Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Laurentian Schism

The Laurentian Schism

The Laurentian Schkm: East and West in the Roman Church

In 498, four days after the death of Anastasius II, two men were elected and consecrated bishop of on the one day, the Symmachus and the Laurentius. Fighting broke out between their supporters and the dispute was referred to Theodoric, the Ostro- gothic king of , who declared that Symmachus was to be pope. A held in 499 accepted him as pope and passed legislation on church government; it awarded to Laurentius the see of Nuceria. But trouble soon broke out again when Symmachus was accused of improper rela- tions with women, squandering church property and celebrating Easter on the wrong date. While on his way to , where Theodoric had summoned him to give an account of himself, he became convinced that he was being framed, and returned secretly to Rome by night without completing his journey. Theodoric reacted by appointing Bishop Peter of as visitor of the Roman see, but this became a further source of controversy. At some stage Laurentius returned to Rome. Rioting broke out again, with clergy being killed and Symmachus himself being attacked on one occasion. Two more failed to pacify in the city or put an end to the schism. This only came years later, in 507 or 508, when Theodoric ordered Festus, Laurentius' noble patron, to hand over the , which had been held by Laurentius, to Symmachus. Laurentius retired to Festus' estates, leaving Symmachus to preside over a reasonably peaceful and united church until his death in 514.' This article seeks to explore two questions relating to the schism. First, what was the issue dividing the parties? This is an issue which has at- tracted some scholarly discussion, but a new review of the evidence may be useful. Second, how much support was enjoyed within the Roman church by each of the rivals? It will be suggested that, when the answers to these questions are taken together, we will be in a position to make

1. cf. in general E. , Geschichtc des Pafisttufn.~II (Tiibingen, 1933), pp. 87-129; R. Cessi, "Dalla scisma laurenziano alla pacificazione religiosa con I'oriente," Archivio della reale societa romarza di sioria patria 43 (1920):209-32 I; ibid. "Lo scisma laurenziano e le origni della dottrina politica della chiesa di Roma," Archivio della reale societe. . . 42 (1919):5-229. It is no part of this paper to consider the political background, on which see for Italy W. Ensslin, Theoderich der Grosse (Munich, 1947) and, for the Empire, C. Capizzi, L'imfieratore Anastasio I (Rome, 1969). Mr. Moorhead is lecturer in the Department of History, University of Queens- land, Brisbane, Australia. 126 CHURCH HISTORY HE LAURENTIAN SCHISM

