«Inter duas potestates»: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions) [New ed.] 9783631659403, 9783653053586, 3631659407

Citation preview

Monika Ożóg holds a post-doctoral degree (habilitation) in ancient history and art history. Her researches deal with the rule of Ostrogoths in Italy, early Christian art and the legistlation of magical practices in the first century.

Monika Ożóg · Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great

This book discusses Theoderic the Great’s years of political activity, which coincided with the advent of a new era and were marked by features of two distinct civilizations. From the political and cultural viewpoint, he stood at the boundary between the Roman tradition and his Germanic origin. From the religious perspective, when he came to power in Italy at the Emperor’s behest, he found himself amid the conflict embroiling Rome and Constantinople at that time. It was the so-called Acacian schism centred around the issue of the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon (451) with its teaching on the two natures in Christ as well as the acknowledgement of Constantinople as the principal see of the Church in the East. Another ecclesiastical – and strictly Roman – problem noted in the Liber Pontificalis is the Laurentian schism, named after Lawrence, who was elected Pope on the same day as Symmachus.

11

Monika Ożóg

Inter duas potestates:

The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great

European Studies in T heolog y, Philosophy and Histor y of Relig ions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

ISBN 978-3-631-65940-3

EST 11_265940_Ozog_AM_A5HCk PLE.indd 1

13.11.15 KW 46 12:23

Monika Ożóg holds a post-doctoral degree (habilitation) in ancient history and art history. Her researches deal with the rule of Ostrogoths in Italy, early Christian art and the legistlation of magical practices in the first century.

EST 11_265940_Ozog_AM_A5HCk PLE.indd 1

Monika Ożóg · Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great

This book discusses Theoderic the Great’s years of political activity, which coincided with the advent of a new era and were marked by features of two distinct civilizations. From the political and cultural viewpoint, he stood at the boundary between the Roman tradition and his Germanic origin. From the religious perspective, when he came to power in Italy at the Emperor’s behest, he found himself amid the conflict embroiling Rome and Constantinople at that time. It was the so-called Acacian schism centred around the issue of the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon (451) with its teaching on the two natures in Christ as well as the acknowledgement of Constantinople as the principal see of the Church in the East. Another ecclesiastical – and strictly Roman – problem noted in the Liber Pontificalis is the Laurentian schism, named after Lawrence, who was elected Pope on the same day as Symmachus.

11

Monika Ożóg

Inter duas potestates:

The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great

European Studies in T heolog y, Philosophy and Histor y of Relig ions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

13.11.15 KW 46 12:23

Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 11

Monika Ożóg

Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great Translated by Marcin Fijak

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

This publication was supported by the University of Opole.

ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-65940-3 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-653-05358-6 (E-Book) DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-05358-6 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2016 All rights reserved. Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH. Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Table of Contents Acknowledgements�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������7 Introduction���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9 1. Method�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12 2. The Liber Pontificalis as a primary source��������������������������������������������������������13 3. Current state of research������������������������������������������������������������������������������������17

Chapter I The arian church of the Goths��������������������������������������������������������������������������23 1. The Anti-Nicene Attitude of the Goths������������������������������������������������������������23 2. Theoderic’s “national” Arianism�����������������������������������������������������������������������38

Chapter II Liber Pontificalis 50 on Felix III (13 III 483–25 II 492)���������������������������45 1. The Beginning of Theoderic’s Rule in Italy������������������������������������������������������46 2. Theoderic and the “Acacian Schism” – a Prelude�������������������������������������������54

Chapter III Liber Pontificalis 51 on Gelasius (1 III 492–21 XI 496)���������������������������63 Chapter IV Liber Pontificalis 52 on Anastasius II (24 XI 496–19 XI 498)����������������71 Chapter V Liber Pontificalis 53 on Symmachus (22 November 498–19 July 514)�����������������������������������������������������������������������73 1. Theoderic and the “Laurentian schism” (I)�����������������������������������������������������73 2. Theoderic and the “Acacian schism” (I)�����������������������������������������������������������76 3. The synod of 499�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������78 4. Theoderic’s adventus to Rome���������������������������������������������������������������������������79 5. Theoderic and the “Laurentian schism” (II)����������������������������������������������������89 5

6. Symmachus’ legacy for the Church��������������������������������������������������������������� 109 7. Theoderic and the “Laurentian schism” (III)����������������������������������������������� 111 8. Theoderic and the “Acacian” (II) and “Laurentian” (IV) schisms�������������� 115 9. Relations with the bishops������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 117 10. Theoderic’s encounter with Hilarius�������������������������������������������������������������� 122

Chapter VI Liber Pontificalis 54 on Hormisdas (20 VII 514–6 VIII 523)������������� 125 1. 2. 3. 4.

