Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

that, considering the letters preserved by Eusebius, and assuming that they have not
been ‘improved’ by Catholic writers, Constantine was indeed aware that there was
some kind of dispute, but not of its technicalities. However there is another, thought
less secure possibility: prior to this point the only evidence that Constantine knew of
Caecilian is from his two letters announcing the grants of money (Eus HE 10.6.1-5) and
the exemption from liturgies (Eus HE 10.7.1-2). Now if the first letter granting funds
had, like the letter granting immunity from liturgies, been issued as an edict and then
disseminated by letter, then the apparent addressing of Caecilian by Constantine could
have been a purely technical matter, a name inserted from a list of bishops by a clerk
(either in the Imperial court or in North Africa) onto a standard letter template which
went to all bishops. If so then Constantine’s apparent personal favouring of Caecilian
in both letters could be an illusion, and hence Optatus’ belief that Constantine was
ignorant of the dispute may be correct. Unfortunately this is mostly speculation, but
nevertheless, and according to Optatus, Constantine was indeed ignorant of the
dispute prior to this first Donatist appeal and at least to some degree. 38
Constantine may not have been delighted to receive a dossier describing a
beneficiary of his largesse in these terms, but if he had already begun to side
substantively with the Caecilianist party then we should expect to find evidence of that
in his letter of response to the Donatist petition, of spring or summer 313, to
Miltiades, Bishop of Rome and to Marcus, informing them of his intention to call a
council in Rome to adjudicate on the problem which the Church in North Africa was
having. Miltiades, Marcus, Reticius, Maternus, Marinus and others would preside at
the conference and reach a “just decision” 39 on the controversy. Constantine also
indicated that Caecilian and ten of his supporting bishops would attend along with an
equal number of bishops “who seem to call him to account.” 40 Constantine had sent
37 Opt. 1.22 (Ziwsa 1893) 25 Im peratorem Con stantinum harum rerum adhuc ignarum
38 See Millar (1992) 219-225, esp. 222 & 224 for the manner in which imperial letters were composed.
39 Eus. HE 10.5.20: ejpimelevstata dieukrinh`sai The letter is at Eus HE 10.5.18-20
40 Eus. HE 10.5.18-20; Corcoran (2000) 160, 335 nd; Maier (1987) 148-150; devka ejpiskovpwn
tw`n aujto;n eujquvnein dokouvntwn
62