some important comments about factions within the Roman church as , asking whether this was true and enclosing a statement the fifth century turned into the sixth. of their to be forwarded to Pope Ana~tasius.~Their confession ac- ed the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, but not Icedon, and defended Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and Peter Any analysis of the grounds dividing the parties must begin by ongus, the anti-Chalcedonian of Alexandria. Obviously, its examining a schism which occurred during the pontificate of the pre- ceptance would have entailed enormous concessions to the vious pope, Anastasius. Shortly after becoming pope in 496, Anastasius onophy~ites.~It is not certain that Anastasius contemplated making informed Emperor Anastasius of his election in a letter2 which indicates ch concessions, but we can say he was fishing in troubled waters. Ac- that, while the pope was not entirely well-disposed towards the East, he rding to his biographer in the Liber Pontijicalis, he shared communion was prepared to go some way towards improving relations which had th a heretic; he attracted correspondence from Alexandria frankly in- been envenomed by the since 482.3 The new pope held im to abandon the uncompromising position of earlier ; that the schismatic Acacius could safely be left to the judgement of God, e possibility of his being coerced into abandoning this position and the and ordinations he performed, even after his condem- to have been discussed by a Roman noble with the Emperor. In nation, were valid.4 Pope Anastasius also sent two bishops, Cresconius rt, while we cannot specify how far Anastasius was prepared to go, and Germanus, to the East, apparently in an attempt to negotiate an end apparently conciliatory stance, coming as it did after the pontificate to the Acacian schism." the staunch Latinist Gelasius, attracted interest both within and out- But a large part of the Roman church was in no mood for conciliation, e Rome. His biographer was able to with satisfaction: "And be- and the Liber PontiJicalis, in its biography of Anastasius, indicates that a se he wished to recall (revocare) Acacius secretly, and was not able, he schism broke out over this issue: struck down by the divine will."lo Many clergy and people separated themselves from his communion because he pontificate of Anastasius was thus marked by a schism within the without the consent of the bishops priests and clergy of the whole man church on the issue of relations with the eastern churches. For church he had shared communion with a deacon of Thessalonica, Fotinus is reason alone, we would be entitled to suspect a similar motivation (sic], who was in corn~nunionwith Acacius.O r the Laurentian schism which followed immediately; the candidacy of The affair also had repercussions outside Rome, for Photinus later of the rivals may have been backed by a faction supporting contacted the church of Alexandria, stating (whether rruthfully,or not) stasius' irenic policy, while the other may have been supported by that Anastasius had satisfied him concerning offensive matters in the astasius' opponents. As it happens, there is good evidence that this translation of a letter. Presumably, this means that Anastasius was pre- was the case. pared to smooth over difficulties arising from the of the The biog-ra~hies-. of Symmachus preserved in the Liber Pont$calis and Tome of Pope In any case, a priest and a lector of the Alexandrian the Laurentian fragment both specify that the noble Festus was church were emboldened to write to Festus, a Roman noble then in Laurentius' particular patron. Indeed, the Laurentian life states that, after Theodoric finally pronounced against Laurentius, the defeated 2. Anastasius Eputzrla I: Epistulae Romanorl~mPontqlcum Vol. l, ed. A. Thiel (Braunsberg, candidate retired to Festus' estates.'"Dung the pontificate of 18681. 3. For this schism, documented by Eduard Schwartz Publizistische Sammlungerz zwm Anastasius, Festus had been sent to Constantinople by Theodoric to try ncacianischm Schisma (Munich, 1934) in Abhandlungen der Bayekehen Akademie der to come to an agreement with the emperor about the constitutional posi- Wissenschaften, Phi1.-hist. Abt. Neue Folge, Hft. 10; see among modern discussions tion of his kingdom. The embassy was a success, and Anastasius W. N. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972.) 4. Discussed by H. E. J. Cowdrey, "Anastasius I1 and Augustine's doctrine of ," Studia Patrktica 11, pt. 2 (1972):311-315. 8. Ibid. 5. Flrcfrpta Valesiann (=Anonymi Val~sianipars posterior, ed. Th. Mommsen, Monumenta 9. While the letter is sent in the names of Dioscorus the priest and Chaeremon the lector, G~rmaniaeNistorica Auctores Antiquissimi (Hereafter, MGH AA) Vol. 9) 64; Lib(er) it must have been sent with the consent of the ~atriarchof Alexandria as it invites Anastasius to write or send a messenger to him (Ibid., p. 473). Pont(ifical4 (ed. Louis Duchesne, 2 ed. 3 vols. (Paris, 1955- 1957) p. 44; Theodore I.ector, Nist~riaecclesiastics 2. 16- 17. (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 86, ed. J. P. Migne.) 10. Lib. Pont., p. 258. 6. Lib. Pont., p. 258; for earlier bad relations between Pope Gelasius and the see of 11. Lib. Pont., p. 46. It is ~erhapsworth recalling that two lives of Symmachus are Thessalonica cf. CelasiusEp. 18 (ed. Thiel, op. cit.) preserved, one favorabie to him in the Lib. Pont. (hereafter referred to as the "official 7. Colbctio Awellana (= Epistulae Imperatorum pontgcum aliorum, ed. 0 Giinthur, Corpw life"), and the other favorable to Laurentius in a document generally referred to as the Scriptorurn Eccl~siasticorumLatinorum, Vol. 35), p. 102. Laurentian fragment (hereafter the "Laurentian life;" cf. Duchesne's comments in his introduction to Lzb. Pont., pp. xxx-xxxii). CHURCH HISTORY

