I. IN ROMAN LAW
In Roman law, those ordinances issued by magistrates by which certain measures were promulgated or the rules relating to the exercise of a particular magistracy were communicated to the people were called *edicta* or *leges edictales*.The right to issue *edicta* (*ius edicendi*) properly belonged to magistrates invested with *imperium*, namely the consuls, the praetors, and in the provinces, the governors; it was also extended to the censors, the curule aediles, the tribunes, and the pontifex maximus; later, it came to belong in particular to the emperor.
Originally, publication took place through oral announcement (*editio*) made by the magistrate in a public assembly of the people (*contio*); soon after, however, it became customary—even in very early times—to follow this with the public display of the written text, inscribed in black letters on white tablets (*propositum in albo*).
Among all the *edicta* of the various magistrates, that of the urban praetor, to which the name *edictum* is given by antonomasia, remained famous and of great importance for the history of Roman law as the basis and principal source of the so-called *ius honorarium* or *praetorium*. It was issued by the individual magistrate at the beginning of his term of office and was called the *edictum perpetuum* inasmuch as it remained in force for the entire duration of the magistracy. It consisted of a body of principles relating to procedural law (though in reality these resolved practically into norms of substantive law) which the praetor would follow in granting actions and procedural exceptions. While in the *edictum perpetuum* provision was made for ordinary cases expressly enumerated therein, *edicta repentina* were issued to provide for emergency cases (*pronta inedita*) not contemplated in II. The central core of the *edictum perpetuum*, which, having been tested by experience, could be handed down intact from praetor to praetor, was called the *edictum tralaticium* or *vetus*.
The emperor Hadrian, around 130 A.D., with the assistance of the jurist Salvio Giuliano, definitively codified the *edictum perpetuum*.
II. IMPERIAL EDICT
The emperor could issue edicts by virtue of the *imperium proconsulare* conferred upon him, and since his was an *imperium maius*, his edicts had validity not only in the provinces of which he was proconsul (the so-called imperial provinces, i.e., the "non pacatae"), but also in the provinces left under the government of the Senate, and in Italy. Proof that the emperor’s jurisdiction began to extend in this way is given by the famous inscription from Cyrene, containing five edicts of Augustus relating to local matters, valid also for the senatorial province of Cyrenaica. In time, as the character of the Empire increasingly asserted itself as an absolute monarchy, the sources of law were no longer "leges," "plebiscita," "senatus consulta," but the "constitutiones principis." The legislative value of every imperial decision was theoretically undisputed in the edition of the Senate, but in practice even before this the norms and instructions of the princeps were considered as having legal force equivalent, if not identical, to that of laws (cf. Ulpian in *Dig.*, 1, 4, 1: *"Quodcumque imperator per epistulam et subscriptionem statuit vel cognoscens decrevit, vel de plano interlocutus est, vel edicto praecipit, legem esse constat"*).The forms in which these decisions were issued bore the names of "edicta," "decreta," "rescripta," "epistolae," "mandata," "allocutiones," among which the "edicta" held first place. The formula was, as for the major "edicta," of a declaratory nature: *"Imperator ille... dicit"*; publication was effected by affixing them "in albo," and copies were sent to magistrates and officials who were to take cognizance and ensure their execution.
Given the extension in space and time of the princeps’ powers, the imperial edicts, unlike those of the republican magistrates, had continuous validity without the need for a confirming act by the successor, and they served not only to implement contingent and provisional administrative measures but also to introduce general and enduring principles. As examples, one may take the edicts of Augustus to the Cyrenaeans, if one wishes a more genuine form (since only the Greek version of the edicts of Cyrene remains), the *edictum de civitate Anaunorum* (cf. *Fontes iuris Romani anteiustiniani*, ed. S. Riccobono, I, Florence 1941, pp. 404 and 417).
