See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283276953

The early stage of the Donatist Schism – a view from Serdica.

Conference Paper · June 2014

CITATION READS

1 2,524

1 author:

Vesselina Vachkova
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
22 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Vesselina Vachkova on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Serdica Еdict (311 AD):
Concepts and Realizations of the Idea
of Religious Toleration
 The book is published in 2014.
This is 1849 years after the beginning of Bulgarian statehood in Europe
(165 AD) and 1333 years after the establishment of Danubian Bulgaria
(681 AD) by Kan Asparuh.
Bulgaria is the oldest European state existing under the same name for over
eighteen centuries, and preserved by the Bulgarian nation
to this day.

Serdica Еdict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations

of the Idea of Religious Toleration
Proceedings of the international interdisciplinary conference “Serdica Edict (311 AD):
Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of ​​Religious Toleration”, Sofia, 2012

© TANGRA TanNakRa
Publishing House Ltd, 2014
CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON THE BULGARIANS

© Edited by Vesselina Vachkova and Dimitar Dimitrov

© Translator: Vanya Nikolova
ISBN 978-954-378-102-7

All rights reserved.

The publication of the book or parts of it in any form whatever, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, transcript
or any other mode without the written publisher’s consent is forbidden.
 TANGRA TanNakRa Publishing House Ltd
CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON THE BULGARIANS
Sofia, 2014
 Contents

HAS THE EDICT OF SERDICA BEEN FORGOTTEN (some introductory

words to this volume) – Vesselina Vachkova – Sofia, Bulgaria..................................7
Why has the Edict of AD 311 Been Ignored? –
Elizabeth DePalma Digeser – Santa Barbara, USA.................................................15
LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE SERDICA EDICT OF EMPEROR GALERIUS
DD. 30 APRIL 311 AD. – Malina Novkirishka-Stoyanova – Sofia, Bulgaria..........29
The edict of Serdica in religious-historical perspective –
Clifford Ando –Chicago, USA...................................................................................51
The Edict of Milan: Why We Still Need It –
Harold A. Drake – Santa Barbara, USA...................................................................63
Aspects of Roman Religious Policy Reflected in the
Serdica Edict of 311 AD – Vanya Nikolova – Sofia, Bulgaria........................79
Tolerance for the Gentiles, intolerance of heretics:
the first interventions of Constantine in the life of the
Catholic Church and of the pagan priests –
Rita Lizzi Testa – Perugia, Italy ...............................................................................89
The early stage of the Donatist Schism – a view from
Serdica – Vesselina Vachkova – Sofia, Bulgaria................................................109
The persecution of Galerius in Scythia, with a special
regard to Halmyris – Alexandru Madgearu – Bucharest, Romania.........121
Who executed St. Demetrius? An Attempt AT a Forensic
Report – Dimitar Dimitrov – Veliko Tarnovo , Bulgaria....................................133
Religious Policy and Policizing Religion during
the Tetrarchy – Hrvoje Gračanin – Zagreb, Croatia...................................143
CONSTANTINE HELIOS: BETWEEN PAGANISM AND
CHRISTIANITY – Vanya Lozanova-Stantcheva– Sofia, Bulgaria........................163
The Cult to the Sun-God and the King’s Ideology –
Valeria Fol – Sofia, Bulgaria..................................................................................181
“SERDICA II” PROJECT – Ventzislav Dintchev – Sofia, Bulgaria.......................195
Did the Great Schism Begin at the Council of Serdica
in AD 343? – Turhan Kaçar –Pamukkale, Turkey.................................................219
THE SITE OF THE COUNCIL OF SERDICA: NEW ARCHAEOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE – Mario Ivanov – Sofia, Bulgaria......................................................235
THE ANTIQUE THEATRE AND THE AMPHITHEATRE
OF SERDICA – Zharin Velichkov – Sofia, Bulgaria..............................................249
The Motif of Christogram on Architectural Elements
form the Imperial Palace in Sirmium – Ivana Popović –
Belgrade, Serbia.....................................................................................................261
The Temple of Serapis in Serdica – Discovery, Anastylosis
and Exhibition – Georgi Mavrov, Katelina Saltirova-Pavlova –
Sofia, Bulgaria........................................................................................................277
Who, When and Why Pardoned Mavro Orbin’s The Realm
of the Slavs – Jordan Tabov – Sofia, Bulgaria...............................................291
The ‘Little Mount Athos’ of Sofia and the Churches
in the eleventh and twelfth centuries –
Ralitza Uzunova – Sofia, Bulgaria..........................................................................305
 The early stage of the Donatist Schism –
a view from Serdica

Vesselina Vachkova

What does Serdica have to do with the Donatist schism?