Hormisdas’ attempt to seek reconciliation with the East��������������������������� 125 Theoderic and the “Acacian schism” (III)����������������������������������������������������� 130 Negotiations on the consulship for 519(?)���������������������������������������������������� 138 Theoderic’s policy towards the Jews�������������������������������������������������������������� 144

Chapter VII Liber Pontificalis 55 on John I (13 VIII 523–18 V 526)������������������������ 165 Chapter VIII Liber Pontificalis 56 on Felix IV (12 VII 526–22 IX 530)��������������������� 175 Chapter IX Religious aspects in the edict of Theoderic������������������������������������������������� 179 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The Authorship of the Edict���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 179 Ius asyli�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 185 De heredibus clericorum�������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 Interdictio sacrificii ritu pagano�������������������������������������������������������������������� 198 Violatio sepulcri����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203

Conclusions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 215 Abbreviations������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 221 Bibliography���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 225 Index of People��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 261 Index of Places���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 269 6

Acknowledgements The present book is a revised and enlarged English translation of the Polish edition, published by Wydawnictwo WAM, Cracow, in late 2012, which served as the basis for the fulfilment of the requirements for my post-doctoral degree in Ancient History. I would like to extend my thanks to the reviewer of this study, Professor Jerzy Strzelczyk (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan), who is an outstanding expert in the history of the Goths, for his valuable comments and positive publishing review. I would also like to thank Professor Marek Wilczyński (Pedagogical University of Cracow) for his valuable text regarding the thesis below, due to whom I could correct the flaws that were inevitable in the Polish edition. Words of gratitude and appreciation are also due to Professor Henryk Pietras SJ (Pontifical Gregorian University, Roma) for his constant encouragement to focus on the study of this subject. Last but not least, I would like to say ‘thank you’ to my husband, Kazimierz Sebastian, for his presence, my children, Kacper and Sabina Zuzanna, for their patience, and my parents, for their help and assistance in everyday duties. I am also very thankful to all those who cannot be stated here by name, but who contributed to the creation of this book by their help, patience and, most of all, by their kindness. And this point I can only express my hope that this book will make a modest contribution to the body of the scholarly publications devoted to the figure of Theoderic the Great. All translations of source texts that are not marked by name come from myself and the translation of this thesis.

7

Introduction The period following the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a very specific time in Europe’s history. In the West, Catholic Christianity had been gradually becoming a privileged religion, with the consolidation of the metropolitan structure of the Western Church and the growing authority of the Church of Rome. It was then, between the 5th and 6th century that the subsequent powers started to evolve. Among those entities, the newly founded civilitas in Italy came under the authority of Theoderic, a descendant of the Amali family, one of the more powerful rulers in Late Antiquity who would come to set the stage for the advent of a new era. He was born ca. 452/3, the son of Theodemir and Ereleuva. At the age of eight, he was sent to Constantinople, where he would spend ten years at the emperor Leo I’s court. The time at the capital provided him with the opportunities to receive some education and learn new skills. He considered the acquisition of his first dominion, the city of Singidunum (Belgrade) as the beginning of his reign, but he would formally assume the power in the Ostrogoth state only after his father’s death in 474. The seizure of Ravenna by the Ostrogoths and the subsequent death of Odoacer marked the founding of the Ostrogoth kingdom in Italy (493). King Theoderic died on 26 August 526 at Ravenna. In one of his letters addressed to the emperor, Pope Gelasius, whose fouryear-long pontificate took place during the reigns of the emperor Anastasius and Theoderic the Great, made reference to a fact that he held to be obvious: “Venerable Emperor, there are two [authorities] whose rule is supreme in this world: the authority of the holy papacy and the royal power.”1 In this case, “royal” would signify as much as “imperial.” Regardless of the specific pontiffs and emperors at a given time, the king of the Ostrogoths had to cope with the situation arising from this precarious position between the two great domains of authority, hence the first part of the title of the present book, inter duas potestates. All the measures and actions undertaken by the king had to take into account the existence of these two centres of power, i.e., the See of Rome and the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. It would be of particular relevance to Theoderic’s religious policy in view of the increasingly significant social and political role of the bishops of Rome, while the emperor at Constantinople considered himself