It is therefore understandable that the relations between the Empire and Christianity were largely regulated by means of edicts. It is not certain whether the Greek inscription entitled *Adversus Calumniatores* (probably found at Nazareth) has any connection with the Resurrection of Jesus. Mention is made, however, of an edict of an unnamed emperor against violators of tombs, which some scholars have suggested may have been provoked by the uproar caused by the empty tomb of Christ (abundant literature, recent summary by M. Guarducci, in *Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia*, 18 [1941-42], pp. 85-98). Likewise, it is doubtful whether a letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians, in which the emperor warns the Jews of that city not to admit other Jews from Syria or Egypt to stir up a common pestilence in the world, refers to the early Christian preaching and the disturbances that followed it (recent edition with ancient bibliography: H. Janne, *Lettre de Claude aux Alexandrins*, in *Mélanges Cumont*, I, Brussels 1936, pp. 273-95).
The great jurist Ulpian had collected the imperial acts relating to Christianity, evidently realizing, even from a scientific point of view, the importance of the new issues raised by Christian preaching and imperial reaction. This information is given by Lactantius (*Divinarum Institutionum*, V, 11), but the collection, if preserved, would have spared much debate on the juridical basis of the persecutions, is lost. Something, however, of these imperial acts relating to Christian matters has survived, though for the most part not in the precise form of edicts. First in chronological order of importance is the letter of Pliny to Trajan, and the emperor’s reply, which shows that a clear and straightforward solution had not yet been found (v. TAZIANO). Next comes the rescript of Hadrian to Minicius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, following the line laid down by Trajan. Lost are all the constitutions ordering persecutions; preserved instead is an epistle of the emperor Gallienus to certain bishops of Asia ordering the restitution of goods confiscated during the persecution of Valerian, and the notice of a *decretum* of Aurelian in a dispute between Paul of Samosata and Domnus over the possession of the episcopal house in Antioch, along with various other documents (though not the texts of the edicts).
The entire edict of toleration of Galerius of 311 remains, preserved in the Greek text by Eusebius (*Hist. eccl.*, VIII, 17) and in the Latin by Lactantius (*De mort. persec.*, 34) with only insignificant variations, nor are there valid reasons to doubt its authenticity. This edict is the basis for letters and acts of Maximin Daia, who reluctantly accepts the provisions of toleration. The so-called famous edict of Milan (v. EDITO DI MILANO) is not extant, but the letter which Licinius and Constantine sent to magistrates to make known the provisions of the edict is preserved.
With the empire having become Christian, imperial acts and other governmental measures were directed toward consolidating the gains of Christianity, restricting and finally altogether forbidding the profession of pagan cults, regulating disciplinary matters, and intervening in controversies between the Church and heretical sects. A fair number of these constitutions are found collected in the Codex Theodosianus and in the Justinian compilations. For example, with the constitution preserved in Cod. Theod., XVI, 11, 3, 6, Constantine exempted Christian clergy from the very heavy burden of munera, that is, the obligation to perform costly and unremunerated public services, and defined and recognized the persons to whom this privilege extended. Various acts of Constantine were occasioned by the disputes of the Donatists and the Arian question, and it was certainly by an imperial act that the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was convoked to define what should be the genuine faith of Christians. Notable, too, are the constitutions of Constantine II from the years 340 and 346 by which public manifestations of pagan worship were forbidden (Cod. Theod., XVI, 1, 2 and 4), and those of Gratian, who renewed prohibitions against public cult, ordered the closure of temples, confiscated their goods, and forbade legacies in their favor. Vigorous was the legislative activity of Julian the Apostate, who, as regards religious policy, acted in a direction entirely opposed to Christianity, but almost nothing of this remains in the collections ordered by Theodosius II and Justinian.
III. IN CANON LAW
In canon law, citations made by public posting for insertion in the official commentary of the Holy See (citationes edictales or per edictum: cf. can. 1720, 1721 § 3), and sometimes, in practice, extrajudicial citations made jointly to multiple interested parties for the handling of a matter or the resolution of a dispute in administrative proceedings, have retained and still retain the designation of edicts.In antiquity, certain legislative acts of the Supreme Pontiffs relating to the governance of their temporal dominion, and, in general, public proclamations made to the people by popes and bishops concerning events, indults, and decisions of interest to the community, were also given this name.
Zaccaria da San Mauro