The first response to such a question would, no doubt, sound like a par-
aphrase of the famous exclamation of Donatus, ‘What does the Emperor have
to do with the Church?’ Indeed, the directions followed and emphases laid so
far in research carried out on the Donatist schism have not given an answer
to this question. What is more, they have not even allowed for asking such a
question. The reason why this is the case lies in the frequent marginalization
of the period of early Donatism – i.e., the first three decades of its history
– between the Serdica Edict of 311 and the Council of Serdica in 343. This
period is overshadowed in the studies by either the pre-Donatist disputes over
the fate of those who had fallen away from the faith (lapsi) and the traitors
(traditores),1 or by the reaction against the excesses of the so called ‘circum-
celliones’.2 The second reason for the absence of Serdica from the research
horizons on Donatism is connected with the following steady tendency: on
the one hand, the development of the Donatist schism has always been asso-
ciated with the local African tradition and, on the other hand, with the person
of Constantine the Great and, more specifically, with Constantine-the-Cham-
pion-of-the-Faith after the Battle of the Milvian bridge. By this logic, the his-
tory of the schism has usually been confined to the geographical area between
Carthage, Cirta, Rome, Arles and Milan. As for the events during the reign of
Constantine, they have been divided into the time of persecution and the time
of tolerance. Is this the true picture?
1
The same is observable during the time of the Novatian schism in the mid-third century and the Me-
letian schism at the beginning of the fourth century.
2
Тhe Agonistics, the so called ‘fighters for Christ’, named by theirs opponents ‘circumcellions’. J. E.
Atkinson, ‘Out of Order: The Circumcellions and Codex Theodosianus 16, 5, 52’, Historia: Zeitschrift
fur Alte Geschichte. (1992), 488-499; Н. А. Машкин, ‘Агонистики, или циркумцеллионы, в кодексе
Феодосия’, ВДИ (1938) 1, 82-92. R. P. Beaver, ‘The Donatist Circumcellions’, Church History, Vol.
4, No. 2 (1935), 123-133; B. D. Shaw. Sacred Violence. African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the
Age of Augustine. Cambridge University Press, 2011 Appendix F - Historical fictions: interpreting the
circumcellions, 828-839.
110 • Serdica Еdict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of Religious Toleration

A more careful analysis of the extant sources related to the conditions

under which Donatist schism began and Constantine’s attitude towards it,
shows that most of the documents were undeniably issued from Serdica, or
are likely to have been issued from Serdica. This was the first fact to motivate
the choice of the title of my study. On the other hand, a look on the Donatist
schism from Serdica makes it possible for the events in Africa to be seen in
a broader context, and perhaps in one more adequate to the period under in-
vestigation.

When did the new controversy about lapsi and traditores occurred
in Africa

Here I will not discuss in detail the problem of ‘traitors’ and ‘fallen
away from the faith”, which rose again during the persecution in Africa, in
311 AD, in connection with the Serdica Edict of Galerius rather than with
the election of Caecilian. I will only mention that the text of the letter sent
by the opponents of the bishop of Cartage, Caecilian, is not indicative of any
connection between their addressing Constantine and some personal qualities
of Constantine shown either prior to or after the battle of the Milvian Bridge.
They only recall the merits of Constantine’s father, Constantius Chlorus, and
demand impartial arbitration from the Gallic bishops, since in Gaul there
were no persecutions, and therefore there were no fallen away from the faith
and traitors.3 It seems that around 313 AD Constantine himself did not feel,
for whatever reason, personally involved in the problems of the Church in
general and in the dispute between the African bishops in particular. In any
case, the answer which Caecilianus’ adversaries received from him was not
only pretty tense, but it was also a joint communication on behalf of both
Constantine and Licinius.4
For his part, Lactantius was very clear on the question of when exactly
the theme of the ‘new lapsed’ became relevant again in the Christian world
– in Asia and Africa in particular. The change occurred immediately after
3
The work of St. Optatus, bishop of Milevis, against the Donatists, with appendix, Vassall-Phillips, Ol-
iver Rodie (eds.), London & New York, 1917, p. 42, sq. Cf. the Latin texte in Luis Duchesne: Rogamus
te, Constantine optime imperator, quoniam de genere iusto es, cuius pater inter caeteros imperatores
persecutionem non exercuit et ab hoc facinore immunis est Grallia. Nam in Africa inter nos et caeteros
episcopos contentiones sunt. Petimus ut de Grallia nobis iudices dari praecipiat pietas tua. Datae a
Luciano, Digno, Nasutio, Capitone, Fidentio et caeteris episcopis partis Donati. ‘Le dossier du dona-
tisme’. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire (1890), 10, 589-650 (especially p. 608).
4
The Work of St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, 44-45.
 The early stage of the Donatist Schism – a view from Serdica • 111

the Edict of Galerius, published also in the East, in Nicomedia, on 30 April,

shortly after its issuance in Serdica. It was on April 30, 311, in Nicomedia,
that the African confessor, Donatus (to whom Lactantius dedicated his work
De mortibus persecutorum) was released after six years in prison:

Hoc edictum (i.e. Galerius’ Edict of Toleration) proponitur Nicome-

diae pridie Kalendas Maias ipso octies et Maximino iterum con-
sulibus. Tunc apertis carceribus, Donate carissime, cum ceteris
confessoribus e custodia liberatus es, cum tibi carcer sex annis pro
domicilio fuerit.5

This edict was promulgated at Nicomedia on the day preceding the

Calends of May, in the eighth consulship of Galerius, and the second
of Maximinus. Then the prison-gates having been thrown open, you,
my best beloved Donatus, together with the other confessors for the
faith, were set at liberty from a jail which had been your residence
for six year.

