ノモス・テレオータトスをめぐって

概要

論文の詳細を見る
In his Church History (IX,9,12), Eusebius states that after the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (28 October 312), Constantine and Licinius, "with one will and thought," drew up a "most perfect law" (nomos teleotatos) on behalf of the Christians and sent it to Maximinus Daia There is no other mention of this "most perfect law", and researchers are not in agreement as to its identification On the one hand, the so-called "Letter to Sabinus" mentioned in IX, 9, 13, in which Maximinus orders Sabinus to halt the persecution, has been dated to November/ December 312 , the "most perfect law" would also seem to be dated to the same time. Yet on the other hand, the collaboration between Constantine and Licinius concerning this law would appear to be associated with the two emperors' conference at Milan, which took place in February 313 Many researchers have made much of this chronology and have asserted that the "most perfect law" was in fact the work of Constantine alone, who, for the sake of formality, simply added the name of the co-emperor, Licinius, to the law which he issued in his capacity of senior Augustus after his victory at the Milvian Bridge But in view of the fact that Eusebius exercised damnatio memoriae against Licinius in the final version of his Church History, his expressions as to the collaboration between the two emperors (such as "with one will and thought") do not allow such an interpretation In considering this problem, we should take into account T Christensen's restoration of a document which may properly be called "the Edict of Milan" The restored "Edict of Milan" guarantees freedom of religion to Christians and the restoration of church properties confiscated during the Great Persecution However, it says nothing about freedom of religion for pagans and the possibility of compensation for losses incurred by the restoration of church properties, although these two items are mentioned in the imperial letter promulgated by Licinius at Nicomedia on 13 June 313 (the so-called "Edict of Milan") Christensen assumes that his restored "Edict of Milan" was sent to Maximinus immediately after the meeting of Constantine and Licinius at Milan , I suggest that this document was in fact the disputed "most perfect law" As regards chronology, I have examined the arrangement of themes in Eusebius' Church History, Book IX, and have discerned a change in subject matter between IX, 9, 12 and IX, 9, 13 Eusebius first describes the wrongdoings of Maximinus (IX, 1-8) , then Constantine's victory over Maxentius-the victory which would bring about Maximinus's ruin in the future (IX, 9, 1-8), and Constantine's gratitude to God after the victory (IX, 9, 9-11), mentioning the "most perfect law" as the right finish on such gratitude (IX, 9, 12) He then changes the subject and returns to Maximinus (IX, 9, 13) In the following Chapter 10, he describes the events leading to Maximinus's death in the summer of 313 I therefore believe that the "most perfect law" mentioned in IX, 9, 12, and Constantine's letter to Maximinus suggested in IX, 9, 13, which resulted in Maximinus's Letter to Sabinus, are not identical, and that it is possible to date the "most perfect law" to February 313 My hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the persecutor Maximinus promulgated, in May 313 (i e , prior to the so-called "Edict of Milan"), the Edict of Toleration, the substance of which is almost identical with the restored "Edict of Milan"
1989-03-15

ノモス・テレオータトスをめぐって

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク