sign in sign up
<<
Home , Acacian Schism, Anastasius (consul 517), Armatus, Basiliscus (Caesar), Evagrius Scholasticus, Henotikon

AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE: THE BEGINNING OF PAPAL SOVEREIGNTY, 476-510 ______

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, Fullerton ______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

History ______

By

Andrew Braun

Thesis Committee Approval:

Professor Maged Mikhail, Chair Professor Jonathan Markley, Department of History Professor James O’Connor, Department of History

Fall, 2015

ABSTRACT

The period between 472 A.D. and 510 A.D. was one of institutional uncertainty for the . The Western Roman Emperor was deposed and the position left vacant. The governing of Italy fell on Germanic warlords, both subordinate to and independent of the Emperor in whose attentions were focused on political intrigue and wars, both civil and foreign. A schism in the Church further reduced his influence. This left a void of leadership for the people of . The remaining Emperor was now far away, and the secular leadership of Italy in the hands of foreigners and not members of the Catholic Church. The bishops of Rome began to fill that void, though not without controversy and resistance. He was able to use his moral authority, and his important political position to form the beginnings of independent political authority.

The temporal reality of this independence would vanish with the end of the Acacian

Schism and the conquest of Rome by Emperor Justinian in 536AD. Only the rhetorical innovations, pushing for temporal authority remained, to be used in the ensuing centuries with the formation of the Papal States.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

MANUSCRIPT TO BE SUBMITTED ...... 1

Background and Historiography ...... 1 Gelasius ...... 14 The Laurentian Schism ...... 20

REFERENCES ...... 29

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank and Cheryl Braun for their unending support and faith without which this project would never have been completed. Tang and Ricky

Qi spent countless hours as sounding boards for my ideas and frustrations. Finally I would like to thank Dr. Jonathan Markley for the advice that actually got this paper started and Dr. Maged Mikhail for the continual advice and support, even with my many disappearing acts.

iv

1

Background and Historiography

The mid-fifth century was a time of chaos in the Western . The

last emperor was deposed in 476AD and much of Italy fell under Ostrogoth rule first

Odoacer then Theodoric. The , however, only controlled Italy. Other

Germanic tribes, like the Visigoths, controlled other portions of the former Western

Empire. This political fragmentation posed a problem for papal and Christian ideology.

Since the days of and Constantine, Christian political ideology had viewed the

Empire and the Christian realm as an indivisible whole, with the Emperor as the leader of

a Christian Roman Empire. Without an emperor, there was a hole at the top of this

hierarchical chain that needed to be filled. The emperor in the east was too distant and

the Ostrogoths were Arians and so unfit to act as a unifying force in a catholic Empire.

The standard understanding of this portion of Papal history is that only a

rhetorical was offered, along with the understanding that this supremacy

only involved religious affairs.1 This is an oversimplification of the religious and

political dynamics of papal ideology. and Theodoric, outside of actual force,

could not impose duties on the Pope since they were Arians, and the did not

recognize in them any authority to effect church decisions. The Emperor in

Constantinople was too far away, and much of the later fifth century, sympathetic to

1 Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early , 476-752, (London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan , 1979), 20; Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489- 554, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 197; George Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in , (Philidelphia: University of Philidelphia Press, 2013), 74.

2

schismatic ideas that the Popes had resoundingly rejected.2 This power vacuum made the

Popes the de facto rulers of the city of Rome. It was during this brief period, from 483-

520, that not only were the ideological origins for the future Papal monarchy given their

most aggressive form, but also the first real attempt at creating a physical place, under the

rule of the Pope, that was as much as possible, free from outside influence. The Popes of

this time would be able to combine the legal and social power they already possessed as

judges whose decisions had state sanction and their support of the poor with their new

freedom of political movement to create an unwitting, half-realized papal polity that

would not come into its full potential for another 250 years.

The historiography on this subject is complicated and varied, with scholars

analyzing the time period from Byzantine, Germanic or Catholic perspectives. Walter

Ullman maintained a strong view of ideological papal power. The church had precedence

in matters of religion, but encompassed all of man's actions, and could not be

divided into separate spheres.3 If realized, this position would reduce the secular power to tax collection and military enforcement of the Churches’ will.4 Many historians focus

on whether there was a substantial break between the Papacy and the Eastern Empire at

this time. Patrick Amory and Jeffrey Richards take the position that most Romans at the

time saw no break with , with Richards going so far as to call the idea that the

2 Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, 199; the harsh tone of Pope Anastasius’ biography in the was primarily based on the rumor that he was going to sign ’s and end the . Thomas F.X. Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy,” Teoderico il Grande e I Goti d'Italia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull'alto. (1992): 403.

3 Walter Ullman, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London: 1955), 11.

4 This teleological view of papal history was common among historians of the 19th and early 20th centuries as they could look forward to the apogee of papal power in the high Middle Ages under Innocent III and trace the ideological support for a powerful papacy to late antiquity.

3

Papacy was seeking to free itself from eastern control as “mythological”.5 Others find in

Byzantine policy something akin to salutary neglect of the papacy. W.H.C. Frend and

F.K. Haarer argued that Emperor Anastasius I focused most of his attention on the

Eastern borders of the Empire, with the Papacy low on his list of priorities.6 A.H.M.

Jones takes this neglect to an extreme by arguing that Italy was no longer part of the

Empire.7 These perspectives cause a different interpretation of papal power. Those who

focus on the Catholic Church view the strength (or weakness) of its authority as a result

of its own agency. Those who view the period from Byzantine or Germanic perspectives

see the popes as more passive or reactionary figures.

The most important split between the and the Western Church

during the late fifth and early sixth century was the Acacian Schism which lasted from

484-519. In 482 Acacius, the of Constantinople, in an attempt to heal the

division caused by competing views on the nature of Christ, wrote the Henotikon,

whereupon Emperor Zeno attempted to cajole the Church into affirming the

document.8 This represented secular interference in ecclesiastical concerns which

5 Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554, 197; Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752, 17. Richards also sees the papacy as the bulwark of the empire, seeking above all else to maintain the status-quo against a rising Monophysite faction in the east.

6 W.H.C. Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 191-92; F.K. Haarer, Anastasius I: Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, (Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 2006), 130.

7 A.H.M. Jones, “Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theodoric,” in Journal of Roman Studies 52, no. 1 & 2 (1962): 128.

8 Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, III.14 contains a translation of the Henotikon. Frend’s Rise of the Monophysite Movement remains an important source for the Henotikon in its Christological context, while Richard’s The Popes and the Papacy gives a good summary of the Western Catholic Church’s reaction to the document.

