Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:19:55.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Constitutional Significance of Constantine the Great's Settlement1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

Walter Ullmann
Walter Ullmann
Affiliation:
Professor of Medieval History, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the topics of Constantine's governmental measures affecting the Church there is one which has received little or no attention in modern scholarship. And yet this topic would seem at least as important as the numerous disquisitions relative to his motivations, sincerity, honesty of purpose and similar questions which have virtually suffocated modern Constantinean research. The problem which would appear to demand an exhaustive analysis, is so much conditioned by the ramifications of antecedent history as well as by the constitutional development that on this occasion I can do no more than tentatively indicate its extent and scope.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1976 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 2 Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiastica (H.E.) x. 4. 63, i. f.; Vogt, J. in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (RAC) iii (1957) 306 ff.Google Scholar, at 359 f. with further literature; Baynes, N., Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, new ed. By Chadwick, H., Oxford 1972, 92 f.Google Scholar‘Nicht mehr Heide, aber noch nicht Christ’ was the verdict of Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin 1913, viii. 37.Google Scholar

page 2 note 1 Schwartz, E., Kaiser Konstantin und die christliche Kirche, Leipzig-Berlin 1913, 141Google Scholar (the second edition of 1936 was not accessible to me). For a balanced assessment of Schwartz's views see Dörries, H., ‘Konstantin und sein Zeitalter’ in Konstantin der Grosse, ed. Kraft, H., Darmstadt 1974, 273 ff.Google Scholar, at 293 n. 19 (= op. cit., below note 2, at 410 n. 1). Though useful, the bibliography of recent Constantinean literature by U. Schmidt (ibid, at 457–62) is not without inaccuracies. For additional literature see H. Chadwick, in N. Baynes, ed. cit., Preface.

page 2 note 2 See the inscription on Constantine's statue: Eusebius, Vita Constantini(V.C) i. 40; H.E., ix. 11; Peterson, E., Theologische Traktate, Munich 1951, 88 ff.Google Scholar; Dörries, H., Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins (= Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften Göttingen, philolog.-hist. Klasse, dritte Folge, no. 34, 1954), 215 f.Google Scholar

page 2 note 3 See H. Dörries, op. cit., 16–240; special kinds of legislation at 162 ff., and 227 ff. Wieacker, F., Vom römischen Recht, Stuttgart 1962Google Scholar, remarks that imperial legislation in the early fourth century had intervened to a hitherto unknown degree fürsorglich und bevormundend in das tägliche Rechtsleben’ (81).

page 3 note 1 See Vogt, J., ‘Zur Frage des christlichen Einflusses auf die Gesetzgebung Konstantins d. Gr.’ in Festschrift für Leopold Wenger, Munich 1944, ii. 119 ff.Google Scholar, especially 127 ff.; id., RAC, iii. 334. Cf. also Dorries, H., Constantine and religious liberty, Yale 1960.Google Scholar

page 3 note 2 Eusebius, H.E., x. 5. 2 ff.; Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, cap. 48, ed. in CSEL, xxvii. 228 ff.; also in Kirch, C., Enchiridion fontium historiae ecclesiasticae antiquae, 6th ed. by Ueding, L., Barcelona 1947, no. 352.Google Scholar On the importance of this see above all Ehrhardt, A., ‘Das Corpus Christi und die Korporation im spätrömischen Recht’ in Zeitschr. der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Rom. Abt., lxx (1953) 299 ff.Google Scholar, and ibid., lxxi (1954) 21 ff, especially 37 ff, who was the first to have fully assessed the significance of this terminology; see further id., ibid. lxxii (1955), 171 f.

page 3 note 3 Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 17, 20, 27; Eph. iv. 4; Col. i. 18, 24; etc.