returned to Italy the "ornaments of the palace" which Odoacer had sent rary Greek historian, Theodore Lector, who states: to Constantinople following the deposition of the last emperor in the A certain Festus, one of the Roman assembly, was sent on political business West." Festus was therefore a man with some concern for good relations to the emperor Anastasius and having reached the royal city he called for with the East as was, in a different way, Pope Anastasius. In other words, the remembrance of Peter, chief of the Apostles, and Paul to be observed Festus would have been an obvious patron for a man in the R~~~~ with much honour and reverence. This had been done previously, save that church committed to promoting Anastasius' policies. &foreover, his em- after ~~~t~~'request it. was increased by much more of the same kind Of bassy seems to have been connected with the embassy of bishops that joyous festivity, Macedonius [ of Gonsta11tinopleI wished to communications [Fji~aq]to Anastasius bishop of Rome by this same man Anastasius sent to Constantinople, for the letter of the Alexandrians F~~~~~.~~t he was prevented fiom doing SO by the emperor. Festus, as the referred to above (p. 3) was addressed to saying goes [G~hbyoq] secretly suggested to the emperor that he prevail The most glorious and excellent patrician Festus and bishops upon the bishop of Rome to subscribe to the Henotikon of . But having crescOnius and Germanus sent as a legation from Rome with joint power come to Rome he found that Bishop Anastasius had died. And so he took (. . . Simul cum eiis potestate directis in legatione).13 the trouble himself to subscribe what was required on account of the schism. ~~d having corrupted many men with money he called 0x1 acertain Roman Our only other source for the mission of the bishops is an incomplete whose name was Laurentius to be elected bishop contrary to custom.'" sentence which is all that remains of a life of Pope Anastasius at the be- ginning of the h.mentian life of Symmachus. lt reads: This passage reveals that while in Constantinople Festus combined litical and ecclesiastical business. Most importantly, we are told of a impel-atorem Anastasium directa per Cresconium et Germanum episcopos, quae tanta scribt~rarum[sic] caelestium auctoritate suffulta est, ut qui hanc t deal Festus tried to make with the emperor. (Theodore states that intents rnentc sub divino timore perlegerit, inaniter hactenus inter ecclesias was a rumor, but this lleed not prevent our accepting his story; in- orientis et Italiae tarn schisrna nefarium perdurare cognoscit.~4 ation about the emporer's secret policies could only have circulated From this text it appears certain that the bishops were umor.) we are toid ~estusinformed the emperor that he should Pre- on the pope to accept the Henotikon (a document prepared in 482 towards the East. The bishops, concerned with eccjesiastical relations, and Festus7 was attempting to regularize relations between the er the patronage of the emperor Zeno which mediated between the Gothic at ltavenna and Byzantium, may well have been working lcedonian and Monophysite positions). It would follow that Festus together during their simultaneous missions-an even clearer indication cted that the pope would accept the Henotikon and heal the of a pro-Byzanline attitude on the part of Festus. cian schism on this basis. But, on his return to Rome, Festus found The passage quoted from the Laurentian fragment has other ihp]ica- ape Anastasius had died, so he sought to obtain the election of ntius by bribery-a final indication that Laurentius was explicitly a tions. Scholars generally recognize that this and the official life stem from authors who supported different sides during the schism; few have yzantine candidate for the papacy and, by implication, that noticed that the hHTntian life must have originally been prefaced by a us was a candidate of anti-Byzantine orientation. life of Anastasius. The official Liber Pon,t$cali.~ is hostile to Anastasius; as &ing this with the other evidence, we may conclude that the noted above, it attributes his death to God's will. On the other hand, the rentian schism represented a continuation of a State of affairs which life of Anastasius written from a point of view favorable to Laurentius existed during the pontificate of Anastasius 11. The basic issue was took a fav~rableview of Anastasius' activities; whoever carefully and de- tions with the East.l6 voutl~read the writings eresconius and Germanus took to the East, we are told, would realize that the wicked schism had lasted so long for no good reason. Again, then, it seems that people who had supported ng established the central issue of the schism, we may now Anastasius supported Laurentius, and those who opposed Anastasius he support accorded each of the rivals within the Roman church. supported Symmachus. A final piece of evidence tells in favor of this interpretation. The out- ilar conclusion, rather blulltly stated, was arrived at by L. Duchesne, L'%lise aw' break of the Laurentian schism is also mentioned by a nearly contempo- esiiClp(paris, 1925), pp. 112- 113. Other factors have been emphasized by Ch. senat, le pup1e et les partis du cirque 2 Rome sous fe PaPe S~mmaque 12. Execerpta Valesiana 64. 8-5 141," ~ii~~~~~garchi0logie et &histoire 78 (1966): 123- 139; I would merely jndi- te doubts as to whether some of his evidence bears the weight he Puts UPon it, 13. AvclLuna 102 (at P. 468); for (general discussion cf. P. Charanis, Church and state in the Later Roman Ewzpire (Madison, 1939). te that ideological orientation of the circus factions, which figures in his argument, 14. Lib. Pant., p. 44. by no means proven: Cf.on Byzantine circus parties A. Cameron, "'I-Ieresies and tions,"Byzantion 44 (1974):92- 120. 131 130 CHURCH HISTORY THE LAURENTIAN SCHISM