4

“weakened the compromise on the respective responsibilities of emperors and bishops,”9

Pope Felix III sent two bishops with a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople in order to remind him of his duty to uphold the decisions of and summoning him to

Rome to explain his actions.10 The bishops were persuaded to accept a liturgy from

Acacius where names of Monophysites were read in the diptychs. When Felix heard about this he summoned a synod in 484 and excommunicated the two bishops and

Acacius

There are a few historians of Rome in Late Antiquity who focused on the divisions within the church.11 The independent churches, or the tituli, were important centers of potential power within the city. These churches only appear in the sources from the reign of Constantine onward, with a minimum of 29 by 499.12 They were established by wealthy patrons that were among the possessions of the bishop, but administered independently.13 P.A.B. Llewellyn argued that the driving force behind the

Laurentian Schism, caused by the election of two popes in 498 and lasted until 506, was

9 Francis Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background II, (Washington: Center for Byzantine Studies, 1966), 800; Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752, 60.

10 Felix, Ep. 6

11 See Kristina Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012); P.A.B. Llewellyn, “The Roman Church during the Laurentian Schism: Priests and Senators.” In Church History 45, no. 4 (Dec. 1976); Julia Hillner, “Families, Patronage and the titular , C. 300-C.600,” in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900, eds. Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

12 The first mention of the tituli churches in the Liber Pontificalis occurs during the reign of Constantine, LP 31. Kristina Sessa, “Domestic Conversions: The 'Papal Legends',” in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900, eds. Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007): 85 n. 20.

13 Sessa, “the Formation of Papal Authority,” 231-32.

5

not between pro and anti-Byzantine factions, but between an effort by the Popes to

centralize control of the tituli churches and their wealth into their hands, or whether the

tituli would remain in the hands of the senatorial families that had endowed them.14 Julia

Hillner modified Llewellyn's argument by demonstrating that these churches were

already dependent on the bishop in some ways and that the fight over them was not as

much between two factions, as between the two candidates, as whoever controlled the

churches had a distinct advantage in income and clerical support.15

The Bishop of Rome only had one partial competitor for this client base: the heads of the tituli churches in Rome. These churches were in a unique position in the church hierarchy as they had been founded with the help of lay noble families and these churches had their own traditions.16 While these churches could be endowed by bishops

with land and gifts, they were also the recipients of many lay donations as well. Many

lay Romans, when they celebrated feast days and went to , went to these churches

overseen by the priests, not the bishops. These priests could have strong ties to

individual churches as many would have grown up nearby, and spent a large portion of

their career in the same church.17 The success of these churches provided the only way

to split the bishop from his power base.

The growth of papal political power derives itself from a combination of

theological inference and a power vacuum. Catholic bishops had, for over a century,

14 P.A.B. Llewellyn, “The Roman Church during the Laurentian Schism,” 420.

15 Hillner, “Families, Patronage and the titular churches of Rome, C. 300-C.600,” 234, 252.

16 Llewellyn, “Roman Church,” 424.

17 Hillner, “Families, Patronage,” 230; Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy, 233-34.

6

been expanding their influence and authority over members of the church and anything

connected to it.18 By the latter half of the 5th century Popes had become the most

powerful and influential ecclesiastical figures in the Empire. 19 With the deposition of the last Western Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, in 476 AD, the Pope became the most powerful individual Roman in Italy as well. There were only two competing organizations for political influence in Italy: the Ostrogoth kings Odoacer and Theodoric, and the . Though their exact constitutional position within the Roman government has been debated, the Ostrogoths were in control in Italy as military leaders at the very least. The Senate had the problem of its strength being weakened through the dilution of power. The Pope, as head of the Western Church could call on a much larger base of support than could an individual senator.20 This is not to say that the Senate was

somehow weak or irrelevant, but that it rarely acted in a unified manner, and thus could

not bring its complete influence to bear on any problem it might face.

The Pope’s support among the people of Rome was built upon three pillars: his support of the poor, his position as a judge and his increasing involvement in domestic affairs. The support of the poor has been a long recognized aspect of the duties of a bishop.21 This relationship with the poor was critical because the class was expansive in

18 The strongest proponents of the authority of the bishop before Leo the Great were St. of Milan in the West and John Chrystostom in the East.

19 Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy,” 396.

20 Even if Spain and Gaul are only subordinate to the Pope in religious and spiritual matters, the Pope still had large patrimonies in southern Italy, Sicily and lesser areas of control in . Many of the senators, while still wealthy had lost a large portion of their wealth with the loss of North to the Visigoths.

21 Brian Daley, “1998 NAPS Presidential Address, Building a New City: The and the Rhetoric of Philanthropy,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 no. 3 (Fall 1999); Susan Holman, The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia, (New York, , 2011); Richard D. Finn, Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice, (New

7

the late Roman world. reminded historians that “in practice, Christian poor

relief, although officially directed to the destitute, never focused on that class alone. It

never neglected the “middling,” “weaker” classes who had once made up the mass of

fellow citizens in ancient towns.”22 The bishops of large cities could give massive amounts to these lower classes. In Ravenna the bishop had 3,000 solidi per year to distribute; enough money to repair every public bath in the city.23 The bishop of Rome

would have at least that much to give. By the late 5th century, roughly a quarter of all

revenue for the bishop of Rome was dedicated to providing for the poor and another

quarter for the construction and maintenance of church buildings.24 This gave the bishop

a larger client base than any traditional civic magistrate in any given city.25 A large client base allowed a bishop to defy civil magistrates. In 366 Pope Damasus was able win a contested election with the support of the grave diggers of Rome, becoming a

“virtual urban militia”.26 While these examples predate the late fifth century they

represent a phenomenon that would hold through the remainder of late antiquity.

York, Oxford University Press, 2006); Peter Brown, Poverty and leadership in the later Roman Empire, (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2002).

22 Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 79.

23 Felix, Constitutio de ecclesia Ravennatensi: 65:12C; Brown, Poverty and Leadership, 78.

24 Neil Bronwen, “Crisis and Wealth in Byzantine Italy: The Libri Pontificales of Rome and Ravenna,” Byzantion; revue internationale des etudes byzantines. 82 (2012): 282.

25 J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, The Decline and Fall of the Roman City (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 141.

26 Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio, trans. In Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974), 7:413; Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 27.3.12; Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison, 1992), 102-3. In the late 4th century , though not a bishop of Rome was representative of the power major metropolitan bishops could wield in Late Antiquity, was able to defy the governor of the province because the guilds of the city rallied behind him.