page 4 note 1 See Lactantius, Divinae Institutions, ed. CSEL, xix: Bk v.c. 11 f. at 436–7; further v.8, at 421, line 12. The reference to Ulpian's writings has long been noted by Rudorff, A., ‘Über den Liber de officio proconsulis’ in Abhandlungen der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin 1866, 259 ff.Google Scholar; but especially by C. Ferrini in 1894: ‘La cognizioni giuridiche di Lattanzio, Arnobio e Minucio Felice’ in Memorie Accademia Scienze Modena, x (1894), 195–210Google Scholar, and id., ‘Die juristischen Kenntnisse des Arnobius und Lactantius’ in Z.R.G., Rom. Abt., xv (1895), 343 ff.Google Scholar, especially 350 ff. See Ferrini, C., Opere, ed. Albertario, E., Milan 1929, ii. 467 ffGoogle Scholar, and 481 ff. Cf. also Schulz, F., History of Roman Legal Science, new ed. Oxford 1953, 243 f.Google Scholar, and Wieacker, F., Textstufen klassischer Juristen (= Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften Göttingen, philolog.-hist. Klasse, dritte Folge, no. 45, 1960), 213.Google Scholar I have not seen a reference to this assuredly not unimportant point in the vast literature on the Constantinean settlement.

page 4 note 2 See E. Peterson, op. cit., 45 ff., especially 87 ff.; H. Dömes, op. cit., 136, 138, 356 ff.; Ehrhardt, A., art. cit., lxxii (1955), 150.Google Scholar For the background see above all F. Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine political philosophy, Dumbarton Oaks 1966, 611 ff. The work of Lactantius was to set forth in the fashion of juristic Institutes the Christian theme which meant the exposition of the monotheistic ideas; see Lactantius, Div. Inst., 1.1, at 4 lines 3 ff. This is rightly pointed out by Campenhausen, H. V., The Fathers of the Latin Church, repr. London 1972, 68, though without realising the relevance to the Constantinean settlement.Google Scholar

page 4 note 3 Dörries, op. cit., no. 73, also no. 135.

page 4 note 4 Cf., for instance, E. Schwartz, op. cit., 149: ‘The bishops did not pay any heed to the emperor's arrogation of two rights, that is, to convoke imperial synods and to endow their decrees with legality and enforceability’. For a conspectus of similar interpretations cf. Baus, K., Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed. Jedin, H., 3rd ed.Freiburg-Basel-Vienna 1965, i. 476 f.Google Scholar For penetrating observations on this topic cf. also Schmidinger, H., ‘Konstantin und die “Konstantinische Ära”’ in Freiburger Zeilschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, xvi (1969), 3 ff.Google Scholar

page 5 note 1 E. Schwartz, op. cit., loc. cit.

page 5 note 2 Wenger, L., Die Quellen des römischen Rechts, Vienna 1953, 531Google Scholar; Siber, H., Römisches Verfassungsrecht in geschichtlicher Entwicklung, Lahr 1962Google Scholar, 382; see also id., Römisches Recht, Darmstadt 1968, 63 f.Google Scholar; Kunkel, W., Introduction to Roman legal and constitutional history, 2nd ed., English transl. By Kelly, J. N., Oxford 1973, 137 ff.Google Scholar See also Alföldi, A., The conversion of Constantine and pagan Rome, repr. Oxford 1970, 11 f.Google Scholar, 56 f., 69 f.; Heuss, A., Römische Geschichte, 2nd ed.Braunsberg 1964, 443 ff.Google Scholar See also Kraft, H., Kaiser Konstantins religiöse Entwicklung, Tübingen 1955, 11 ff.Google Scholar

page 5 note 3 For this see H. Dörries op. cit., especially nos. 83, 84, 103 = Codex Theodosianus (C. Th.) xv. 14. 1–3, with the significant insistence on the ius vetus.

page 5 note 4 Ulpian in Dig., 1. 1. 1. 2. About the truncated text in Inst., 1. 1. 4, see F. Wieacker, Text-stufen, 206 n. 135, and 213. Cf. Gaius, Inst., 11. 2. For Ulpian see Kunkel, W., Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen, 2nd ed., Cologne-Graz 1967, 245 ff.Google Scholar and for the literature concerning this noted passage see Kaser, M., Das römische Privatrecht, 2nd ed.Munich 1971, i. 197 n. 34, and li (1959), 38.Google Scholar

page 5 note 5 Cf. Berger, A., ‘L'operis novi nuntiatio e il concetto di ius publicum’ in Iura, i (1950), 102 ff., at 111Google Scholar: ‘Ulpiano senza dubbio avrebbe potuto dire simplicemente “ius publicum est quod ad utilitatem rei Romanae spectat”’. How far Constantine's church foundations moved within die precincts of the status rei Romanae has been most meritoriously shown by Voelkl, L., Die Kirchenstiftungen des Kaisers Konstantin im Lichte des römtschen Sakralrechts (= Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, fasc. 117 (1964)), 9 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; here also an analysis of the wide meaning of the term sacrum.