The end of the persecutions put by the Serdica Edict6 must have au-
tomatically activated claims against Mensurius, the Carthaginian bishop
preceding Caecilian, because, while Caecilian was considered illegitimate on
account of being raised by the ‘traitor Felix’, Mensurius was personally sus-
pected of being a lapsus and traditor.7
Discussed will not also be whether in Africa, sometime between
317 and 321 and thereafter, there were religious clashes and whether both
5
Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, XXXV. 1-2. Neglecting the fact that Lactanius explicitly
mentions the date of the issuance of the Edict of toleration in Nicomedia (April 30) exclusively in
connection with the release of the addressee of his book, confessor Donatus, led many a contemporary
writer to mistakenly identifying the Edict of Serdica as an Edict of Nicomedia. For details see the In-
troduction to this volume.
6
Even in the 314 the Galerius’ edict was the only known law concerning legitimacy of the Chris-
tian community. Th. D. Barnes, ‘Lactantius and Constantine’, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 63
(1973), 29-46 (especially p. 46).
7
Timothy Barnes suggests that the Mensurius’ death happened in 305 or 307 and not in 311. Th. D.
Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, (Cambridge, MA, 1981), 54-55; The same opinion see in Ch. Odhal,
Constantine and the Christian Empire, (New York, 2004). 113-114. According to the author, Caecilian
was blamed by the rigorist Numidian clergy just as a protégé of Mensurius; see also S. Corcoran, The
Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government AD 284-324, Oxford Classical
Monographs. (Oxford, 1996), p. 144 and note 93. For the ‘classic’ opinion see K. Hefele, A History of
the Christian Councils, vol. 2, trans. and ed. by H. N. Oxenham, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1896),
book II, chap. 3, sec. 14. K. Hefele A history of the Christian Councils, from the Original Documents,
vol. 1. To the close of the Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325. Ed. by W. R. Clark. 2d ed., rev. (1883), ‘Origin
of the Schism of the Donatists, and the first Synods held on this account in 312 and 313’, 172-173.
112 • Serdica Еdict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of Religious Toleration

camps – that of the Donatists and that of the Caecilianists – gave martyrs.
It is well-known that fratricidal conflicts between the various Christian
factions were not unusual in that early epoch. But to explain the genesis
of these conflicts with the intervention of the emperors is by no means the
most appropriate approach. It suffices to recall Patriarch Paul of Constan-
tinople who did not attend Serdica Council in 343, where his own vindica-
tion was also to be discussed, because he feared a conspiracy against him
among his own congregation. These concerns were fully justified, because
when the Fathers of the East and West gathered in Serdica, according to
the chroniclers, the ‘altars of Constantinople were bloodied’ by the clash-
es between the supporters of the two contenders for the Patriarchal seat,
Paul and Macedonius.8
Given the relativity of all dating and all accounts of the events during
these decades, an attempt will be made to answer only the following question:
Did Constantine issue anti-Donatists laws and, more specifically, was there
a law prescribing ‘repressions’ against the Donatists in the period between
10 November 316 and the end of 317 – the time traditionally accepted as the
beginning of anti-Donatist repressions.

Was there a Constantine’s law of 317 AD prescribing repressions

against the Donatists?

For a start, let us consider Eusebius’ evidence of Constantine’s ‘actions

against the Donatists’. Without going into detail, I will only point out that
the information in the Church History concerning laws in favor of Catholics
against Donatists refers to the period before 315.9 In other words, these al-
leged anti-Donatist laws must have been issued in parallel with the Councils
of Rome in 313 and Arles in 314, where the accusations against Felix and
Caecilian by the party of Majoranus and Donatus were discussed, and prior
to the meeting in Milan, where Constantine, if one is to trust the reference in
a letter of Augustine, declared Caecilian completely innocent.10 Actually, the
8
About the details see W. Telfer, ‘Paul of Constantinople’, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 43
(1950), 30-92.
9
E. Carotenuto, ‘Six Constantinian Documents (Eus. «H.E.» 10, 5-7)’, Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 56,
No. 1 (2002), 56-74.
10
The so-called Fragment of a Letter of Constantine to Eumalius Vicarius. Augustinus, Contra Cresco-
nium Grammaticum Donatistam Libri IV, III. 69-71 [ed. Migne, PL, 43]. Other references to an ‘anti-
donatist edict’ see in Augustine’s Against Petilian, 2.205 and Epistula. 88. All Augustinian anti-donatist
writings see in: Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists, Ed. Ph.
 The early stage of the Donatist Schism – a view from Serdica • 113

existence of such laws would have made inexplicable the categorical refusal
of Eusebius to connect his hero in the Life of Constantine with any meas-
ures against the ‘disturber of order’ in Africa. The author expressly states that
Constantine’s response to violence was only as follows: ‘He (the disturber of
order) gained nothing, however, by this malicious conduct; for the emperor
laughed at these proceedings’.11
Other pieces of evidence concerning an alleged Constantine’s law against
the Donatists, including confiscation of their churches and sending their leaders
into exile, appear in either Donatist hagiographic literature or in the anti-Do-
natist writings of Augustine created nearly a century later. In both cases, given
the nature of the documents, the information is highly generalised and no dating
is provided. This enables researchers to identify certain laws that are preserved
in the Theodosian Code (428-439) with certain information found in hagiog-
raphical and polemical texts. This is the mechanism through which the date 10
November 316 came to be considered as the date of the final condemnation of
the Donatists by Constantine and, along with it, the fatal year 317 as the natural
moment for beginning of Constantine’s anti-Donatist repression.12
To what extent the threat of Constantine, in his letter to Celsius from
315, to go to Africa in person and ‘destroy and dash in pieces those same
persons who now stir up the people in such a war’,13 may be interpreted
as a signal for anti-Donatist repression, and whether the references in two
letters of St. Augustine and the Passion of the anonymous Donatist Bishop
of Avioccala can be accepted as a proof of a state repression,14 are mat-
ters touching the tendency to consider the documents about Donatism ‘en
Schaff, NPNF, Series 1, Volume 4, 407-651.
11
Eusebius, VC, I., XLV (His Forbearance with Unreasonable Men). However, if we accept the inter-
pretation of T. Elliott, Constantine himself was a kind of ‘lapsus’ during the official persecution in the
Empire until April 311 AD. This position even compelled the Emperor to lie about his age, claiming that
during the persecution (about 303 AD) he was still a child. T. G. Elliott. ‘Constantine’s Conversion: Do
We Really Need It?’ Phoenix (1987), Vol. 41, 4, 420-438 (especially 426, 437).
12
W.H.C. Frend. The Donatist Church; A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa, (Oxford, 1952),
156-161 (especially about the edict of 317 and the violence which occurred only in Carthage see pp.
159-160). P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique Chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’inva-
sion arabe, t. 4 Le Donatisme. Document sur l’histoire du schisme, (Paris, 1912), on the epigraphic
evidence about the persecutions in 317, 469-547; on the period 317-321 see 24-36.
13
Preserved in Augustine of Hippo’s Cresconium. 3. 71 [ed. Migne, 43 (1861) col. 541]; also The Work
of St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, 491–492.
14
In this connection, it should be reminded that Constantine explicitly imposed the exile as the most
severe penalty for bishops, while the bishops actually had a special immunity to the other penalties im-
posed by the State. E. Fournier, ‘Exiled Bishops in the Christian Empire: Victims of Imperial Violence?’
in H. A. Drake, ed. Violence in Late Antiquity. Perceptions and Practices. (Aldershot, 2006), 157-166.
114 • Serdica Еdict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of Religious Toleration