8

During the Late Imperial period the emperors in charge of the Western half of the

Empire resided in cities in northern Italy and southern Gaul, like Milan and Trier respectively, which were closer to the frontier and allowed faster responses to barbarian incursions. As such the presence of an emperor in Rome was rare in late antiquity, usually only occurring at festivals and celebrations. This changed slightly in the 5th

century as Ravenna was solidified as the center of the Imperial court. Emperors

Honorius and Valentinian III spent most of their time in Ravenna, but made several trips

to Rome with some extended stays, especially at the end of Valentinian's reign.27 Thus

for the people of Rome the Pope represented imperial continuity for much of the fifth

century. The public building program, so representative of imperial power was now

continued by the Popes. Pope Xystus III (432-440) for example embarked on a large

building project that included the basilica of St. Mary which, along with an altar of silver

weighing 300 pounds included land worth roughly 770 solidi per annum. He also

decorated the confessio of St. Peter with silver weighing in at 40 pounds.28 This does not

include the contributions of Valentinian, which were substantial. The great utility of this

type of building program is that there is almost no downside for the church. When a

noble Roman family would donate money or land to fund a church, they lost both the

land and its revenue stream. When the Pope built or improved churches and supplied

them with an endowment, the money only moved from one hand to the other. The

original donation still supported the Church, but in a different way. In this way the

27 Andrew Gillet, “Rome, Ravenna, and the Emperors,” in Papers of the British School at Rome (2001), 135-143. The dates Gillet uses for the Imperial itinerary of Honorius and Valentinian are drawn mostly from legal proclamations recorded in the Theodosian Code. This leaves some gaps in the chronology, but most of them are small enough to assume that the Emperor would not have traveled to one location and back so quickly.

28 Liber Pontificalis, trans. Raymond Davis (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989), 37.

9

Church could grow its influence and wealth. The Pope could continue to build and provide for the poorer citizens of the city, who provided the largest bastion of support for later popes.

While laws granting bishops legal authority were in existence since Constantine, the assumption of this authority accelerated in the fifth as the bishops’ discretionary breadth grew wider. One such law was enacted by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius and restricted bishops to hearing only civil cases when both parties agreed to take their case before a bishop who acts “voluntarily in the fashion of an arbiter.”29 A further law clarified that bishops could hear cases dealing with religion, but all other cases should

“be heard in accordance with the law.”30 In 408 another law was given which confirmed that “Episcopal judgments should be valid for all who shall have chosen to be heard by bishops. For since private persons can conduct a hearing between those who consent, even when the judge does not know this...” and that just as people were not allowed to appeal the rulings of secular authorities, so too the bishop’s ruling could not be appealed.31 These early laws demonstrate the powers of a bishop when they were most constrained by the early fifth century emperors. As time went on one of the bishops primary functions was to dispense justice.32 The laws handed down clarified the position of a bishop vis a vis his role as an arbiter. In this way, the bishop became a primary

29 CJ 1.4.7. vol II, 475. All citations of the Codex Theodosianus and the Corpus Juris Civilis are taken from P.R. Coleman-Nortan ed., Roman State & Christian Church: a Collection of Legal Documents to AD 535, 3 vols. London: SPCK, 1966.

30 CTh. 16.11.1., vol II, 482

31 CTh. 1.27.2, vol II, 519.

32 Liebeschuetz, The Decline and Fall of the Roman City, 157.

10

figure of one of the most public aspects of state power: the enforcement and provision of

law.

The bishop and his court had several advantages over the civil courts. On purely

utilitarian grounds, the episcopal court was faster, more efficient and cheaper than the

civil courts. The Imperial approval of bishop's courts was to give the common citizen

“access to dependable legal services by validating the existing practice of episcopal

courts.”33 Each person involved in a suit before a civil court had to be paid. The judge

received five measures of wheat if the case originated in the town, or two measures from

outside the town and one measure more for every ten miles further out the case was.34

The bailiff received two measures of wheat or more if he had to travel and the court

stenographer had to be paid for the supplies he used and a sum, usually multiples of five,

depending on the length of the arguments in the case. The average person had a ration of

around forty measures of wheat for the year so a man could use up a third of his yearly

wheat ration for a simple case.35

The other prime benefit of using episcopal courts was that bishops, unlike civil magistrates, were firmly integrated into the social life of the city, and was usually well respected. Civil magistrates were also appointed for a limited time and so were less familiar with a given city than a bishop who was appointed for life.36 The bishop was

also the only public functionary of a city that was chosen by popular consent and not

33 Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005), 249-249.

34 Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, 249-251.

35 John C. Lamoreaux, “Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 3, no. 2 (1995): 151.

36 Rapp, Holy Bishops, 245.

11 appointed.37 A bishop could be more aware of how a ruling might affect the community as a whole, or of past problems between the disputing parties. These three pillars were not exclusive to the Pope and had been utilized since the mid-fourth century. Their importance to the Popes in the late fifth and early sixth centuries was that they gave the popes solid foundations to expand their power as the attentions of the Byzantine Emperor in the east were diverted.

Papal independence was aided by the preoccupation of the Emperor with issues closer to home. The Emperors in Constantinople had to deal with several threats. The problems closest to home involved the conflict between the Byzantines, who still considered themselves Romans, and the Isaurians. The Isaurians were from a mountainous region of Anatolia and gained political influence when one of their own finally reached high office under . Zeno became the first Isaurian to ascend to the

Byzantine throne.38 Soon after his elevation to the throne in 475, he was forced to flee the city and , the brother-in-law of Leo I was made Emperor. Zeno returned a year later with a force of Isaurians and bribed , the praesentalis of Basiliscus with the position of magister militum and the promise to appoint his son as

Caesar if he would switch sides. This he promptly did.39 Ironically the next problem with the Isaurians came when a , , raised up a force of Isaurians against

Zeno in the mid 480’s. Zeno attempted to have him assassinated, but failed, and Illus

37 Liebeschuetz, Decline and Fall of the Roman City, 137.

38 Malalas, Chronicle, XIV.47.

39 Malalas, Chronicle, XV.5, Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, III.8. In a twist that may speak of Zeno's character, after he had reclaimed the throne, according to Malalas and Evagrius, Zeno executed Armatus under the belief that if Armatus could be bribed once he could be bribed again, and so was not trustworthy, and upon Armatus' death Zeno had his son made a priest, though he was later made a bishop of Kyzikos.

12

eventually made his way to , where he joined forces with a general named

Leontius.40 In 492, soon after the ascension of Anastasius, the Isaurians rebelled again.

The main force of rebels was dealt with fairly quickly, but putting the rebellion down completely took several years. One of the primary reasons for the trouble with the

Isaurians was that with the no longer in the area threatening Constantinople, there was no need for an Isaurian counterweight, and so no need for the Byzantines to put up with them.41 Many of these troubles with the Isaurians occurred during the time of the

Acacian Schism. Pope Gelasius, one of the most fervent proponents of papal power came

into office the same year as the final Isaurian rebellion in 492. The preoccupation of the

Eastern Emperor’s with these rebellions gave the Popes space to extend their political

authority with little Imperial pushback. Another positive development for the Papacy

was that soon after the problems with the Isaurians were settled, the Persian frontier

became more problematic.