page 6 note 1 A. Ehrhardt, art. cit., 150; J. Vogt in RAC, cit., 335–6; Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte, Munich 1960, 353, 359.Google Scholar In a different context the intellectual superiority of the churchmen is touched upon by Momigliano, A., ‘Christianity and the decline of the Roman empire’ in The conflict between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century, ed. Momigliano, A., Oxford 1963, 1 ff. at 9 ff.Google Scholar

page 6 note 2 See Res gestae divi Augusti, ed. Brunt, P. A. and Moore, J. M., Oxford 1967, vii. 3Google Scholar; x. 2, and xi, at 20, 22, 49 f, 52 f. See also Weber, E., Augustus: meine Taten: res gestae divi Augusti nach dem Monumentum Ancyranum, Munich 1970, 64, 68 f.Google Scholar

page 6 note 3 See H. Dörries, op. cit., 217, 219, 220 (all from inscriptions). Cf. also the edict concerning military privileges (of 311) in which the title is ‘pontifex maximus’ in Fontes iuris Romani anteiustiniani, ed. S. Riccobono, Florence 1941, 456.

page 6 note 4 For this see Alföldi, A., ‘A festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian emperors of the fourth century’ in Dissertationes Pannonicae, series iii, fasc. 8, Budapest 1937, 36 ff. (early 379)Google Scholar; here also the proof that the characteristic vota publica—the vows for good health and success of the emperor which appeared on all fourth-century coins—disappeared at exactly the same time. For the vota cf. additional numismatic evidence by Bruun, P., ‘The Christian signs on the coins of Constantine’ in Arctos: Acta Philologica Fennica, new series, iii (1962) 1 ff., at 10 ff.Google Scholar

page 6 note 5 Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 3rd–4th ed. London 1970, 24 n.i, with some instances.Google Scholar

page 7 note 1 Here one must express some reservations about the viewpoint of F. Dvornik, op. cit., 637: ‘It was the definition of Hellenistic royal competence that legally entitled him (Constantine) to interfere (scil. in Church affairs)’. The essential point is not, as far as Constantine is concerned. Hellenistic kingship, but the application of the readily available and universally understood Roman public law which was virtually tailored to suit his ecclesiastical legislation and designs.

page 7 note 1 H.E., x. 5. 15–17. Here, as pointed out by A. Ehrhardt, art. cit., 171 f., the corporational emphasis should be particularly noted. See further C.Th. xvi. 2. 4: legacies to be left to the corporate Church. Later in the Eastern provinces however individuals benefited from various relief measures: V.C., ii. 24 ff., especially 30 f.

page 7 note 3 Cf. C. Th., 1. 2. 2: ‘Quod enim publica iura perscribunt, magis sequi iudices debent’.

page 7 note 4 H. v. Soden, Urkunden zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Donatismus (in Hans Lietzmann, Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen, no. 122) no. 14, line 70. On this letter cf. H. Kraft, op. cit., 172 ff.

page 7 note 5 The securitas Augusti became the securitas populi Romani in the reigns of Galba and Otho, to emerge as securitas publica on the coins; see Instinsky, H. U., Sicherheit als politisches Problem des römischen Kaisertums, Baden-Baden 1952, 25 f., and Table 2.Google Scholar

page 7 note 6 C. Th., XII. 1. 2.

page 7 note 7 C.Justin., 1. 40.

page 7 note 8 . C. Th., IX. 16. 3.

page 8 note 1 C. Th., I. 27. 1.

page 8 note 2 For some observations on this cf. J. Vogt, Festschrift Wenger, cit., 124.