Fortunately, there are various indications of this, although their in- who had supported and would again support both Symmachus and terpretation is sometimes not straightforward. Laurentius, while the synods of 501 and 502 contained only supporters The three synods which were held in Rome during the schism contain of Symmachus. lists of participants and signatories which may be summarized as Let us begin with the . The seven who were present at and the follows: l7 six who subscribed to the synod of 499 were the deacons of Rome, as the uncompleted formula "diaconus regionis . . ." after the name of each in- Table 1. dicates. The fall from seven to four in the period 499-502 is clear-cut, synod of 499 synod of 501 synod of 502 and especially revealing inasmuch as only two of the four present in 502, Anastasius and John, were also present in 499. The other two, HOT- bishops present 66 - 80 bishops signing 7 1 7 6 65 misdas and Agapetus, must have been made deacons since 499. Of these priests present 74 U 36 two, Hormisdas was close to Symmachus; he played a major role in the priests signing 67 L synod of 502 (where he read material on behalf of Symmachus), was ap- deacons present 7 U 4 proached by Ennodius when the latter tried to regain horses and money deacons signing 6 L he had Ient the pope,21and was to succeed Symnlachus as pope in 514. This material may be used to measure the support given Symmachus Agapetus is a more elusive figure, but he may well be identical with the and Laurentius. The first synod, held shortly after Theodoric's initial man of this name who became pope in 535. According to the Liber decision in favor of Symmachus, was attended not only by his supporters Pontijicalis, Pope Agapetus was "natione Romanus, ex patre Gordiano but also by those who had supported Laurentius. Indeed, Laurentius presbitero, clericus a [rid santos lohannem et Pa~lum."~~Gordianus is [himself was present." By the time the later synods were held, however, known to us from the official life of Symmachus, where he is referred to the schism had broken out again, and it is hard to see how any supporter as one of the supporters of Symmachus killed by the taurentian~.~~It is of Laurentius could have assented to either of them. The second synod therefore quite possible that the Agapetus whom Symmachus made decreed that anyone who celebrated mass "without the knowledge of deacon was the son of a priest killed by enemies of the pope and who " would henceforth be considered a heretic," while the subsequently became pope himself. The two deacons created by Symma- third synod was actually summoned by Symmachus, and its proceedings chus known to us by name include one who became a later pope and give a strong impression that it was stage-managed by him and his sup- another who possibly did. We shall not commit ourselves too far to any porter~.~~I shall therefore assume that the synod of 499 included men concept of a papal cabal if we conclude that Symmachus was admitting ultra-loyalists to the diaconate to counter defections he had suffered, but 17. The proceedings of the synods are to be found in MGHAA, Vol. 12, pp. 399-455. For at least one more defection would follow. Of the two original deacons the sake of convenience I have followed Mommsen's dates, although they have been who remained loyal to Symmachus in 502, John subsequently defected, criticized (G. B. Picotti, "I sinodi romani nello scismo laurneziano" in Studi storici in honorc di Gioacchino Volpe, Ed. G. C. Sansoni (Florence, 1958), pp. 743-786, esp. pp. for in 506 Symmachus was presented with a libelha anathematizing Peter 736-766); the actual dates are of no importance to my argument. The first synod of Altinum and Laurentius in the name of "Caelius Iohannes diaconus records more signatures than there were bishops present; some bishops must have ar- ecclesiae Romanae, qui me ad tempus ab Ecclesia separavi."" Thus, of rived during the synod, perhaps delayed by the bitter winter weather (Ibid., p. 402, line 14). On the other hand the contingents of priests and deacons in 499, and bishops the seven deacons who attended the synod of 499, only Anastasius may in 502, diminished during the synods. Only in the last case is the number significant; reasonably be thought to have remained loyal. Many deacons of the perhaps some were concerned at the direction proceedings took and left without sign- Roman church therefore came down in favour of Laurentius. ing their names. The second synod includes no priests or deacons, probably because it had been summoned to judge Symmachus, and a bishop could only be judged by The lists of priests who attended and signed the proceedings of the fellow bishops. synods reveal a similar situation. The priests of 499 (seventy-four in at- None of the thirty-six priests or four deacons present at the synod of 502 seems to have tendance, of whom sixty-seven signed) were reduced to thirty-six in 502. signed the proceedings. It could be that they were not asked to sign, or perhaps the list of names was lost at an early date. In any case, given the close correspondence between In other words, the body of priests who showed their support of Symma- priests and deacons present at the synod of 499 and those who signed, we may take the figures for those present in 502 as being similar to those who would have signed. 