The Byzantine Emperors had to be constantly aware of what was happening in the

Persian Empire. The end of the fifth century saw increasing destabilization in the Persian

Empire. After Emperor Peroz, who had ruled for 25 years died in 484, he was followed by a number of short lived successors which only ended in 498 when Kavad reclaimed

40 The sources are somewhat vague on the details. Malalas has Zeno making Illus magister militum per Orientem and requesting to be allowed to go to Antioch and take with him some senators “to enhance his own reputation” and among them was . Evagrius agrees in almost every aspect, and includes Marstis and as companions. Joshua the Stylite, however states that Illus went to Antioch of his own volition and the other senators were sent to command him to return to Constantinople. When this did not work, Leontius was sent with troops to compel Illus to return, but Illus was able to co-opt Leontius through bribery and pointing out to Leontius that the Byzantines hated Zeno.

41 Malalas, Chronicle, XVI.1-3, Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, III.35, Joshua, The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite 23, F.K. Haarer, Anastasius I, 21.

13

the throne he had been ousted from two years before, which he then held till 531.42 Of

course one of the easiest ways to unify a country is to give them an external enemy and

the Eastern Roman Empire was a convenient target. While Anastasius was dealing with

the Isaurian revolt, Emperor Kavad decided the time was ripe to try and extort money

from the Eastern Romans to stave off war. Anastasius refused and a few years later

Kavad was overthrown.43 That was not the end of the problems with the Persians though

since war broke out again in 502 and lasted until 505.44 This war happened to occupy the

attention of the Byzantine Emperor during the crucial phases of the Laurentian Schism.

The wars prevented him from exerting any of his authority in an attempt to influence the

decision of the split papal election. Lawrence, the candidate for pope who eventually lost

thanks in no small part due to the interference of Theodoric, was more willing to heal the

breech with Constantinople than the eventual successor, Symmachus was. Between the

problems with the Persians, the Isaurian's and the various other tribal groups on the

borders of the Byzantine Empire the emperor had his hands full without also dealing with

problems in Italy. Anastasius wanted to remain focused on the East and preserve the

status quo as effectively as he could.45

42 , Wars I. 3-4, ed. and trans. Dewing, I 12-31., Zeev Rubin, “Eastern Neighbours: Persia and the Sasanian Monarchy (224-651),” in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 134.

43 Joshua, The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, 23; Malalas, Chronicle, XVI.9.

44 Joshua, The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, 54-83; Procopius, Wars, I.7-10; Zacharias of Mytilene, Chronicle, VII.3-5 all go into much greater detail about this conflict. Haarer, Anastasius, 29-35.

45 W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 191-92.

14

Pope Gelasius

Pope Gelasius was one of the most fervent proponents of papal power in Late

Antiquity. It is strongly argued that Gelasius, in his earlier capacity as the “foreign

minister” to the papacy, wrote the majority of Pope Felix III’s letters to the Byzantine

Emperor and so had a strong influence on papal policy regarding the Acacian schism.46

Unlike earlier Popes, however, Gelasius had the benefit of his place of power being far

from the geographical reach of the Emperor. The Byzantine Empire only possessed

nominal control over Italy when Gelasius began his pontificate in 492. Outside the use of

pure force, Theodoric’s ability to influence the pope depended on his constitutional

position within Italy. The more legitimate his position the more influence he would have.

If he was seen as a usurper or conqueror he would have less influence. Unfortunately, the

sources disagree on how Theodoric came to rule Italy.

One account states that Theodoric had been sent by Emperor Zeno to Italy to take power from Odoacer, who had held it since he had deposed Romulus Augustulus in

476.47 This is somewhat disingenuous as Odoacer was made a Patrician by Zeno and had his recommendations for consuls acknowledged by the Emperor from 480.48

stated that Theodoric was living in luxury in Constantinople when he heard that his

people were discontent in Illyricum and desired to lead his people west, and did so with

the blessing of the Emperor.49 has a slightly different take on Theodoric's

46 Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, 19; Jalland, The Church and the Papacy: A Historical Study. (London: SPCK, 1944), 319.

47 Anonymous Valesianus II, 11.49.

48 A.H.M. Jones, “The Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theoderic,” 126.

49 Jordanes, The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, LVII, 290 trans. Charles C. Mierow.

15

march to Italy. Theodoric, described as an ex-consul, rebelled against Zeno, and fearing

for his life, fled to Thrace, whereupon he caused the whole province to rebel and led his

army to Sykai, which was across the straight from Constantinople, and cut the main

aqueduct to Constantinople which supplied the city with its water. Theodoric could not

breach the defenses and so decided to march to Italy and rule there. After all of this

Theodoric decided to obey the Emperor in all things.50 relates a story that is much more critical of Zeno, stating that Theodoric, after having crushed a rebellion against the Emperor, removed himself to Rome to escape “the evil designs of

Zeno.”51 As a Chalcedonian, Evagrius was not a supporter of Zeno, and so his account should be looked at with skepticism. What actually happened is probably some

combination of the accounts, most likely Jordanes and Malalas, but no definitive account

can be reached.

The establishment of an Arian Gothic overlord in Italy proved to be a major

in Gelasius' aggressive actions and rhetoric toward the Emperor. While his loyalty to

Arianism hindered his ability to influence the popes, his constitutional position as

something less than an emperor meant he had no claim to ecclesiastical authority.52 The

ability of Ostrogothic Kings like Odoacer and Theodoric to theoretically influence church

policy depended on their constitutional position within the Empire. Traditionally, only

50 John Malalas Chronicle XV.9.

51 Evagrius. Ecclesiastical History III.27.

52 Amory, People and Identity, 197. The role of the Emperor in the Christian Church had always been somewhat contentious. Constantine was careful and his position as the “first” Christian Emperor gave him wide latitude to interfere in Church affairs. The Emperors would also hold the ancient title “” till near the end of the 4th century, and Emperors would be heavily invovled in the calling of ecumenical synods. They were the only layman who could be so involved, however, and under Christian leaders like Ambrose, Chrystostom, and Pope Leo, even that authority was being chipped away.

16

emperors had the right to interfere in ecclesiastical decision making.53 E.A. Thompson

argued that Odoacer's and Theodoric's position in Italy was nebulous. They were

patricians in name only, and could not issue laws, but they did issue edicts. While both

laws and edicts had to be obeyed only emperors could issue laws, while praetorian

prefects issued edicts. Any promotion of a Goth to high rank had to be approved by the

Senate.54 Thus, there was no one in Italy to rival the Pope in church affairs. This led to

something of a power vacancy in Rome.

This preoccupation with eastern affairs allowed Pope Gelasius to push the

boundaries of propriety when it came to his addresses to the Emperor. Gelasius was

elected pontiff on March 1, 492. It was traditional for each Pope to write to the Emperor

announcing his election.55 Gelasius delayed until after the Emperor had inquired about the delay.56 He goes on to say that he was afraid the Emperor was displeased with him and that he delayed not out of a desire to conceal his election, but so as not to annoy the

Emperor.57 This excuse seems somewhat disingenuous. Thiel gives an estimated date for this epistle of 494. Even assuming he wrote the letter on the first day of the year, that

53 The emperor was the only lay person to call an ecumenical council. The Emperors like Zeno and Justinian tried to solve doctrinal schisms by issuing proclamations (the Henoticon, the Three Chapters). The only time Popes and emperors got along during this period was when the emperors were orthodox. The Acacian schism only ended when Justin and Justinian, both Chalcedonians, came to the throne.