page 8 note 3 H.E., X. 7. For a critical analysis of the privileges see Dupont, C., ‘Les privilèges des clercs sous Constantin’ in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, lxii (1967), 729–52.Google Scholar

page 8 note 4 See also. Vogt, art. cit., 127.

page 8 note 5 C. Th., IV. 7. 1.

page 8 note 6 See for this L. Voelkl, op. cit., 29 ff.

page 8 note 7 Soden, Urkunden, cit., no. 14.

page 8 note 8 Ibid., lines 4, 32, 35, 65, 74 f. Cf. further no. 33, lines 2 f.: ‘observatores catholicae legis’ = C. Th., XVI. 5. 1.

page 9 note 1 See, for example, Lactantius, Div. Inst., V. 11, at 436, line 13. Cf. Kraft, op. cit., 54, 183.

page 9 note 2 Soden, Urkunden, no. 23, line 45.

page 9 note 3 Acts XV.

page 9 note 4 The subject of the early synods, their development, structure, organisation, etc., is still far too little explored. For some general remarks cf. Lardone, G., ‘Il diritto romano e i concilii’ in Acta congressus iuridici internationalis, Rome 1934, ii. 101–2Google Scholar; Plöchl, W., Geschichte des Kirchenrechts, Vienna 1953, i. 55 fGoogle Scholar; Feine, H. E., Kirchliche Rechtseeschichte, 5th ed.Cologne-Graz 1973, 53 f.Google Scholar Tertullian is said to have been the first to use the term concilium, see his De ieiunio, 13, ed. CSEL, xx. 292: ‘Aguntur preterea in certis locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis … et ipsa representatio totius nominis christiani magna veneratione celebretur’. Dionysius of Alexandria (ob. 265) is alleged to have first employed the term synodos. There is ample literature for the post-Constantinean period relative to councils. For the term ‘synod’ see most recently Lumpe, A., ‘Zur Geschichte des Wortes σύνοδος in der antiken christlichen Gräzität’ in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, vi (1974), 40–53, esp. 43 f.Google Scholar

page 10 note 1 H.E., x. 5; Soden, Urkunden, no. 12, line 29. There is no mention of this in the Liber Pontificalis in the entry of Miltiades. Whether the meeting was to be a tribunal or a synod is really a terminological question. According to Lohse, B., ‘Kaiser und Papst im Donatistenstreit’ in Ecclesia und Respublica, ed. Kretschmar, B. and Lohse, B. (= Festgabe für K. D. Schmidt), Göttingen 1961, 75 n., at 78Google Scholar: ‘nicht eine Synode, sondern ein Gericht’. But cf. Eusebius himself, loc. cit. For an attractive juristic interpretation of this procedure, see Instinsky, H. U., Bischofstuhl und Kaiserthron, Munich 1955, 59 ff.Google Scholar For the need to preserve peace in North Africa, the main source of corn supply, see A. Ehrhardt, loc. cit., and Frend, W. H. C., The Donatist Church, 2nd ed.Oxford 1971, 66 ff., 145 ff.Google Scholar

page 10 note 2 H.E., x. 5. 21 ff.; Soden, Urkunden, no. 15, line 44: κελεύσαμεν The decrees of the synod are in Turner, C. H., Ecclesiae Occidentals Monumenta Iuris Antiquissimi, Oxford 1939, i. 381 ff.Google Scholar It is misleading to say that ‘Vers la fin de l'année 313 il (Constantin) fut investi évêque des affaires internes’: Petritakis, J. M., ‘Interventions dynamiques de l'empereur de Byzance dans les affaires ecc;ésiastiques’ in Byzantine, iii (1971), 141.Google Scholar About the letter written by the Arles synodists to the pope, see Mazzini, I., ‘Lettera del concilio di Arles (314)apapaSilvestro tradita dal Codex Paris. Lat. 1711’ in Vipliae Christianae, xxvii (1973), 282–300.Google Scholar

page 10 note 3 Soden, Urkunden, no. 14 to Aelafius (Ablabius?).

