THE PERSECUTION AND PRICES EDICTS

Judges would be busy under Diocletian, Roman emperor from 284 to his retirement in 305. He was an innovative leader. In 285 he appointed Maximian his fellow emperor; in 293 two further men were appointed co-emperors, Galerius and Constantius, with the junior rank of Caesar to Diocletian's and Maximian's rank as Augustus.

The Edict of Maximal Prices dates to November 301.^[210] Very substantial reconstruction of the edict is possible by pooling nearly forty epigraphic fragments. The edict sought to impose a maximum price that could be charged or paid for any given item or service, so the text consists of a fulsome rhetorical preamble followed by lengthy lists of items and services with their maximal (not fixed) prices. The penalty for demanding or paying a price higher than the stated maximum was capital punishment. The catalogue of prices varies widely in its contents, from cheap to very expensive items.^[211]

The Persecution Edict was in fact a series of four edicts, of increasing violence against the Church. The texts are lost, but their content can be reconstructed with considerable confidence from the narratives of Lactantius and Eusebius, contemporary authors both.

Both the Prices Edict and Persecution Edicts were unusually aggressive acts of public law, certainly of high profile in our sources and quite probably intended to be equally conspicuous in their original context.^[214] But both failed. Persecution was repealed by legislation by the co-emperors Licinius and Constantine, and even by the persecuting emperor Galerius, according to Lactantius and Eusebius again.^{[215] [216] Within a few years, Constantine was favouring the church with his generous patronage, and Christianity was to become the faith of the Roman Empire. And in the absence of any corrobo­ration for Lactantius' claim that the Prices Edict was repealed (De Mortibus Persecutorum 7.6-7.7),11 scholarship has tended to assume that it was quickly considered a dead letter.[217]}

The question why the edicts failed has proved enduring from Lactantius' time onwards. His answer, and that of succeeding Christian literary genera­tions, was that the legislation failed because of the Christian theodicy at work in the universe, and because of the moral and physical courage of the martyrs who preferred death over compliance. Plain examples of this can be found in the genre of martyrology, of which many examples survive from this, the “Great” Persecution. Indicative is the account of the trial and death of Julius the Veteran, dated to 304. Julius, who had served twenty-seven years as a soldier, was brought before a prefect named Maximus, charged with refusing to sacrifice (according to the terms of the fourth edict).

[1] praeses dixit, “quis diceris?”

respondit, “Julius”

praeses dixit, “quid dicis, Iuli? vera sunt haec quae dicuntur de te?”

lulius respondit, “ita; Christianus enim sum; non nego me aliud esse quam sum.” praeses dixit, “numquid ignoras praecepta regum, qui iubent immolare diis?” Iulius respondit, “non ignoro quidem; sed ego Christianus sum et hoc facere non possum quod vis. nec enim me oportet Deum meum verum et vivum oblivisici.”

[2] Maximus praeses dixit, “quid enim grave est turificare et abire?”

Iulius respondit, “non possum praecepta divina contemnere et infidelis apparere Deo meo. etenim in vana militia quando videbar errare, in annis XXVII numquam tamquam scelestus aut litigiosus oblatus sum iudici. septies in bello egressus sum, et post neminem retro steti nec alicuius inferior pugnavi. princeps me non vidit aliquando errare et modo putas me, qui in prioribus fidelis fueram repertus, in melioribius infidelem posse inveniri?”

Maximus praeses dixit, “quam militiam gessisti?”

Iulius respondit, “sub arma militiae, et ordine meo egressus veteranus. semper timens Deum qui fecit coelum et terram colui, cui etiam nunc exhibeo servi­tutem.”

Maximus praeses dixit, “Iuli, video te sapientem virum et gravem. immola ergo diis persuasus a me ut remunerationem magnam consequaris.”