54 E.A. Thompson, Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982), 73; AHM Jones, “Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theodoric,” 129; The edicts were of course enforced by the threat of his military power, as were his suggestions about whom the Senate should elevate. Jones argued that Theodoric called his laws edicts only out of bureaucratic inertia.

55 Felix, Ep. 1, George Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity, (: University of Philadelphia Press, 2013), 92.

56 Gelasius, Ep. 12. “...ad Urbem reversi clementiam vestram quaesisse dixerunt, cur ad vos meae salutationis scripta non miserim.”

57 Ibid., “...non mea dissimulatione provenisse...”.

17

still leaves a delay of nearly two years between the election and Gelasius annunciation

letter to the Emperor.

It is telling that this same letter to Emperor Anastasius is also the letter where

Gelasius lays out his infamous doctrine on the two spheres of authority. He begins:

“there are two primary means by which this world is ruled: the hallowed authority of the

pontiff and royal power” claiming “the sacerdotal burden is as much heavier as the

responsibility is more serious” and that “you [the emperor] have been allowed to preside

over humankind in dignity” and allows “that imperium has been taken from the ends of

the earth and given to you by a heavenly arrangement”, but qualifies it by stating that bishops obey secular laws “in such a manner that their opinions concerning the world

(and these opinions are distinct from the world) do not seem to be opposed to those laws.”.58 There have been various interpretations of the “sacred authority” (auctoritas

sacrata) and “royal power” (regalis potestas). Walter Ullman argued that papal authority is “the faculty of shaping things creatively and in a binding manner, whilst potestas is the

power to execute what the auctoritas has laid down.”59 Francis Dvornik argues that the

authority of the popes was based upon the long traditions of a bishop’s power over the

Church and that the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to St. Peter, inherits from him

leadership of the Church.60 A.K. Ziegler focused less on the meaning of the words

auctoritas and potestas and more on the rhetorical usage behind the two terms. He finds

the passage to be a somewhat stern admonition about the necessity of maintaining a

58 Gelasius, Ep. 12, trans. Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity, 174.

59 Walter Ullman, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 21.

60 Dvornik, Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background II, 805- 6.

18

unified church.61 Alan Cottrell argues that potestas is a lesser form of imperium which

could be used to “regulate behavior”. Auctoritas, on the other hand, referred to great

political influence or prestige, and thus “could have effective power, but not officially

bestowed, or statutory, authority.”62 This seems to be a combination of Erich 's

and Ziegler's view of papal auctoritas and Walter Ullman's view of potestas.

Assuming the synthesis of Cottrell to be accurate, it opens up a new framework through which to analyze this period and the Papacy of Late Antiquity. The de jure position of the Emperor and Theodoric becomes irrelevant if they were unable to enforce their power on the pontiffs and the city of Rome. This does not mean that the Pope had a free hand in ruling Rome. Outside of lingering feelings of belonging to a unified Roman

Empire, the Emperor had no way to enforce any order he gave, and as has been demonstrated, was in no position to dispatch troops to force the issue. Thus the boundaries of political authority allowed to the Pope depended on the actions and temperament of Theodoric. Theodoric controlled almost all military formations in Italy during this period, and could, if he so chose, use it to physically enforce his will on the

Pope and the city of Rome as he did in 526 when he ordered Romans who had burned a synagogue in Rome to be punished.63 This event is not representative of the normal state

of affairs regarding Theodoric’s actions towards Rome. This event occurred after the

balance of power had shifted with the resolution of the Acacian schism. Theodoric's

61 A.K. Ziegler, “Pope Gelasius and his teaching on the relation of Church and State,” Catholic Historical Review 27 (1941-42): 433.

62 Alan Cottrell, “Auctoritas and Potestas: a Reevaluation of the Correspondence of Gelasius I on Papal-Imperial Relations,” Mediaeval Studies 55, no. 1 (2009): 99. He defines imperium as the authority to sentence a man to death, traditionally only held by consuls.

63 , Var. 4.43; Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy, 97.

19

primary goal throughout his reign was the rebuilding of Italy and the maintenance of

peace.64

After the death of Gelasius in 496, a new Pope, Anastasius II was elected. He

was almost the polar opposite of Gelasius in temperament. Unlike Gelasius, Anastasis II

was willing to grant the emperor primary authority and to whom “God has ordered to

govern the world as his vicar.”65 This helps demonstrate the stumbling nature of papal

power in Late Antiquity. There was not a consistent march of ideological leading

to concrete power. As much as the expanse of papal authority depended on the

willingness of the Ostrogoth kings to allow it, that expansion required a man willing to

use that power and continue its expansion. Anastasius II was not one of those popes. He

had a strong desire to end the Acacian schism and so sent two bishops, Cresconius and

Germanus, to the Emperor to negotiate. According to the Laurentian Fragment, a

recension of the Liber Pontificalis that was more sympathetic to the Popes who supported

re-unification with the Eastern Empire, the Pope sent a letter with them that through the evidence of scripture showed the entire schism to be pointless.66 This is propaganda as

there is nothing to suggest that such a letter actually existed or that Pope Anastasius II

would have capitulated so completely,67 but it is a much more conciliatory gesture than

would have been made by Gelasius. The actual life of Anastasius II in the Liber

Pontificalis does not mention the letter sent to Constantinople, but instead focuses on the

64 Ennodius, Pangeryic to Theodoric, XI.56, 58-9; , History of the Kings of the Goths, trans. Kenneth Baxter Wolf in Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1990), 97; See also, Amory, 116 and Richards, 78.

65 Thiel, Anastaius II Ep. 1. “quam velut vicarium Deus praesidere jussit in terris...”

66 Laurentian Fragment, 51 in Davis, The Book of the Pontiffs, 103.

67 Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, 68.

20

communion with Photinus of Thessaloniki, which many priests and in

Rome saw as the beginning of an effort to rehabilitate Acacius.68 The bishops traveled

with Senator Flavius Rufus Postumius Festus who was traveling to Constantinople on

behalf of Theodoric to negotiate his official status. While he was there, Festus negotiated

a deal whereby if Anastasius agreed to recognize Theodoric as ruler of Italy, he would get

Pope Anastasius II to agree to the Henotikon. Unfortunately, Anastasius II died while

Festus was still returning with the deal. It is unlikely that Anastasius II would have agreed to the deal presented by Festus.