page 10 note 4 It was only from this standpoint understandable that in 272 Antioch petitioned Aurelian in his function as ruler whose power was derived from divinity (cf. H.E., vii. 30. 28). How much more reason was there now to approach, petition and appeal to the emperor, since every individual church constituted a licit corpus and as such was integrated into the Roman legal framework, the guardian of which the emperor was. About Aurelian and Antioch cf. Kraft, H., ‘Kaiser Konstantin und das Bischofsamt’ in Saeculum, viii (1957), 32 f.Google Scholar

page 11 note 1 According to F. Dvornik, op. cit., 641, Constantine by not voting preserved constitutional propriety, because the emperor had no right to vote in the senate. ‘This was the Senators’ privilege only … saved in principle even under the most autocratic emperors … there is no trace in the accounts of the Council of Constantine voting with the bishops’. For the pre-Constantinean Eastern sources of the term δμοούσιος see Ehrhardt, A., Politische Metaphysik von Solon bis Augustin, Tübingen 1959, ii. 269 n. 5.Google Scholar

page 11 note 2 Cf. A. Alföldi, op. cit., 76; also Voelkl, L., Der Kaiser Konstantin: Annalen einer Zeitenwende, Munich 1957, 143.Google Scholar

page 11 note 3 For some perceptive observations thrown against a wide background see Mazzarino, S., ‘Politologisches bei Jacob Burckhardt’ in Saeculum, xxii (1971), 25 ff.Google Scholar (comparing the historian Burckhardt with the jurist Mommsen). Cf. also Greenslade, S. L., Church and State from Constantine to Theodosius, London 1954, 16, 20.Google Scholar

page 12 note 1 V. C., iv. 24.

page 12 note 2 The most trenchant and searching examination of this old problem is by Straub, J., ‘Kaiser Konstantin als πίσκοπος των κτός in his Regeneratio Imperii, Darmstadt 1972, 119 ff.Google Scholar Cf. also H. Kraft, op. cit., 105 f.; Jones, A. H. M., Constantine and the conversion of Europe, Harmondsworth 1972, 194 ff.Google Scholar As it will become evident, our conclusions are not in complete agreement with theirs which is now largely accepted, according to which the term meant ‘bishop for those who are outside the Church’. For a penetrating criticism of this view see Vittinghoff, F., ‘Eusebius als Verfasser der V.C.’ in Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, new series, xcvi (1953), 330 ff.Google Scholar at 356 ff., whose own conclusion also seems rather unsatisfactory: Constantine appeared as ‘a divinely appointed bishop for those matters which are outside the Church’ (369) (my italics).

page 12 note 3 Cf., for example, Scott, H. Liddell-R., A Greek-English Lexicon, repr. Oxford 1968, s.v., at 657, with relevant examples.Google Scholar

page 12 note 4 The reference is to the κοινς πίσκοπος as reported in V. C., iv. 8; cf. also Soden, Urkunden, no. 23, lines 20 ff. For the whole question see J. Straub, ‘Konstantin als κοινς πίσκοπας in op. cit., 134 ff., esp. 151 f. Are there any lines of communication with the Ciceronian terms of the communis patria or the communis pater, or even with pater patrum?

page 13 note 1 See Piganiol, A., L'empereur Cmstantin, Paris 1932, 128 f.Google Scholar; J. Vogt in RAC, cit., 337; A. Ehrhardt, art. cit., 181 f.; H. Dömes, op. cit., 322 who also stresses that this was an issue of the cult. See especially on the point Chadwick, H., The Early Church, Harmondsworth 1968, 128 f.Google Scholar The enactment is in C. Th., 11. 8. 1.

page 13 note 2 Soden, Urkunden, no. 18, lines 39 ff.: ‘… Dico enim, ut se veritas habet, sacerdotum iudicium ita se debet haberi, ac si Dominus ipse residens iudicet’.

page 13 note 3 Cf. V.C., iii. 17, Constantine writing to the churches after Nicaea: ‘I have judged it ought to be the first object of my efforts that unity of faith, sincerity of love and a community of feeling in regard to the worship of God’ should predominate, and in the Council ‘every question received fullest examination … so that no room was left for further discussion or controversies in regard to the faith’. H. Kraft, op. cit., 224, takes for granted that this was a Diktat of the emperor, though he supplies no evidence for this statement.

page 13 note 4 A. Heuss, op. cit., 457.