Iulius respondit, “non facio quae desideras ne incurram in poenam perpetuam.” Maximus praeses dixit, “si putas esse peccatum, me assequatur. ego tibi vim facio ne videaris voluntate adquievisse. postea vero securus vadis in domum tuam, accipiens decennalium pecuniam et de cetero nemo tibi erit molestus.”

Iulius respondit, “neque pecunia haec Satanae neque tua subdola haec persuasio privare me potest a lumine aeterno. Deum enim negare non possum. da itaque sententiam adversum me quasi adversus Christianum.”

[3] Maximus dixit, “nisi fueris regalibus praeceptis devotus et sacrificaveris, caput tuum amputabo.”

Iulius respondit, “bene cogitasti.

Maximus praeses dixit, “si non paenitueris et sacrificaveris, desiderio tuo traderis.”

Iulius respondit, “si hoc meruero pati, perpetua me laus manebit.”

Maximus dixit, “suadetur tibi. nam si pro patriae legibus patereris, haberes perpe­tuam laudem.”

Iulius respondit, “pro legibus certe haec patior, sed pro divinis.”

Maximus dixit, “quas mortuus et crucifixus vobis tradidit? vide quam stultus es, qui plus mortuum metuis quam reges qui vivunt.”

lulius respondit, “ille mortuus est pro peccatis nostris ut vitam nobis daret aeternam. Deus vero idem ipse Christianus permanebit in saecula saeculorum. quem si quis confessus fuerit, habebit vitam aeternam; qui autem negaverit, habet poenam perpetuam.”

Maximus dixit. “condolens tibi do consilium ut magis sacrifices et vivas nobiscum.”

Iulius respondit, “si vixero vobiscum, mors mihi erit; si in conspectu Domini mortuus fuero, in perpetuum vivo.”

Maximus dixit, “audi me at sacrifice, net e, sicut promisi, occidam.”

Iulius respondit, “elegi mori ad tempus ut in perpetuum vivam cum sanctis.” sic Maximus praeses dedit sententiam dicens, “Iulius, nolens praeceptis regalibus adquiescere, capitalem accipiat sententiam.”

[1] The prefect said, “What is your name?”

“Julius,” he replied.

“What do you say, Julius? Are the reports about you true?”

Julius replied, “Yes. For I am a Christian. I do not deny I am what I am.”

The prefect said, “Surely you know the emperors' edicts, which order sacrifice be made to the gods?”

Julius replied, “I know them; but I am a Christian and I cannot do what you want; for I must not forget my true and living God.”

[2] The prefect Maximus said, “What is serious about offering sacrificial incense and departing?”

Julius replied, “I cannot despise the heavenly edicts and show myself unfaithful to my God.

The prefect Maximus replied, “What was your military service?”

Julius replied, “I was in the army, and after my term I campaigned as a veteran, always in fear of �God who made heaven and earth' [Acts 4:24], to whom even now I dedicate my service.”

The prefect Maximus said, “Julius, I see you are a wise and serious man; so be persuaded by me, sacrifice to the gods, and receive a large payment.”

Julius replied, “I cannot do what you want, in case I incur everlasting punish­ment.”

The prefect Maximus said, “If you think it is a sin, let me take the consequences. I am forcing you, so that you will not be seen to acquiesce willingly. Afterwards you can go home in peace with your ten-year bonus, and nobody will trouble you again in future.”

Julius replied “Neither Satan's money nor your underhand inducements can deprive me of eternal light. For I cannot deny God. So pass sentence against me, as against a Christian.”

[3] Maximus said, “Unless you show respect to the imperial edicts and offer sacri­fice, I shall have you beheaded.”

Julius replied, “Good thinking! I ask you, good prefect, by the wellbeing of your emperors, to fulfil your plan and pass sentence on me, so that my wishes can be realised.”

The prefect Maximus replied, “Unless you change your mind and sacrifice, you will be delivered to your wishes.”

Julius replied, “If I deserve to suffer this, eternal praise will await me.”