The Laurentian Schism

The death of Pope Anastasius II in 498, while Festus was returning from

Constantinople, was a severe setback to those who hoped to end the Acacian schism. The

election of a pro-byzantine Pope would be crucial if Festus was to be successful in

mending the rift between the Eastern and Western churches. It happened that two men

were elected and ordained as Pope: Symmachus first in the Constantinian basilica, and

soon after Laurence in St. Mary's.69 This set off a schism that would last for roughly

eight years until a ruling from King Theodoric finally settled the matter in 506/507. The

sequence of events for this particular schism is important since Theodoric's role in

arbitrating and ending the schism is the strongest counter to the idea that papal power as a

real, political force was growing during this period.70

68 Liber Pontificalis, 45.

69 Liber Pontificalis, 45.

70 There are two main primary sources for this schism: the Life of Symmachus in the Liber Pontificalis, and the Laurentian Fragment originally composed in the 520's with the extant version written in 555. The Laurentian Fragment comes from an earlier set of papal biographies and was sympathetic to Laurence, the Pope who ended up losing. The compiler of the Liber Pontificalis was a partisan of Symmachus. It is rare in Late Antiquity for two narrative sources to survive chronicling the same event

21

After the dual election, the two factions went before Theodoric to have him

decide who was to become Pope. The two primary narratives for this event disagree on

the impetus of that decision. The Life of Symmachus states that the two sides agreed to

voluntarily put their dispute before Theodoric in Ravenna since the Senate and the clergy

were divided.71 The Laurentian Fragment, on the other hand, stated that both sides were

compelled to go before the King.72 Finally the Anonymous Valesianus records the event, but makes no mention of the two parties coming to Rome, stating only that “through

God's ordinance Symmachus, who also deserved it, got the upper hand. After peace was made in the city of the Church [Rome], King Theodoric went to Rome...”73 These

competing narratives make the sequence of events difficult to interpret. The Anonymous

Valesianus, a source that is very concerned with the reputation of Theodoric, acts as a

brief biography of Theodoric and mentions his entrance into Rome after the schism is

supposedly healed in 500.74 There is too much evidence of Theodoric's intervention to

cast it as pure fiction, but its exclusion may give a hint as to how little impact it had on

the city of Rome. If the Senate and the clergy were truly divided, then there was no one

from two different sides.

71 Liber Pontificalis, 53.2. It should be noted that the surviving epitomes from the first edition of the liber pontificalis that agree with the Symmachian position were edited around 530, within living memory of the author.

72 Laurentian Fragment 52.2, in Davis, The Book of the Pontiffs, 104.

73 Anonymous Valesianus II, 12.65. “Ordinante deo, qui et dignus fuit, superavit Symmachus. Post facta pace in urbe ecclesiae ambulavit rex Theodericus Romam...”

74 Much is made about this visit to Rome, especially as it mirrored the adventus ceremony that took place whenever the Emperors' entered a city. This argument is somewhat over-wrought however since it ignores the fact that the Pope and the Senators had no other realistic option. They could not snub Theodoric by not greeting him, nor could they bar him from entering the city. The only choice they had was to welcome him into the city enthusiastically. This is not to say that Theodoric had no support in the Senate, or among the people, just that an enthusiastic reception of the man in overall control of Italy cannot be taken as a definitive statement of support.

22

in Rome with any type of authority to rule on the subject. Anastasius, even if he had

attempted to settle the dispute, would have been ignored since he was sympathetic to the

Monophysites. This left Theodoric as the only one in Italy, with any type of authority, to

decide the matter. It was well within Roman legal tradition to have a high ranking

neutral party acting as arbiter in disputes between two parties. By this point Theodoric

had received formal approval of his position as ruler of Italy from Emperor Anastasius.

There is a slight divergence in the sources as the Liber Pontificalis states that Theodoric

ruled in favor of Symmachus as he was ordained first and had the largest following

among the clergy. Laurence was then sent to be bishop of Nuceria as something of a

consolation prize. The Laurentian Fragment, on the other hand, stated that Symmachus

gained approval through the use of bribes, and upon victory, forcibly sent to Nuceria as a

punishment. With Symmachus grateful for Theodoric's support, he welcomed the

Ostrogoth King into Rome in 500. This was not an end to the schism, however, as

supporters of Laurence soon brought up various charges against Symmachus. This may

have been the second reason why the Anonymous Valesianus does not record Theodoric's ruling on the schism in 499; the schism did not actually end and so does not speak well about Theodoric's authority where the Church is concerned. Theodoric was rarely involved in religious matters like these because his main concern was keeping the peace and his Arian beliefs put him at odds with the Catholic faith.75

This only ends the first act of the Laurentian Schism, and the most genial act at that. In 502 Symmachus was accused of committing three crimes: celebrating Easter on the wrong day, having immoral relations with a woman, and squandering the wealth of

75 Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy, 114.

23

the church. The sources disagree about who exactly brought the charges. The Liber

Pontificalis states that some members of the clergy and some members of the Senate

brought the charges out of jealousy.76 On the third charge the Laurentian Fragment

states that the entirety of the clergy accused him. As to the second charge, it relates an

amusing story that while Symmachus was traveling to Theodoric's court to answer as to

why he celebrated Easter on the wrong day, he was walking along the seashore one

morning and saw the woman with whom he'd had relations, who had also been called to

Theodoric's court. Upon recognizing the woman, he immediately fled back to Rome and

shut himself into St. Peter's.77 As amusing as the story is, it is unlikely there is any truth in it. This tale is recorded only in a source hostile to Symmachus; it is not referenced in any surviving letter from the period, nor is Symmachus' intention to travel to Ravenna to meet Theodoric, leaving out the story of the immoral woman, recorded in the sources.

The Popes and Theodoric rarely dealt with each other. Of the 100 surviving letters of

Pope Hormisdas, not one is addressed to Theodoric, of the letters from Theodoric recorded by Cassiodorus, none were addressed to the Pope, and no surviving letters from

Gelasius to Theodoric survive.78 The only time where it is certain that Symmachus and

Theodoric even met was Theodoric's trip to Rome in 500 for his adventus79 ceremony.

76 LP. 53.3.

77 Laurentian Fragment, 52.6 in Davis, The Book of the Pontiffs, 104.

78 Thomas F.X. Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy,” 397.

79 The adventus ceremony was the formal entrance into Rome traditionally performed by the Emperors, but in Late Antiquity was used by both Theodoric and the Popes of the late 6th century. Mark Humphries, “From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, space, and authority at Rome from Constantine to Gregory the Great,” in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900, eds. Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 21-58.

24

With this context in mind it makes little sense to assume that Theodoric summoned

Symmachus to Ravenna over a doctrinal dispute about the .