bloc’, without taking into account the varying degrees of their possible
authenticity.15
As for the evidence of Augustine, writing long after the events, he was
completely unfamiliar with the situation outside Africa, including the laws
of Constantine which were issued, in the period we are interested in, almost
exclusively from the Balkans, Northern Italy, and Trier. Thus, in some letters
Augustine mentions that Constantine acquitted Caecilian and sent into exile
his opponents, and in others, that, according to the Donatists, Constantine
actually sentenced Caecilian and sent him into exile in Northern Italy.16 As
far as the years 316 and 317 are concerned, we know from the sources and the
laws provided in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes, that a part of the year
316 (at least around 17 April)17 and a large part of the next, 317, year Constan-
tine spent in Serdica. In 320 and 321 Constantine’s laws and letters were often
issued from Serdica and almost as often from Sirmium.18 These statistics
15
This style was characteristic in part of the very first specialized studies on Donatism. See for ex-
ample the short history of Constantine’s attitude towards Donatism written in the early 20th century
by Adrian Fortescue. A. Fortescue. Donatism, London, 1917, 9-11. In parallel, however, a trend also
developed of a very careful use of the terms ‘law’ and ‘edict’ in the studies of Constantine’s religious
policy and, in particular, in the interpretations of the policy of the Emperor towards the Donatists. See
F. Martroye ‘La répression du Donatisme et la politique religieuse de Constantin’. Mémoires de la
Société nationale des antiquaires de France, t. 73. Paris, 1914, 23- 140; Similarly critical approach,
though not based on a careful use of the legal terms and basically ignoring the early stage of Donatism,
is characteristic of some contemporary scholars. See for example W. Shaw. Sacred Violence: African
Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. (Cambridge, New York, 2011). Idem, ‘Bad
Boys: Circumcellions and Fictive Violence”, in H. A. Drake, Violence in Late Antiquity: Perceptions
and Practices (Aldershot, 2006), 179-196.
16
Cf. Augustus. Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis III, 19, 37; Ad Donatistas post Collationem,
33, 56; Contra Cresconium, III, 71, 82; Epist., 43, 2 5 & 7. 20; 53, 2.5; 141, 10-11, but Augustinus
Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis III, 20, 38; 21,39; 22, 10; Ad Donatistus post Collationem. 16,
20; 17, 21; Contra Cresconium, III, 69, 80; 71, 83; Sermo ad Caesareensis Ecclesae plebem, 7; Contra
Gaudentium, I, 11,12) See also . P. Monceaux. Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne depuis les
origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, t. 4 (Paris, 1912), p. 25: Par une tactique encore plus audacieuse, ils
(les Donatistes) affirment plus tard que Caecillianus, détenu ou exilé dans le nord de l’Italie, avait été
reconnu coupable et condamné par Constantin: cette absurdité, ils m’ont répétée pendant une siècle,
jusqu’à la Conférence de 411, et ils ont fini par y croire.
17
CTh 8.12.2; 9.10; CJ 8.53.26. Detailed comments see in: De constitutionibus principum Serdicae
datis, М. Новкиришка и др.(София, 2012), 98-103.
18
About the years 316-330 see 316 AD: April 17 (20) CTh 8.12.2; 9.10 // CJ 8.53.26; June CJ. 1.13; 317
AD: March 1 Peace confirmed in Serdica; Crispus, Licinius II and Constantine II elevated to Caesars;
December CTh 9. 10.1 // CJ 3.24.1; 319 AD: November 1, CTh 2.10.1-2, November 26 CJ 9.43.2; 320
AD: January CTh 3.2.1; CTh.8.16.1.2; May CTh 10.1.4; June CJ 9.4.1 // CTh 9.3.1.1; December (17)
CTh 16.10.1.1; December (18) CTh 3.32.1.2 // CJ 5.71.18; 321 AD: January CTh 2.22.1; February (6)
CTh 2. 19. 2; IX. 42. // CJ 3.28.28; February (27) CTh 9.42.1.4 // CJ 5.16.24; March 1 Quinquennalia
of Crispus, Constantine II (and Licinianus) - in Serdica and/or Sirmium; May CTh.9.9.1.6; July 25 321
AD (or 320 AD) Quindecennalia of Constantine ( in Serdica or/and Sirmium or/and Trier); August CTh
 The early stage of the Donatist Schism – a view from Serdica • 115

indicate, among other things, that if any religious adviser is to be sought of

Constantine’s policy on the Donatists for the period between 316 and 317 and
320 and 321, this must have been Protogenes of Serdica rather than Ossius of
Cordoba, as has often been claimed by the researchers.19

Did Constantine suspend the repressions against the Donatists by

‘an edict of toleration’ of 321 AD?

Since one of the central arguments in favour of the existence of an an-

ti-Donatist law of 317 is the abolition of this law reflected in a Constantine’s
Letter to the Bishops and the Catholic people of Africa from 321,20 close at-
tention should be paid to the dating, as well as the content, of the document.
The letter in question has often been pompously called ‘the Edict of toleration
towards the Donatists’,21 the assumption being that it stopped an alleged Con-

