Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:19:37.401Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Laurentian Schism: East and West in the Roman Church

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

John Moorhead
John Moorhead
Affiliation:
lecturer in the Department of History, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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 Ostrogothic 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 relations 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.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 125 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. cf. in general Caspar, E., Geschichte des Papsttums II (Tübingen, 1933), pp. 87–129;Google ScholarCessi, R., “Dalla scisma laurenziano alla pacificazione religiosa con l'oriente,” Archivio della reale societa romana di storia patria 43 (1920):209–321;Google Scholaribid. “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 Ensslin, Italy W., Theoderich der Grosse (Munich, 1947)Google Scholar and, for the Empire, , Capizzi, C., L'imperatore Anastasio I (Rome, 1969).Google Scholar

2. Anastasius, Epistula 1. Epistulae Romanorum Pontificum Vol. 1, ed. Thiel, A. (Braunsberg, 1868).Google Scholar

3. For this schism, documented by Schwartz, EduardPublizistische Sammlungen zum acacianschen Schisma (Munich, 1934)Google Scholar in Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Abt. Neue Folge, Hft. 10; see among modern discussions Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (Cambridge, 1972.)Google Scholar

4. Discussed by Cowdrey, H. E. J., “Anastasius II and Augustine's doctrine of holy orders,” Studia Patristica II, pt. 2 (1972):311–315.Google Scholar

5. Excerpta Valesiana (=Anonymi Valesiani pars posterior, ed. Mommsen, Th., Monumenta Germaniae Historica Auctores Antiquissimi (Hereafter, MGH AA) Vol. 9) 64;Google ScholarLib(er) Pont(ificalis) (ed. Duchesne, Louis, 2 ed. 3 vols. (Paris, 1955–1957) p. 44;Google ScholarLector, Theodore, Historia ecclesiastica 2. 16–17.Google Scholar (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 86, ed. J. P. Migne.)Google Scholar

6. Lib. Pont., p. 258; for earlier bad relations between Pope Gelasius and the see of Thessalonica cf. Gelasius, Ep. 18Google Scholar (ed. Thiel, op. cit.)

7. Collectio Avellana (= Epistulae Imperatorum pontificum aliorum, ed. Günthur, O., Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vol. 35), p. 102.Google Scholar

8. Ibid.

9. While the letter is Sent in the names of Dioscorus the priest and Chaeremon the lector, it must have been sent with the consent of the patriarch of Alexandria as it invites Anastasius to write or send a messenger to him (Ibid., p. 473).

10. Lib. Pont., p. 258.

11. Lib. Pont., p. 46. It is perhaps worth recalling that two lives of Symmachus are preserved, one favorable to him in the Lib. Pont. (hereafter referred to as the “official life”), and the other favorable to Laurentius in a document generally referred to as the Laurentian fragment (hereafter the “Laurentian life;” cf. Duchesne's comments in his introduction to Lib. Pont., pp. xxx-xxxii).

12. Execerpla Valesiana 64.

13. Colletio Avellana 102 (at p. 468); for general discussion cf. Charanis, P., Church and State in the Later Roman Empire (Madison, 1939).Google Scholar

14. Lib. Pont., p. 44.

15. Hist. eccl. 2.16–17.

16. A similar conclusion, rather bluntly stated, was arrived at by Duchesne, L., L'église au Vie siècle (Paris, 1925), pp. 112–113.Google Scholar Other factors have been emphasized by Ch. Pietri, , “Le sécle le peuple chrétien et les partis du cirque à Rome sous le pape Symmaque (498–514),” Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 78 (1966): 123–139;CrossRefGoogle Scholar I would merely indicate doubts as to whether some of his evidence bears the weight he puts upon it, and note that ideological orientation of the circus factions, which figures in his argument, is by no means proven: cf. on Byzantine circus parties Cameron, A., “Heresies and factions,” Byzantion 44 (1974): 92–120.Google Scholar

17. The proceedings of the synods are to be found in MGH AA, Vol. 12, pp. 399–455. For the sake of convenience I have followed Mommsen's dates, although they have been criticized (Picotti, G. B., “I sinodi romani nello scismo laurneziano” in Studi storici in honore di Gioacchino Volpe, Ed. Sansoni, G. C. (Florence, 1958), pp. 743–786, esp. pp. 736–766);Google Scholar the actual dates are of no importance to my argument. The first synod records more signatures than there were bishops present; some bishops must have arrived 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 in 502, diminished during the synods. Only in the last case is the number significant; perhaps some were concerned at the direction proceedings took and left without signing 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 fellow bishops.