What Theodoric did do in order to rectify the schism was to call for a synod to be held in Rome where the bishops would judge whether Symmachus was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. This is not quite the display of secular authority over ecclesiastical affairs as it appears. There were several bishops and members of the clergy who were not convinced that it was proper for them to judge the Pope.80 Theodoric was required to placate those who had doubts about the propriety of judging a sitting Pope by producing a letter written by Symmachus stating he would agree to the synod and abide by its judgments.81 As Symmachus was traveling through Rome to attend the synod, he was wounded by an attacking crowd, and at least two priests who were accompanying him, Gordianus and Dignissimus, were killed. Symmachus retreated and refused to be judged by anyone other than God and the king.82 The deference to the king should not be overstated. It was a recognition that Theodoric was now involved in the matter, and at the time had three of his household officers, Gudila, Bedeulf and Arigern in Rome to specifically make sure Symmachus reached the synod.83 Secondly was the simple realization that if he so desired, Theodoric could force a judgment. With Symmachus

80 Ennodius, lib. Pro syn. 19; frag. Laur. 52.5. makes the point when writing to Faustus and Symmachus (the Senator, not the Pope) that the one should not be able to judge a person of superior status and that if accusations should not be entertained against priests, they should be even less so when leveled at the head of the Church.

81 MGH AA 12.426. This throws the reality of an aborted journey to Ravenna in a more ambiguous light. If Symmachus had truly fled before satisfying Theodoric's questions, then he should have had no need to persuade the Italian bishops to judge Symmachus, or judge him himself. That he did not either reveals the falsity of the story, or the real limits of his power over the bishop of Rome before resorting to the irrevocable step of force.

82 MGH AA 12.423; Ennodius, lib. Pro syn 60.; Lib Pont., 53.6.

83 MGH AA 12.422.

25 refusing to appear before the synod (and Theodoric's men apparently unwilling to force the issue), the synod was in the position of having to judge a Pope who would not appear and asked Theodoric's permission to end the synod and return to their respective churches. Theodoric refused and commanded them to come to a decision.84 Eventually the bishops took the easy way out and ruled that they could not judge the Pope and concluded the synod. The back and forth between the bishops and Theodoric illuminated how far the Church could stretch its authority before infringing Theodoric's prerogatives.

Theodoric was above all concerned with the stability of the region, and a church in schism was not conducive to tranquility, as the riots in Rome proved, thus the order to the bishops to reach a verdict, Theodoric did not care which. On the other hand, the bishops came as close to ignoring the order as they could. They sidestepped making a definitive judgment which left Symmachus as Pope, but left open the accusations against him, allowing supporters of Laurence to continue championing him and agitating against

Symmachus. This outcome was the last thing Theodoric wanted, and what his letter to the synod tried to prevent. Eventually in 507 Theodoric ended the schism by ordering the

Senate to return control of the churches to Symmachus.85

The real importance of the Laurentian schism is not how it ended, though even

Theodoric's order could not reconcile everyone to Symmachus, but in who composed the partisans of each . The Senate seems to have been against Symmachus as only

Flavius Anicius Faustus junior Niger can be positively identified as a

84 MGH AA 12.422., 424-26.

85 MGH AA 12.392; Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy, 120-25.

26

Symmachian partisan.86 The rest of the Senate appears to have supported Laurence. The

episcopate on the whole supported Symmachus, as demonstrated by their reluctance to

try him. The majority of the Roman deacons and priests, on the other hand supported

Laurence. At the time a complete college of deacons was seven men. Of the seven

deacons who attended and signed their names to the acts of the 499 synod that had been

meant to settle the schism originally, only two of those deacons signed their names in the

synod of 502, held by Symmachus' supporters to legitimize his status as Pope. Less than

half of the priests from the 499 synod were present at the 502 synod. Some of this might

be due to either death or extenuating circumstances except for the fact that Symmachus

ordained priests and deacons out of proportion to the length of his pontificate compared

to his predecessors. He ordained sixteen new deacons, which was enough to refill the

college twice over.87 So either deacons and priests died at an uncommonly high rate in the early sixth century, or many of them supported Lawrence’s papal claim and

Symmachus had to replace them with more loyal clergy. The plebs in Rome, as far as can be determined, followed Symmachus and he was a people's Pope.88 So of those

regularly in Rome, Symmachus' only real support came from the plebs in the city. The

Senate and the clergy in Rome supported Laurence. As Symmachus replaced the deacons

and priests who supported Laurence with those more sympathetic to his views, he

solidified his power base within the church.

86 LP 53.6; Danuta Shanzer and Ian Wood trans., Avitus of Vienne: Letters and Selected Prose, 160.

87 Moorhead, “The Laurentian Schism,” 131-33. These deacons were special in that each one oversaw one of the seven church districts in Rome. They are special members of the Church bureaucracy and should not be confused with the deacons that exist in every parish church.

88 Moorhead, Theodoric in Italy, 128; Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy,” 414.

27

While the schism was going on, a series of ’s lives and known as the Symmachan Forgeries were written. They purported to give historical precedent as a defense for Symmachus' actions. Their historical reliability is immaterial for the present argument, but through their descriptions of past events, they shed light on the activities of the bishop in the early 6th century. One document in the Symmachan

Forgeries was the Gesta de Xysti Purgatione. In it the Bishop of Rome, Xystus, interfered in the running of a noble household to protect the inheritance of a ward that had been mistreated, and eventually had to persuade the emperor to intervene. The bishop was also put on trial for alienating church properties.89 It is somewhat easy to identify Xystus with Symmachus not only because of the second trial but because according to the tale the trial took place in the basilica Sessoriana, the same location

Symmachus was tried.90 At this point, however, there was no emperor for a bishop like

Symmachus to go to, and so would have to rely on his own moral authority to effect change. At the end of the trial of Xystus, when he was acquitted, he took the seat of the emperor in the church to declare judgment on the two who had brought accusations against the bishop.91 This was the bishop appropriating the powers of the Emperor to hand down judgment. In this case, even when upholding Imperial authority in theory, the

Bishop of Rome could replace him in practice. This story may exaggerate the authority of a bishop to act as judge, but it was not uncommon for him to settle legal disputes.

89 Sessa, 238.

90 Richards, The Popes and the Papacy, 81.

91 Kristina Sessa, “Domestic Conversions: The 'Papal Legends',”in in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900, eds. Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 98.

28

During the Papacy of Gelasius, Anastasius II and Symmachus, the Pope took the first faulting steps towards real temporal power. They were not independent to be sure, and benefited in the distractions facing the Byzantine Emperors and a Gothic King in

Theodoric who knew his position was secure only so long as he held the support of the

Church and the Senate. When those two realities shifted in the 520's, the space that once existed for the Popes to act disappeared rapidly.

This relates back to the third charge raised against Symmachus by his enemies, that he was alienating the property that belonged to these churches. Since it is likely that

Symmachus did not control these churches during the schism, he needed a way to make sure Laurence would not sell the portions of the patrimony to fund actions against

Symmachus. So Symmachus closed the council of 501 with a set of rules that prevented any priest or deacon from selling any part of the churches property.92

92 MGH AA. 12:450; Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority, 235.

29

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Ammianus Marcellinus. Vol 3. Edited by John C. Rolfe. Cambridge: Press, 1956.