2 1. Ennodius, E@. 13; 6.33 ed. F. Vogel, MGH AA, vol. 18. Ibid., p.410,sig. 1. 5. 7. m 19. Ibid., p. 432. 20. In particular the role of Hormisdas should be noted, Ibid., pp. 444-447. CHURCH HISTORY Table 2. by attending the synod of 502 was less than half the number who had attended the synod of 499.z5 pontificate priests deacons bishops The degree of the erosion of Symmachus' support within the Roman in years ordained ordained ordained church can easily be appreciated by glancing at the figures for the num- bers of who were present at and signed the proceedings of the three synods. Obviously, the numbers remained reasonably steady, and we may fairly conclude that the Italian episcopate was by and large loyaI to Symmachus. The lists of participants in the three synods are therefore \ialuable guides the strengths of the antagonists. Many, if not most of the priests and deacons who attended the synod of 499 decided for Laurentius; most of the Italisn bishops supported Symmachus. This may appear to contradict the Liber PontzjicaLis which asserts that Symmachus enjoyed greater support within Romez6 but there is no necessary contradiction; we know that the plebs were staunchly for Symrnachus and the statement probably refers to them and not the clergy. In any case, the assertion could be mere propaganda. In short, the synod lists make it plain that the Roman church was seriously split. This conclusion is confirmed by a study of papal ordinationS. Table 2 details of the ordinations of priests, deacons, and bishops performed by each Pope from Gelasius to John 1, taken from near the ordain uring years Symmachus found it necessary end of their respective biographies in the Liber PontiJicalis,27 ests. Likewise he was compelled to increase the number of any one time there were only seven deacons in the Roman church, so 25. I have ignored deaths. It is known that some of Symmachus3clerical supporters were these during the schism (Lib. Pon,t., p. 261), but despite its partiality for symmachus ordained more than two full colleges. Perhaps some the official biography mentions only two, a small proportion of the number who at- tended the synod of 499. Hence it seems reasonable to take the figures at face value, as indicating a drastic weakening of Symmachus' position, One minor problem ought to be considered. Pope Gregory the Great wrote that "paschasius a deacoll of this " was until the end of his life an adherent of Laurentius (Gregory, Dialogorum libri 4, 4.42, ed. V. Moricca (Rome, 19241, for Paschasius see also the introductory letter to the Vitn Sevcrini of ~~~i~~i~~,ed, p. Knoell, CorW Scriptorum Eccl~.siwticorumLatinarum 9. pt. 2, pp. 1-6). Yet paschasius is not mentioned in any ofthe S~IIO~lists, even in the full list of'deacons present in 499. If we accept Gregory's testimony, Paschasius must either have been made a deacon later SY'mmachus, and subsequently changed sides, or made a deacon by ~~~~~~ti~~ Peter of Altillum. The problem of ordinations is further considered below, pp, 10- 26. Lib. Polzt., p. 260. 27. Ibid., PP. 2.557 258,263,272,276. Frequently the data of theLihPrPontificalkis Opento question, and Duchesne took a negative view of the reliability of the ordination figures mains Pour '€5 quatrc OU cinq premiers siicles" (intro. to his edition of lib. pant., at the synod of 502, we must assume either that many of his P. cliv), but I am inclined to accept the figures here, partly because of what we know of rters had recently defected, or that the Waves of ordinations had the date of the composition of the Lib. Pont. (see Duchesne's intro,, pp. xxxiii-xlviii, PP. xliii-xlvi), and partly because the figures have the feel of authenticity, one begin Whatever the case may be, the ordination figures confirm may feel to question the figures given for Gelasius, who is said to have or- rerpretation of the synod lists. They portray a situation in which dained Over twice as many clergy as Anastasius, although his pontificate was on]y position in the Roman church was weak. twice as long. Yet the figures seem to be covered by his biographer, who states '"under his pontificate the clergy grew" (Lib. Pont., p. 255). In vieTVof these considerations it will be as well as accept the data reproduced in Table 2, CHURCH HISTORY