4.12.3; December CTh 3.32.1 // CJ 5.71.18; 329 AD August CTh 5.10. 1 // CJ 4.43.2; September CTh
12.1.16 // CJ 10.32.18; December CTh 10.32.18; 322 AD : December 18 CTh 3. 32. 1// CJ 5.71.18; 326
AD January 30 CTh 2.22.1 // CJ 8.34.3; May 28 CTh 9.9.1 // CJ 9.11.1; Jules 325 - Jules 326 Vincenna-
lia of Constantine; August 24 CTh 4.12.3 327 AD : May 11 (or 18) CTh 11.7.4 // CJ 10.21.1. / 329 AD :
August 18 CTh 5.10. 1 // CJ 4.43.2 September 29 CTh 12.1.16 // CJ 10.32.18; December CTh 10.32.18
/ 330 AD : February 5 CTh 16.2.7. Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis (CTh).
Ed. Th. Mommsen et P. M. Meyer, Berlin, 1905; Codex Iustinianus (CJ). Ed. P. Krüger, Berlin, 1954.
About details of chronology between 315 and 317 see P. Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Chronology.
(New York: The American Numismatic Society, 1961); A. Chastagnol. ‘Patrick Bruun, Studies in Con-
stantinian Chronology’. Revue numismatique (1962), Vol. 6, Issue 4, 323-333; Th. Barnes. Lactantius
and Constantine, p. 37. For the years 320 and 321 consult André Chastagnol. ‘Les Quinquennalia des
trois Césars (Crispus, Licinius II, Constantin II) en 321’, Romanitas-Christianitas. Untersuchunaen lur
Geschichte und Literatur der romischen Kaiserleit. Festschrift für Johannes Strau, (Berlin-New-York,
De Gruyter, 1982) 367­-374 (especially p. 370).
19
After Augustinus, Contra Epistulam Parmeniani, I. 4, 7-9. 5, 10; 8, 13. Cf. Monceaux. P. Histoire
littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe. t.4, p. 25 «Ils (les Dona-
tistes) racontèrent que l’empereur avait été trompé par son entourage, notamment par son conseilleur
Hosius de Cordoue». V. C. De Clercq, Ossius of Cordova: A Contribution to the History of the Constan-
tinian Period , (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1954), passim.
20
W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa, (Oxford, 1952)
161-162.
21
This tradition was imposed, perhaps, by Paul Monceaux. See P. Monceaux. Histoire littéraire de
l’Afrique Chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, t. 4, p. 29. Cf. ‘l’édit de tolérance de
5 mai 321» J. Gaudemet . ‘Constitutions constantiniennes destinées à l’Afrique’. Institutions, société
et vie politique dans l’Empire romain au IVe siècle ap. J.-C. Actes de la table ronde autour de l’oeuvre
d’André Chastagnol (Paris, 20-21, janvier 1989). Rome: École Française de Rome, 1992. 329-352
(especially p. 337). S. Lancel. Saint Augustin, (english trans, London, 2002), 167; About ‘an edict from
321’ see H. Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century
A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies, (London, 1911), art. ‘Donatus’ (especially p.
116 • Serdica Еdict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of Religious Toleration

stantinian anti-Donatist persecution executed in the spirit of Diocletian’s an-

ti-Christian persecutions.22 The Letter to the Bishops and the Catholic people
of Africa is preserved in the annexes to the work of St. Optatus,23 an author
who wrote half a century after the events and was also extremely malevolent
against Donatism, but was far more familiar with the general situation in the
middle of the 4th century in comparison with St. Augustine. Philip Shaft and
Henry Wace have dated the letter in question not to the year 321, but to the
year 316 or 317. Accordingly, the repressions, if these ever existed, must have
lasted at most a few months in the year 317.24
Actually, it is of little or no importance when one is to date this letter. Its
content suggests anything but an edict which stopped the application of an an-
ti-heretical law prescribing repressions against the Donatists. Of course, the
‘disturbers of the peace’ are described in the text as people guilty of violence
who deserve, and will receive, the proper ‘Heavenly medicine’. But Catho-
lics are advised only to be patient, as befits the Christian faith, and accept
everything done by the evil enemies as martyrdom. Moreover, the measures
of government against the ‘evil men’ are explicitly defined as ‘all means of
humanity and moderation’:25

Constantinus Augustus universis episcopis per Africam, et plebi

ecclesias catholicae
Quod fides debuit, quantum prudentia valuit, prout puritas potuit,
temptasse me per omnia humanitatis et moderationis officia optime
scitis, ut iuxta magisteria legis nostrae pax illa sanctissimae
fraternitatis, cuius gratiam deus summus famulorum suorum
pectoribus inmiscuit, stabilita per omnem concordiam tenerturm.
(J.-P. Migne)

452); W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church, 161-162.

22
Cf. M. Gaddis, There is no crime for those who have Christ: religious violence in the Christian Ro-
man Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press. 2005) 56-57 H. Drake. ‘The Impact of Constan-
tine on Christianity’. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine. Ed. N. Lenski. (Cambridge
University Press, 2006), 111-136 (especially p. 120).
23
The Work of St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, Appendix IX, 407-410 // PL 8 (1844), cols. 491-492.
24
Ph. Schaff’, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, series
II, vol. 1. (New York, 1890) p. 437, but see also Ph. Schaff’, History of the Christian Church, vol. III:
Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600, (New York, 1882), 310.
25
Constantinus Augustus universis episcopis per Africam, et plebi ecclesias catholicae see in the PL
t. 8 (1844), cols. 491-492, also v. 43 col. 791 // The Work of St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, Appendix
IX.
 The early stage of the Donatist Schism – a view from Serdica • 117

Constantine Augustus to all the Bishops in Africa and to the people

of the Catholic Church.
You know right well that, as Faith required, so far as Prudence per-
mitted, as much as a single-minded intention could prevail, I have
endeavoured by every effort of kindly government to secure that, in
accordance with the prescriptions of our law, the Peace of the most
holy Brotherhood, whose grace the supreme God has poured into
the hearts of His servants, should, through complete concord, be
preserved secure (The Work of St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis )

You know pretty well that, as Faith required, so far as it was possible
for Prudence, and as much as it was achievable by Purity, I have
tried by all means of humanity and moderation to keep, according to
the prescriptions of our law, that peace among the holiest of Broth-
erhood, deference to which the supreme God has put into the hearts
of His servants, stable through all kinds of agreement (V. Nikolova)

Sed quia vim illam, sceleris infusi paucorum licet sensibus

pervicaciter inhaerentem intentionis nostrae ratio non potuit
edomare favente adhuc sibi huic nequitiae patrocinio, ut extorqueri
sibi omnino non sinerent, in quo se deliquisse gauderent, spectandum
nobis est, dum totum hoc per paucos sedit, in populum omnipotentis
dei misericordia mitigetur. (J-P. Migne)

But whereas the provisions that we have made have not prevailed to
subdue the obstinate violence of crime, which has been implanted in
the breasts of certain men (few though they be) and whereas some
favour is still shown to this wickedness of theirs, so that they would
not on any account suffer a place in which they were proud to have
sinned to be extorted from them, we must see to it, that as all this evil
affects a few, it may be, through the mercy of Almighty God, miti-
gated for the people. (The Work of St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis)

But since we were unable to subdue with the reasonableness of our

intentions that violence of crime so stubbornly inherent, though im-
planted in the senses of a few, because favor has been shown so far
to this wickedness of theirs, so that they would not suffer whatsoever
deprivation of what they take pride in having done wrong, it should
be seen to it that, while all this has affected just a few, it should
be mitigated in the people through the mercy of Almighty God. (V.
Nikolova)
118 • Serdica Еdict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of Religious Toleration

It is not therefore a matter of repressions suspended because of their

ineffectiveness, but of councils and meetings that had proved useless and
were not to be continued any longer. The fact is that after 316 there were no
councils and meetings at which Constantine tried to get the conflicting Afri-
can parties to reach an agreement.
The essence of the Letter to the Bishops and the Catholic people of Afri-
ca can be more fully grasped only in the light of the last letter of Constantine
concerning the Donatist schism. This is a letter of 5 February 330, issued in
Serdica. This Letter to the Numidian Bishops was duplicated with a specific
law, preserved in the Theodosian Code, issued on the same day, in the same
place and by the same Emperor.26 The letter and law were also the last Con-
stantinian documents concerning the Donatist schism and it looks as if the
Emperor thought the African problem completely resolved.

The Serdica Letter and the Law of February 5th, 330

The letter of 330 has been mentioned in the studies only as a ‘footnote’,
both literally and figuratively, as being part of the ‘anti-Donatist measures of
Constantine’.27
This letter is much longer than others, but as regards the relations be-
tween the schismatics and Catholics, its content is identical to that of the
letter of the 321: the Catholics should be patient and leave the punishment of
the ‘diabolical’ schismatics in the hands of God. Constantine is unwilling to
intervene on behalf of the Catholics, even when they seem to have the right
claiming that the Donatists have taken their property. Moreover, he directly
states, ‘concerning that church which the schismatics have already taken from
26
Constantinus Valentino consulari Numidiae. Letter to the Numidian Bishops. Ad consularem quoque
scribi mandavi Numidiae ut ipse in eiusdem ecclesiae fabricatione in omnibus sanctimoniam vestram
iuvaret. Lectores etiam Ecclesiae Catholicae et hypodiacones, reliquos quoque [qui] instinctu memora-
torum quibusdam pro moribus ad munera vel ad decurionatum vocati sunt, iuxta sta[tu]tum legis meae
ad nullum munus statui evocandos. Sed et eos qui ducti sunt haereticorum instinctu iussimus protinus
molestis perfunctionibus absolvi. Data non. febr., Serdica ; From CTh 16. 2. Imp. Constantinus Valen-
tino consulari Numidiae. Lectores divinorum apicum et hypodiaconi ceterique clerici qui per iniuriam
haereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt absolvantur; et de cetero ad similitudinem Orientis minime ad
curias devocentur sed immunitate plenissima potiantur. Data non. febr., Serdica. The Work of St. Opta-
tus, Bishop of Milevis, against the Donatists, Appendix X, 412-416 (especially 416).
27
Cf. C. B. Pérez, ‘La persécution du donatisme et l’imposition de l’orthodoxie en Afrique du Nord
(IV - V siècles): comment effacer la mémoire des hérétiques?’, in S, Benoist, Ed., Mémoire et his-
toire: les procédures de condamnation dans l’antiquité romaine, (Metz, 2007), 225-241 (especially p.
236, n. 49). For a more appropriate comment see L. Duchesne, ‘Le dossier du donatisme’, Mélanges
d’archéologie et d’histoire, 10 (1890), 589-650 (especially 611-615).
 The early stage of the Donatist Schism – a view from Serdica • 119

