Milan Agreement

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milan Agreement is the name of an agreement made in 313 between the Roman emperors Constantine I , the emperor of the west , and Licinius , the emperor of the east , which "granted free authority to both Christians and to all people in general, to adhere to the religion that everyone chooses for himself ”. A common name for this agreement is also the Edict of Tolerance of Milan (or Edict of Milan etc.), which is factually incorrect.

Assessment by research

Research (beginning with Otto Seeck ) has indicated that the common term “edict” is factually incorrect. There was never a nationwide edict, but only certain agreements regarding the policy of the two emperors, which is why the terms “constitution”, “protocol” or “Milan agreement” or “agreement” are predominantly used today.

The term edict is misleading insofar as neither the two emperors together nor Constantine alone issued an edict or general law in favor of Christianity - and not even in Milan itself, because the ancient sources show that Licinius commented on this in Nicomedia in Asia Minor (albeit a meeting in Milan is mentioned). The Milan Agreement also meant freedom of belief for all religions and not just, as is often falsely asserted, the equality of Christianity with the Roman religion. Christianity was only declared the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 under Emperor Theodosius I. However, Christianity is already emphasized in the Milan Agreement:

"After the two of us, Emperor Constantine and Emperor Licinius, came together by luck near Milan to regulate for the good of all [...] [...] to grant both Christians and all people free authority [...] to choose their religion [... ] so that the heavenly deity can remain gracious and favored to us and all [...]. [...] We have long believed that freedom of belief should not be denied. Rather, everyone should be granted their thoughts and desires so that they are able to see spiritual things as they want for themselves. That is why we have commanded that everyone is allowed to have their beliefs and practice as they wish. "

The Milan Agreement between Constantine and Licinius is not to be understood as the conversion of an individual emperor, but as the legal development of the status of Christianity as religio licita (permitted religion), which has been in effect since Galerius' edict of tolerance of April 311. While this edict is not very flattering for Christians, it allows them to exercise their faith freely as long as it does not disturb public order. While Galerius ended the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire with the edict and thus tolerated Christianity, the Milan Agreement also regulated financial aspects such as the compensation of individual communities for damage suffered by the tetrarchical persecution of Christians.

The more precise motivation of the two emperors Constantine and Licinius remains unclear. The research argues that the impetus to improve Christianity throughout the empire came primarily from Licinius, as he was facing a confrontation with the still ruling Maximinus in the east of the empire. The eastern part of the empire was much more Christianized than Constantine's western half, which is why Licinius hoped that the Milan Agreement would give him an advantage in the conflict with Maximinus, who in turn was a declared enemy of Christianity and a committed implementer of the Tetrarchical persecutions. However, Galerius's Edict of Tolerance had previously been accepted by both Constantine and his imperial opponent Maxentius - therefore the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 was not a battle of Christianity against paganism, as it is often portrayed.

The Milan agreement is even interpreted by some researchers in such a way that Constantine might want to make more far-reaching agreements, but could not enforce them and therefore they agreed on the lowest common denominator. In fact, both emperors took a certain risk, because the majority population was still pagan ("pagan"). In this respect, they had to take the old cults into consideration, so that the agreement reads in part like a text of justification in order to legitimize the turn in religious policy.

See also

swell

The Latin text of the Edict of Galerius and the Milan Agreement is passed down by Lactantius ( De mortibus persecutorum 48). Eusebius of Caesarea quotes both texts in Greek translation in his church history : the Edict of Galerius in Book 8, Chapter 17; the Milan Accord in Book 10, Chapter 5.

  • Volkmar Keil (Ed.): Collection of sources on the religious policy of Constantine the Great (Latin / Greek / German) . Texts for research, Darmstadt 1995, p. 58ff.

literature

In general, the agreement is dealt with in every relevant presentation on the life of Constantine or on the history of the church in late antiquity .

  • Timothy D. Barnes : Constantine. Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester 2011, ISBN 978-1-4051-1727-2 , pp. 93ff.
  • Elisabeth Herrmann-Otto : Constantine the Great. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2007, ISBN 978-3-534-15428-9 , pp. 76-80 ( Gestalten der Antike ).
  • Josef Rist: The Milan Agreement of 313: State religion versus religious freedom. In: Studia Patristica. 34, 2001, ZDB -ID 223688-6 , pp. 217-223.
  • Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner : Tolerance needs justification: On the function of the Edict of Milan and related texts from the earlier 4th century AD . In: Martin Wallraff (ed.): Religious tolerance: 1700 years after the Edict of Milan. Colloquium Rauricum XIV. De Gruyter, Berlin 2016, pp. 159–192.
  • Otto Seeck : The so-called Edict of Milan. In: Journal of Church History . 12, 1891, pp. 381-386.

Remarks

  1. ↑ Seeck, The so-called Edict of Milan , who already said that it was primarily aimed at the eastern part of the empire, since the decrees of Galerius (see below) had not been implemented there (ibid., P. 386) . See also Herrmann-Otto, Konstantin der Große , pp. 79f.
  2. ↑ See Herrmann-Otto, Konstantin der Große , p. 77.
  3. ↑ In recent research, the thesis of an edict is only represented by a minority who are also aware of this position; see. on this Giuseppe Zecchini: The "Edict of Milan". In: Martin Wallraff (ed.): Religious tolerance: 1700 years after the Edict of Milan. Berlin 2016, p. 51ff. (with reference to the majority opinion of research since Seeck). Brief notes on the research opinion also from Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner: Tolerance needs justification: On the function of the Edict of Milan and related texts from the earlier 4th century AD. In: Martin Wallraff (ed.): Religious tolerance: 1700 years after the Edict of Milan. Berlin 2016, pp. 159–192, here pp. 181f., Note 59.
  4. ↑ See Timothy D. Barnes: Constantine. Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Chichester 2011, pp. 95f
  5. ↑ See also the research overview by Paul Veyne: When our world became Christian. Munich 2008, p. 181f., Note 10.
  6. ↑ Research overview with Jochen Martin: Spätantike und Völkerwanderung. 4th edition. Munich 2001, p. 155f.
  7. ↑ Cf. Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner: Tolerance needs justification: On the function of the Edict of Milan and related texts from the earlier 4th century AD. In: Martin Wallraff (ed.): Religious tolerance: 1700 years after the Edict of Milan. Berlin 2016, pp. 159–192, here p. 180ff.
  8. ^ German translation
  9. ^ German translation