If large of the clergy were defecting they must have ~h~ pattern of Symmachus' extensive building activity was thus taken their churches with them. It will be worth our while examining ,.he radically different from that of the other early Popes. How are we to control S~mmachusand Laurentius exercised over the various churches count for this astonishing preference for building in the suburbs and The official life of Symmachus preserves a discreet silence on fmher out of the city? The obvious answer is that for much of the time this point there Seems no reason to doubt the assertion of the Laurentian life: 'Laurentius held the Roman church for roughly four years."" The same source later states that Symmachus asked ~h~~d~~i~erish building activity was a form of propaganda; lacking Control Over " hand Over to him "the churches which Laurentius held within the e city, he wished to appear powerful nonetheless.34 and from it We also karn that when Symmachusreturned to ~h~ second noteworthy feature of Symmachus' activity as a builder is by night in 501, having decided not to complete a journey to R~~~~~~, where he had been summoned by Theodoric, he rook refuge in st. Peter's basilica-not the basilica Constantiniann, which was then the usual papai residence.30 This choice of a church across the river from the is and can best be explained by assuming that it was the only one Of the great basilicas open to him. The other churches must have been in the hands Of his enemies, as Was St. Paul's: in this church a of pic- tures Of the Popes would later include the portrait, nor of syrnmachus, but of Eaurentius.31 With this in mind let US examine Symmachus' achievements as a in the Roman church. His official life in the Libsr pont$cal~ gives a list Of his achievements which is very detailed, presumably for props- ganda purposes (it even includes the toilets which he had built at st. Peter's)32 but two aspects stand out. The first is the small number of oc- casions on Which he had anything to do with churches in R~~~.only three his works (the COnStrUcti~nof a basilica of Sr. Martin, the provi- sion of Steps within the church of SS.John and Paul, and the building of an Oratory of Ss. C0SmaS and Damian in St. Mary'S basilica) were within the 'ld city walls. Duchesne has listed all early papal foundations and restorations according to their location, and the data he assembled may be rearranged to form the following table.33 ban forgeries." , we are told, was exiled an eretical emperor, and took up residence just outside Rome. As Easter Table 3 pproached he was desolate because he would not be able to perform the constructions and ustornary baptisms within the Lateran, but on the advice of his priests