Maximus said, “Be persuaded. For if you suffered for the sake of your country's laws, you would have eternal praise.”

Julius replied, “I certainly suffer this for the sake of laws - heavenly laws.” Maximus said, “Laws which a man dead and crucified has given to you? See how foolish you are when you fear a dead man more than living emperors.”

Julius replied, “He �died for our sins' to give us eternal life.

Maximus said, “Out of sorrow for you, I advise you, rather, to sacrifice and continue to live amongst us.”

Julius replied, “If I live with you, I will die; if I die in sight of God, I live for ever.”

Maximus said, “Listen to me and sacrifice, so that I will not have to kill you, as I threatened.”

Julius replied, “I have chosen to die for now so that I shall live with the saints for ever.”

Thus the prefect Maximus passed sentence, saying, “Let Julius receive capital punishment, as he is unwilling to obey the imperial edicts.”

Julius was decapitated. His behaviour in the course of his trial and subsequent execution is entirely characteristic of the genre, whose formulaic nature gives prominence to the defiant grace and strength of the victims of persecution in such a way as to generate the sense of a triumphalist Christian collec­tive. So strong are the martyrs when faced with the state's threats that they welcome their own deaths. In this literary record, through persecution, the state unwittingly made heroes out of its criminals.

If the church accounted for the failure of the Persecution Edict by proclaiming and celebrating its own resistance, modern scholarship has tended to emphasise practical, secular shortcomings in judicial and adminis­trative machinery. In the martyr act of Julius, the veteran himself is not the only person to resist the stipulations of the Persecution Edict. The prefect Maximus is a reluctant judge who does his best in fact to persuade Julius to comply, even to the extent of offering him a cash bribe^[219] - in Maximus' mind, it seems, the clash in ideologies between the Christian faith and tradi­tional military service to the state is acutely uncomfortable. Julius' resistance to the offer of course underscores his determination to face his death, but at the same time it reveals the levels of co-operation that were required of the judiciary if the legislation were to function as intended. Some judges, with their local preoccupations and anxieties, would have had little to gain in applying the full force of the edicts, and possibly much to lose; and even if an individual judge was inclined to apply the law in all its detail, he must have been confronted with problems of effective promulgation and enforcement.

There is some evidence for the promulgation of the Prices and Persecu­tion Edicts. In all its surviving examples, the Prices Edict was promulgated by inscription in stone. This suggests the measure was intended to endure and might, therefore, have implications for our appreciation of Diocletian's strategies for combating inflation. In addition, the multiplicity of surviving fragments might suggest widespread original promulgation but, in fact, it has been persuasively argued that the fragments all originated in as few as four provinces, all in the eastern half of the Empire, although the preamble to the prices lists speaks of universal application.^[220] A picture of unequal distri­bution or application emerges for the Persecution Edicts too. Despite their exaggerated claims for universal suffering under the terms of the edicts, both Eusebius and Lactantius insist that the Christians of Gaul at least were spared the ravages of persecution.^[221] The reason given for this is that Gaul was under the control of Constantius, who had no wish to harm Christians, despite the Persecution Edicts. At its most innocent, these patterns of inconsistent promulgation and/or application might simply reveal serious deficiencies in the administrative apparatus of the law; more cynically, they might reveal a fundamental breakdown in the unity of government, with only certain emperors or provincial governors in certain areas bothering to try to apply the law. Whatever the cause may be, this modifies the panegyrical orator's claims significantly, for according to this reconstruction of Diocletian's edicts in action, a judge might choose to imitate imperial justice, but equally he might be inclined to ignore it if he felt he could get away with it. Given the practical obstacles in the way of successful, universal application of the terms of the edicts which recent research into Diocletian's government has brought to light, this analysis of the efficacy of his public law measures considers not so much why his legal measures failed as why he thought they could possibly succeed. On the face of it, the attempt to introduce these measures charac­terises Diocletian as hopelessly naive - can he be spared such a judgment?

C.