Avitus of Vienne. Letters and Selected Prose.translated by Danuta Shanzer and Ian Wood. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2002.

Davis, Raymond eds. The Book of the Pontifs (Liber pontificalis): The Ancient biographies of the first Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1989.

Ennodius. Magni Felicis Ennodii: Opera Omnia. Edited by Wilhelm von Hartel. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968.

Epistolae Imperatorum Pontificum Aliorum Inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque DLIII datae Avellana Quae Dicitur Collectio, edited by O. Guenther, CSEL vol. 35, 2 parts (Prague, Vienna, and Leipzig 1895).

Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum Genuinae: et quae ad eos scriptae sunt A.S. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II. Edited by Andreas Thiel. Braunsberg, 1868.

Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History. Translated by E. Walford. London: Bagster and Sons, 1846.

Gregory . Oratio. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1974.

Isidore of Seville. History of the Kings of the Goths. Translated by Kenneth Baxter Wolf in Conquerors and Chroniclers of Early Medieval Spain. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1990.

John Malalas. The Chronicle. Edited and translated by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys, Roger Scott, Brian Croke. Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies; Dept. of Modern Greek, University of Sydney, 1986.

Jordanes, The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, LVII. Translated by Charles C. Mierow. Princeton: Press, 1908.

Joshua the Stylite. The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. Translated by William Wright. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003.

Migne, J.P.. Patrologia Latina vol. 65. Paris, 1847.

30

Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Vol 12. Edited by Theodore Mommsen. Munich, 1981.

Procopius of Caesarea. History of the Wars. Translated by H.B. Dewing. London: William Heinemann, 1914.

Roman State & Christian Church: a Collection of Legal Documents to AD 535. Edited by P.R. Coleman-Norton. 3 vols. London: SPCK, 1966.

Zacharias of Mytilene. Syriac Chronicle. Translated by F.J. Hamilton and E.W. Brooks. London: Methuen & Co., 1899.

Secondary Sources

Amory, Patrick. People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Arnold, Jonathan J. Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Barnish, S.J.B. “The Transformation and Survival in the Western Senatorial Aristocracy, C. A.D. 400-700.” In Papers of the British School at Rome 36 (1988): 120-155.

Brown, Peter R. Poverty and leadership in the later Roman Empire. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2002.

Brown, Peter R. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992.

Brown, Peter. Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

Bronwen, Neil. “Crisis and Wealth in Byzantine Italy: the Libri Pontificales of Rome and Ravenna.” in Byzantion; revue internationale des etudes byzantines. 82 (2012): 279-303.

Cooper, Kate and Julia Hillner, eds. Religion, Dynasty and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300-900. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Cottrell, Alan. “Auctoritas and Potestas: A Reevaluation of the Correspondence of Gelasius I on Papal-Imperial Relations.” in Mediaeval Studies 55, no. 1 (2009): 95-109.

31

Daley, Brian. “1998 NAPS Presidential Address, Building a New City: The Cappadocian Fathers and the Rhetoric of Philanthropy.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7, no. 3 (Fall 1999): 431-61.

Demacopoulos, George E. The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2013.

Drake, H.A. “The Church, Society, and Political Power.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2, edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Dvornik, Francis. Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy: Origins and Background II. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1966.

Eno, Robert. The Rise of the Papacy. Wilmington, Del: M. Glazier, 1990.

Fanning, Steven. “Odovacer Rex, Regal Terminology and the Question of the End of the .” Medieval Prosopograpghy 24 (2003): 45-54.

Finn, Richard. Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice (313-450). New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Frend, W.H.C. Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Gillett, Andrew. 2001. Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors. Papers of the British School at Rome / British School , 131-167.

Hillner, Julia. “Clerics, Property and Patronage: The Case of the Roman Titular Churches.” Antiquite Tardive 14, no. 1 (2006): 59-68.

Hillner, Julia. “Families, Patronage and the titular churches of Rome, C. 300-C.600.” In Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900, edited by Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner, 225-261. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Holman, Susan R. The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in roman Cappadocia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Humphries, Mark. “From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, space, and authority at Rome from Constantine to Gregory the Great.” In Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900, edited by Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner, 21-58. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Jalland, Trevor. The Church and the Papacy: A Historical Study. London: SPCK, 1944.

32

Jones. A.H.M. ”The Constitutional Position of Odoacer and Theoderic.” Journal of Roman Studies 52, no. 1 & 2 (1962): 126-130.

Lamoreaux, John C. “Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 3, no. 2 (1995): 143-167.

Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. The Decline and Fall of the Roman City. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Llewellyn, Peter A. B. “The Roman Church during the Laurentian Schism: Priests and Senators.” Church History 45, no. 4 (Dec. 1976): 417-427.

Marazzi, Frederico. “The Last Rome: From the End of the Fifth to the End of the Sixth Century,” in The Ostrogoths from the Migration Period to the Sixth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, edited by Sam J.B. Barnish, 279-303. Woodbridge; Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2007.

McLynn, Neil. “Crying Wolf: The Pope and the Lupercalia.” Journal of Roman Studies 98 (2008): 161-175.

Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church, 450-680AD. Crestowood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989.

Moorhead, John. “The Laurentian Schism: East and West in the Roman Church.” Church History 47, no. 2 (Jun. 1978): 125-136.

Moorhead, John. “On Becoming Pope in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Religious History 30, no. 3 (Oct. 2006): 279-293.

Moorhead, John. Theoderic in Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Nelson, Janet. “Gelasius’ I’s Doctrine of Responsibility: A Note.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1967): 154-162.

Noble, Thomas F.X. “Theodoric and the Papacy.” Teoderico il Grande e I Goti d'Italia: atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull'alto (1992): 395-423.

Rapp, Claudia. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The nature of Christian leadership in an age of transition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005.

Richards, Jeffrey. The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752. London; Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.

Roddy, Kevin. “Politics and Religion in Late Antiquity: The Roman Imperial Adventus Cremony and the Christian Myth of the Harrowing of Hell.” Apocrypha 11 (2000): 147-179.

33

Rubin, Zeev. “Eastern Neighbours: Persia and the Sasanian Monarchy (224-651).” In The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Sessa, Kristina. “Domestic Conversions: The 'Papal Legends'.” In Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900, edited by Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner, 79-114. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Sessa, Kristina. The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Taylor, Justin. “The Early Papacy at Work: Gelasius I (492-6).” Journal of Religious History 8 (1975): 317-332.

Thompson, E.A. Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982.

Ullman, Walter. The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power. London: 1955.

Ziegler, A.K. “Pope Gelasius and his teaching on the relation of Church and State.” Catholic Historical Review 27 (1941-42): 412-437.