The Laurentian Schkm: East and West in the Roman Church In 498, four days after the death of Pope Anastasius II, two men were elected and consecrated bishop of Rome on the one day, the deacon Symmachus and the archpriest Laurentius. Fighting broke out between their supporters and the dispute was referred to Theodoric, the Ostro- gothic king of Italy, who declared that Symmachus was to be pope. A synod 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 Ravenna, 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 Altinum 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 synods 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 churches of Rome, 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. Caspar, 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 Constantinople, asking whether this was true and enclosing a statement the fifth century turned into the sixth. of their faith 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 patriarchs 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 Acacian schism since 482.3 The new pope held im to abandon the uncompromising position of earlier popes; 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 baptisms 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 state 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 catholic 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 Christology 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 holy orders," 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 [patriarch 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.