None of the thirty-six priests or four deacons present at the synod of 502 seems to have 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 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.

18. Ibid., p.410, sig. 1.

19. Ibid., p.432.

20. In particular the role of Hormisdas should be noted, Ibid., pp. 444–447.

21. Ennodius, , Ep. 5. 13;Google Scholar 6.33 ed. Vogel, F., MGH AA, vol.7.Google Scholar

22. Lib. Pont., p. 287.

23. Ibid., p. 261.

24. Symmachus, , Ep. 8Google Scholar

25. I have ignored deaths. It is known that some of Symmachus' clerical supporters were killed during the schism (Lib. Pont., p. 261), but despite its partiality for Symmachus the official biography mentions only two, a small proportion of the number who attended 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 deacon of this apostolic see” was until the end of his life an adherent of Laurentius (Gregory, , Dialogorum libri 4, 4.42, ed. Moricca, V. (Rome, 1924),Google Scholar for Paschasius see also the introductory letter to the Vita Severini of Eugippius, ed. Knoell, P., Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 9. Pt. 2, pp. 1–6).Google Scholar Yet Paschasius is not mentioned in any of the synod 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 by Symmachus, and subsequently changed sides, or made a deacon by Laurentius or Peter of Altinum. The problem of ordinations is further considered below, pp. 10–12.

26. Lib. Pont., p. 260.

27. Ibid., pp. 255, 258, 263, 272, 276. Frequently the data of the Liber Pontficalis is open to question, and Duchesne took a negative view of the reliability of the ordination figures “au moins pour les quatre ou cinq premiers siècles” (intro, to his edition of Lib. Pont., p. cliv), but I am inclined to accept the figures here, partly because of what we know of the date of the composition of the Lib. Pont. (see Duchesne's intro., pp. xxxiii-xlviii, esp. pp. xliii-xlvi), and partly because the figures have the feel of authenticity. One may feel disposed to question the figures given for Gelasius, who is said to have ordained well over twice as many clergy as Anastasius, although his pontificate was only 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 view of these considerations it will be as well as accept the data reproduced in Table 2.

28. Seen. 25.

29. Lib. Pont., pp. 45–46.

30. Ibid., p.44.

31. Mann, H. K., “The Portraits of the Popes,” Papers of the British School at Rome 9 (1920): 159–204 at p. 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32. Lib. Pont., pp. 261–63. Laurentius is not known to have carried Out any building activity.

33. Cf. Lib. Pont., pp. cxli-cxlii. The figures in Table 3 are not large; nevertheless they display a clear-cut trend.

34. There was a fine recent papal precedent for building for propaganda purposes: cf. Krautheimer, R., “The architecture of Sixtus III: a fifth-century renaissance?” in Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, ed. Meiss, M. (New York, 1961), 1:291–302.Google Scholar

35. Lib. Pont., p. 262.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., pp. 242–243.

38. Gesta Liberii (Patrologia Latina 8, ed. J. P. Migne, col.1388–1393).

39. Ennodius, n. 21, pp. 62–67.

40. Ennodius, , Ep. 9. 30(p. 318, lines 28–29).Google Scholar

41. Picard, J. C., “Etude sur l'emplacement des tombes des papes du IIIe au IXe siècle,” Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire 81 (1969):725–782 at pp. 747–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 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 period John was buried in the church of St. Agatha (Agnellus qui et Andreas, , Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. Rasponi, A. Testi (Bologna, 1924), p. 132),Google Scholar 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 emerging (Anonymi Mediolanesis libellus, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, fasc. 359–360, p. 98).