(1) I am deeply indebted to the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for indispensable support (in 1954-55 and 1966-67) of my study of Byzantine intellectual history, the Mind of Byzantium, of which this paper forms a part.

I acknowledge gratefully assistance from my colleague, Professor Lynn White, Jr., Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, UCLA, who has made a number of valuable suggestions.

The most convenient text of the Edict is to be found in Lactance, De la mort des persécuteurs, 48, ed. with French translation and notes by Jacques Moreau, Sources Chrétiennes, 39, vols. 1-2 (Paris, 1954); and in Greek in Eusebius, HE, 1.0, 5, 2-14, ed. Eduard Schwartz, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 9, 2 (Berlin 1908); with English translation by J. ?. L. Oulton and H. J. Lawlor, Eusebius, the Ecclesiastical History, 2 (Loeb Classical Library, 1932); with French translation by Gustave, Bardy, Sources chrétiennes, 55 (Paris, 1958). P. R. Coleman-Norton, Roman Slate & Christian Church, 1 (London, 1966), 30-35, gives an English translation of Lactantius's version of the Edict and Eusebius's variants therefrom.

Of the vast bibliography on the Edict, I cite the following works, both for their importance in the history of the subject and for their references to the older literature, which it is profitless to repeat: Mario Agnes, "Alcune considerazioni sul cosiddetto 'Editto' di Milano", Studi romani, 13 (1965), 424-32: does not discuss the "problem" of the Edict; Salvatore Calderone, Costantino e il cattolicesimo , 1 (Pubblicazioni dell' Islituto di storia dell' Université di Messina, 3 [Florence, 1962]); Mario Amelotti, "Da Diocleziano a Costantino, note in tema di costituzioni imperiali", Studio el documenta historiae et iuris, 27 (1961), 241-323; Maurilio Adriani, "La storicità dell' Editto di Milano", Studi Romani, 2 (1954), 18-32; Herbert Nesselhauf, "Das Toleranzgesetz des Licinius", Historisches Jahrbuch, 74 (1954), 44-61; Andreas Alföldi, The conversion of Constantine (Oxford, 1948), 37 f., 129 ?. 13; J. R. Palanque, "A propos du prétendu Edit de Milan", Byzantion, 10 (1935), 607-16; Norman H. Baynes, Constantine the Great and the Christian Church (Proceedings of the British Academy, 15 [London, 1929]), 11, 69-74 (the lecture was delivered in 1930); Richard Laqueur, "Die beiden Fassungen des sog. Toleranzedikts von Mailand", ?????????? Heinrich Swoboda dargebracht (Reichenberg, 1927), 132-41: I see no way to reconcile with texts or logic L's tortuous theory (n. b. p. 140) that Eusebius's version of the Edict included interpolations from Maximinus's rescript to Sabinus (HE, 9, 9a, 1-9), which L deems to have been issued before the Edict but dishonestly represented by the Constantinian party (and Eusebius) as Maximinus's reply to the Edict (HE, 9, 9, 12/.; 9, 9a, 10-12) ; John R. Knip- fmg, "Das angebliche 'Mailänder Edikt' v. J. 313 im Lichte der neueren Forschung", Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 40 (1.922), 206-18; Emile Chénon, "Les conséquences juridiques de PÉdit de Milan (313), Nouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger, 38 (1914-15), 255-63; Pierre Batifîol, La paix conslanlinienne et le catholicisme, 2d ed. (Paris, 1914), 203-67, n. b. 229 ff.; G. L. Perugi, "La fonte giuridica deh" Editto di Milano", Borna e l'Oriente, 6, fasc. 35-36 (1913), 13-40: chiefly of interest for detailed references to the earlier bibliography; Carlo Santucci, "L'Editto di Milano nei riguardi del diritto", Nuovo Bul- lettino di Archeologia cristiana, 19 (1913), 71-75; Joseph Wittig, "Das Toleranzreskript von Mailand 313", Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit, ed. Franz J. Dölger (Freiburg im Br., 1913), 40-65; Valerian Çesan, Die Religionspolitik der christlich-röm. Kaiser von Konstantin d. Gr. bis Theodosius d. Gr. (313-380) (Kirche und Staat im römisch-byzantinischen Reiche