. petrus baptizabat." Meanwhile the priest Damasius constructed a

beyond the suburbs

29. Lib. Pont., pp. 45-46. 30. Ibid., p. 44. Papers 'l. H. K. Mann, '*The Portraits of the Popes," the ~~i~~hschool at (1920):159-204at p. 171. 32 Lib PP 261-63. Laurentius is not known to hare out any building 136 CHURCH HISTORY

story does not merely justify the basilica of Peter as a suitable place for baptisms; it also stresses the Apostle himself. This emphasis on Peter was "Pro Peccatis Patrum Puniri9':A Moral and not accidental; it occurs throughout the pamphlet Ennodius wrote to Legal Problem of the Inquisition validate the synod of 501, especially in the concluding orations which were given by Peter, Paul and the city of Rome.3gWhen the schism was KENNETWPENNINGTON over, Ennodius wrote that Peter had restored the churches.40Symma- chus' building activity was centered on St. Peter's. In pinning his hopes The first letter in Pope Innocent 111's register of his second year was on Peter and his basilica, Symmachus was swimming with a strong cur- Vergentis in senium, a letter which he sent to the city of Viterbo in March, rent, for throughout the fifth century the figure of the Apostle was play- 1199. The decretal reflected Innocent's growing concern with in ing an increasingly large part in the thinking of Romans. Pope Leo had the and established new and more stringent penalties for stressed the connections between Peter and Rome, and Peter and the pa- those who rejected or subverted the Christian faith. In Vergentis, perhaps pacy, and was buried in St. Peter's: from then on it was almost de riguer following the Roman lawyer Placentinus, Innocent imposed the tradi- for popes to be buried there.41City, Patron, and Bishop were becoming tional spiritual punishment of on heretics, equated blurred, and Symmachus made capital out of this. heresy with lese majesty, and applied to convicted heretics the sanctions The figure of Symmachus which emerges in the official life in the Liber for treason in : complete confiscation of goods, even Pontzjicalis is a majestic one, that of a great builder and endower of St. disinheriting innocent children.' The punishment was fitting, Innocent Peter's. The evidence presented here suggests that he was. during the observed, because a heretic injured celestial majesty, a crime far more early parr of his pontificate, a less imposing character who almost clung heinous than any offense committed against temporal authority. Since to the basilica of the Apostle. The synod lists, details of ordinations, and the heretics in Viterbo continued to demand his attention later in his descriptions of building activity all indicate that Symmachus' position pontificate, we do not know how effective Innocent's decree was, but during the schism was extremely insecure, and that Laurentius may well Verg-entis did establish a precedent for papal action throughout Chris- have been the stronger of the rivals. While the Italian bishops over- tendom. In order to root out all vestiges of heresy, Innocent extended whelmingly supported Symmachus (cf. Table 1 above) within Rome the the provisions of the decretal from the heretics themselves to their "sup- philobyzantine Laurentius seems to have at least held his own. In a porters, defenders, and harborers." The decretal marked the first firm Rome being governed from Ravenna by the , and which was step of his increasingly grim policy to use all of the resources of the to see within a few decades the death in captivity of shortly church to extirpate heresy from Christian lands. The step from Viterbo after his return from Constantinople, and the execution of , to the Albigensian crusade was a short one. And, since heresy was an ec- who had defended a fellow senator against a charge of treachery arising clesiastical crime, both laymen and clerics who were accused of heresy from correspondence with the East, I would suggest that the affairs of had their cases heard in ecclesiastical , giving lawyers another item the schism point to a conclusion of some significanc: the Roman church to add to the list of cases in which the pope could exercise jurisdiction in in the late fifth and early sixth centuries harbored a pro-Greek element the secular world. Until the persecution of heresy fell into desuetude in whose strength and continuity should not be underestimated. the eighteenth century, the law of heresy was governed by the stark pro- 39. Ennodius, n. 21, pp. 62-67. visions of Vergentis. The inquisition's modern chronicler, Henry Charles 40. Ennodius,Ep. 9.30 (p. 318, lines 28-29). Lea, remarked that "if there were those [in the fifteenth and sixteenth 41. J. C. Picard, "Etude sur I'emplacement des tombes des papes du 111~au IX%iecle,"MC langes d'archiologie et d'histoire 81 (1969):725-782 at pp. 747-749. It is noteworthy that, as far as we know, in the other major Italian sees it remained customary for departed bishops to be buried in any one of a number of churches. At Ravenna, during this pe- riod John was buried in the church of St. Agatha (Agnellus qui et Andreas, Codex pont$calis eccl~siaeRavennutis, ed. A. Testi Rasponi (Bologna, 1924), p. 132), Aurelian in the church of the Apostles (p. 161) and Ecclesius in the church of St. Vitalis (p. 167). Early episcopal catalogues for Milan frequently contradict each other on the burial places of bishops during this period, but they make it clear that no pattern was emerg- ing (Anonymi Mediolanesb , Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, fasc. 359-360, p. 98). nnington is professor in the Department of History, Syracuse University,

Top View