page 13 note 5 A. Alföldi, op. cit., 20; H. Chadwick, op. cit., 125. About his reported reversion to the pagan ruler cult in Constantinople in 330, cf. Karayannopulos, J., ‘Konstantin und der Kaiserkult’ in Historia, v (1956), 341 ff.Google Scholar, where the various views are neatly assembled (at 342–4); see further Winkelmann, F., ‘Zur Geschichte der V.C.’ in Klio, xl (1962), 187 ff.Google Scholar, at 234 ff; and Ligota, C., ‘Constantiniana’ in Journ. of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxvi (1963) 178 ff. at 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar According to H. Kraft, op. cit., 153, Constantine considered himself in relation to the Church ‘not a learner, but a teacher’.

page 14 note 1 Baynes, N. in Cambridge Ancient History, xii (1939), at 697.Google Scholar

page 14 note 2 Cf. E. Schwartz, op. cit., 141 f.: ‘die Mehrzahl der Synodalen nach dem Urteil eines Zeitgenossen von der theologischen Kontroverse nichts verstand’. Cf. also Berkhof, H., Kirche und Kaiser: eine Untersuchung der byzantinischen und theokratischen Staatsauffassung im 4. Jahrhundert (German transl. of the Dutch original) Zürich 1947, 93Google Scholar: everyone accepted the formula of the Homoousios ‘obwohl niemand etwas damit anzufangen wusste’.

page 14 note 3 L. Voelkl, op. cit., 142, referred in this context to a Gleichschaltung.

page 14 note 4 Id., Kirchenstiftungen, 64. Cf. also H. Schmidinger, art. cit., 7.

page 15 note 1 Opitz, H.-G. (ed.), Urkunden zur Geschichte des ariartischen Streites (= Athanasius Werke, iii, 1), Berlin 1935, no. 25.Google Scholar

page 15 note 2 See the Constitutio in H. Dörries, no. 138, who comments: ‘Eigenartig, aber Konstantin zuzutrauen ist der Gedanke, dass der Christ durch Gott geschützt werden wird, aber unter Vermittlung der Staatsordnung …’. I do not think that there is anything ‘peculiar’ in this: the curatorial function of the ruler in connexion with the manipulation of the public law could hardly lead to any other view, especially when the full implications of the descending theme of government are taken into account.

page 15 note 3 Rightly pointed out by H. Dörries, at no. 103: C. Th., xv. 14. 1 and 2. See also ibid., xv 14. 3: ‘Quae tyrannus contra ius rescribsit non valere praecipimus…’.

page 16 note 1 The question so frequently asked why in the East the Church permitted the far-reaching interventions by the government, is based on a faulty premiss. Cf., for instance, H. Berkhof, op. cit., 83, asking how the Church could tolerate becoming a ‘Dienerin des Staates’. This was Byzantinism which meant ‘die unkritische, gehorsame und segnende Haltung’, that characterised the Church in Byzantium. The present sketch has attempted an explanation of the situation on legal-historical grounds. That later there was opposition to the scheme, however much historically explicable, has been shown by Beck, H.-G., ‘Vom Staatsdenken der Byzantiner’ in Sitzungsberichte der Bayrischen Akademie, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1970, fasc. 2, 36–8.Google Scholar

page 16 note 2 Cf. Ullmann, W., A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed.London 1974, 23 f.Google Scholar, 32, 85, 155, 330. It is an urgent task to subject Constantine's official and unofficial declarations to a rigorous analysis in regard to subject-matter, style, semantics, syntax, in order to trace the paternity of the ideas put forward. To say, as it is so often asserted, that he himself composed his edicts, etc. (i.e. were his own Diktat), is unrealistic, if not naive. The dissection of the numerous religious strains in his laws is necessary if only to discover their provenance in antecedent Christian literature. The personal composition of his chancery should long have been the object of research. Enrhardt, A., art. cit., Z.R.G., Rom. Abt. lxxii (1955), 154 f.Google Scholar, was one of the first who was aware of these needs. A detailed examination might profitably begin with an investigation of the small number of select notarii with whom Constantine surrounded himself, see for this Dölger, F., Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, Munich 1968, 59.Google Scholar