you, I can not do anything. I can give you money for a new temple’. An-
other commitment that Constantine makes is to ensure equality between the
Catholics and ‘the heretics’, making sure that the former are also exempt from
the civil obligations from which the latter have already been exempted. That
‘exemption from compulsory public service’ of the Christian clergy actually
happened under the same laws of 313-314. These laws have been cited since
the time of Augustine until today as laws discriminating non-Catholics (hence
anti-Donatists). The rights and privileges of the whole Christian clergy are
mentioned again in the laws of 320 and 323.28 What is different is that these
latter laws, as well as the law of 5 February 330, were obviously intended to
prevent Catholics from being discriminated in an environment dominated by
the Donatists.
The last point in time from which we still have, so to say, a direct view
from Serdica to the events in North Africa, is at the time of the Council of
Serdica (342-343). Serdica Council has rarely been mentioned in research on
Donatism, and only in connection with the circular letter sent by the Arian
bishops, among the addressees of which was the schismatic leader Donatus.
Noting in passing that this council was chaired by the Caecilian adherent,
Ossius of Cordoba, and one of its aims was to vindicate Bishop Athanasius
of Alexandria, I will focus only on one of its ‘African connections’ directly
related to the Donatism. It concerns the contents of one of the canons of the
Council of Serdica (the eighth according to Hess) or rather of few logically
interrelated canons (from the eighth to the twelfth)29 which are a direct reflec-
tion of the African crisis. These canons sharply restrict the ability of bishops
to interact personally with the imperial court. Of course, the need for such ca-
nonical restriction may be sought back in the remote 27030 when some bishops
requested the assistance of Emperor Aurelianus to remove Paul of Samosata.
In the middle of the fourth century, however, that story recalled by Eusebius
was hardly as relevant as were the constant appeals for support sent to the
emperors by the African bishops. Viewed in this particular context, the fact
that Donatus’ name appears among the addressees of the Eastern Encyclical
28
CTh 16.2.3; 16.2.6. About the status of Christian clergy in that early epoch see R. L. Testa, ‘The
Bishop, Vir Venerabilis: Fiscal Privileges and Status Definition in Late Antiquity’ Studia Patristica,
34 (2001), 125–144; Eadem, ‘The Late Antique Bishop: Image and Reality’. A Companion to Late
Antiquity, Ph. Rousseau, J. Raithel (ed.), (Chichester/Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 525-538
; C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition,
(Berkeley, 2005), 238, 282-284.
29
H. Hess, The early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica (Oxford, 2002), 201-
204.
30
Or 268 – the date is uncertain.
 120 • Serdica Еdict (311 AD): Concepts and Realizations of the Idea of Religious Toleration

from 343 acquires a clear meaning. This fact can not be denied as a Donatist
‘fake’ (what Zeiller did in the mid-20th century),31 neither can it be ignored as
a document of Arian (heretical) council, what Augustine did at the beginning
of the fifth century.32 As noted by Hess, the statement of Augustine proves his
complete ignorance of the events which happened in Serdica ten years before
he was born.33 Zeiller’s thesis, on the other hand, is definitely not a proof of
ignorance. It shows the very old (since the time of Augustine) and very stable
trend of simplifying the picture of the religious life in the 4th and 5th centu-
ries and reducing it to the black and white opposition between Catholics and
heretics, a picture in which Constantine is destined to legitimize any subse-
quent actions of the Church and State, including anti-schismatic repressions.
However, the picture was quite different in 343.
Following the letter of Constantine and the respective Edict of 5 Febru-
ary, 330, the Donatist Church in Africa had acquired the same status and rights
as the Caecilian Church and it was the discrimination against the Caecilian
Church that the state intervention sought to prevent. If one is to believe the
information preserved only in the hagiographical and later polemical litera-
ture, this situation was to change as late as in 347.34 It was then that, probably
by order of Constant, many Donatists would be sent into exile, and Donatus,
who not long before had relied so much on Constantine’s intervention, would
say, ‘What does the Emperor have to do with the Church?’
This was already a different Donatus, with changed views; and so were
the Churches and the Emperors, who would start slowly, ambiguously, often
dramatically to seek a balance between the state protection and state interven-
tion in the Church matters. It is a balance which remains largely unachieved
even today; likewise, unanswered remains the most fundamental ‘Donatist’
question of whether the Church ceremony is so sacred that the personal quali-
ties of the priest who is doing it are irrelevant.

31
J. Zeiller. ‘Donatisme et arianisme. La falsification donatiste de documents du concile arien de
Sardique’, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 77 (1933),
1, 65-73.
32
Augustinus contra Cresconium. See also G. Folliet’s article ‘L’épiscopat africain et la crise arienne
au IVe siècle’, Revue des études byzantines’ 24 (1966) 1, 196-223.
33
H. Hess, The early Development of Canon Law and the Council of Serdica (Oxford, 2002), 127.
34
Passion of Maximian and Isaac §3 in Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman
North Africa, translated by Maureen A. Tilley (Liverpool, 1996), 64-65. Augustine, Contra litteras
Petiliani, 2. 97, PL t. 43, 245-383.

View publication stats