emphasis on the direct intervention of the “highest god” for the personal benefit of the emperors, an idea that recurs at least a dozen times in extant official pronouncements of Constantine.30 More important, this same idea and its attendant lexicon first become common in -pre cisely the period when the Edict of Milan was issued. Thus, in his letter to the vicar of Africa Aelafius, datable to early 314, Constantine warned his addressee to quell conflicts between Donatists and Catholics so that thesumma divinitas would not be angered, “not only against the human race but also against me, into whose care he entrusted the moderation of all earthly affairs through his heavenly approval (nutu suo caelesti).”31 Similarly, in a letter sent by Constantine to the 36 Noel Lenski bishops from the Council of Arles in 314, the emperor notes that the omnipotent god had granted him many gifts “with his heavenly benevolence toward me (cae- lesti sua in me . . . benivolentia).”32 The notion of special favor shown toward the ruler by a heaven-dwelling divinity so clear in the Edict of Milan was thus distinctly Constantinian. And it shows up in non-Christian texts as well, for in the panegyric of 313, which reports Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge, the orator touches on the same themes of the emperor’s personal divine inspiration in remarkably similar terms.33 Thus, for all that our copies of the Edict of Milan emanate from the territory of Licinius, they reveal the impact of Constantinian rhetoric and propaganda. They were composed in a period when Constantine claimed supremacy in the imperial college, in a political environment in which Licinius not only conceded this but also hewed to a Constantinian line in his imperial self-presentation, and at a point when Constantine was beginning a long tradition of using the very rhetoric we find in the text emphasizing his own personal connections to the supreme divinity in heaven.

The production of legal dispositions in If we grant that the Edict of Milan bears all of the marks of a Constantinian docu- ment, we must nevertheless not overlook the fact that the two copies we possess were issued from the chancery of Licinius. We might therefore ask how a docu- ment addressed to two eastern governors through the court of an eastern emperor could be connected to the initiative and leadership of the ruler of the west. Here, recent studies on the production of late Roman legislation—in particular, the work of John Matthews—areTaylor indispensable and for what Francis it teaches us about the issuance of imperial Notlegislation.34 Tofor summarize distribution Matthews’s case, every law was originally conceptualized in the emperor’s consistorium, then written into final form by the magister memoriae (later the quaestor sacri palatii), and subsequently promul- gated in copies sent to high-ranking officers, as, for example, a praetorian or an urban prefect. If it was a general edict, it might be sent to all prefects, but if it was of more limited remit, perhaps only to the prefect of a particular region. Once these exemplars were received, they were recopied and transmitted to lower- ranking officials in versions that could vary in content, depending on the duties of the addressee. At each stage, the law itself could be accompanied by additional material, instructing the particular recipient about the manner in which specific provisions were to be implemented in a given jurisdiction. This process has left clear vestiges in extant Roman legislation. An obvious example can be found in four constitutions preserved in the Theodosian Code that trace back to an edict issued by Honorius intended to repress the practice of rebaptism by the Donatists. All are dated to February 12, 405, making it clear that they derive from a single dossier. The first two are fragments of the original edict, as indicated in their heading (edictum).35 The other two were both addressed to the Praetorian Prefect Hadrianus with the greeting “Hadriano P(raefecto) P(raetorio),” that is, they were composed in epistolary form.36 The promulga- tion of the original constitution thus necessitated transmission of the edict itself, as well as the production of a letter to the praetorian prefect designed to explain