1 Gelasius, Epistola 12, 2, Ad Anastasium Augustum, Thiel 351: Duo sunt quippe, imperator auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur.

9

to be the supreme head of the Church (and was acknowledged as such). I have attempted to show how the king would make efforts to succeed in taking advantage of the more or less evident conflicts of interest between the two centres of authority. It should be noted that the present study does not intend to depict the socio-economic position of Rome during the pontificates of the popes in question, to provide a biographical account of Theoderic’s life and achievements, as all of these subjects have already been well discussed in a number of very good scholarly publications. I believe there is no reason to reiterate the contents that can be easily found elsewhere. Another noteworthy, and crucially important, factor is the king’s Arian faith, regarded as the Goths’ “national” religion and an integral element of their identity. Arianism placed Theoderic in opposition to the emperor and the pope, but, on the other hand, it would provide him with a neutral stance in relation to the disputes between the two. The king endeavoured to buttress his political position by forming an Arian coalition of Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Burgundians, consolidating this project with several marriages between the women of his family (notably, his daughters and sisters) and his allies. Significantly, Theoderic would not take action against Catholic Christianity, and his Arian faith would not deter him from visiting Rome or maintaining good relations with the popes. In many of his appointment letters and other documents he would speak against religious conflicts and persecutions that erupted between the Arian Goths and Catholic Romans, apparently contrary to the ruler’s will. It is often in this context that the argument of the exemplary religious tolerance prevailing in Theoderic’s kingdom would be raised, even though it is anachronistic as it seems that the actual purpose of this tolerant religious policy would be his concern for preserving the status quo and the proper balance among the Catholic Romans, Arian Goths, and Jews with their rights affirmed by many emperors in the past. In order to address the question of Theoderic’s involvement in the religious affairs of his state and his relations (as an Arian) with Christians and followers of other religions, it is necessary to take into consideration which political and cultural aspects engendered that interest and determined the prospects for his actions. Moreover, to what extent could Theoderic’s methods of exercising his authority have been conditioned by his affiliation with the Gothic traditions or, possibly, by the expectations of the Roman population of Italy and the imperial court circles of Constantinople? The coincidence of so many currents of culture and political circumstances in the broader context of this protagonist and the contemporary events is a particularly complex phenomenon. 10

In the preface to his book published in 2005, M. Vitiello refers to the need for a more exhaustive study, despite many scholarly publications dedicated to the period in question.2 It appears that the Liber Pontificalis with its biographies of the popes whose pontificates were contemporaneous with Theoderic’s reign, from Felix III3 (483–492) to Felix IV (526–530) could serve as the key source in the light of which all the other extant literary evidence could be discussed. The authors (author) of this source were concerned, perhaps more than anyone else, with the impact of the secular authorities on religious matters, taking note of generous concessions made by the rulers as well as instances of the suffering inflicted on the faithful. To put it briefly, the LP is a highly biased source, which, paradoxically, is exactly the reason it could be used as a sort of a good “guide” through the period. It is certainly true that some events may change the course of history, but such a process could be even more influenced by specific accounts of those occurrences (and the more biased they are, the more effective they may prove to be). In consequence, I would like to take a closer look at the contents of the Liber Pontificalis with the aim of discussing all the records relating to Theoderic as well as the differences in relation to the other relevant sources, drawing conclusions on what is absent in the work. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that this source is not an ordinary chronicle, as it conveys a definitely “ideological” message designed to communicate a specific view of Theoderic, and the contemporary popes, to the posterity. Another significant argument in favour of this particular source is the fact that it is often ignored in the research on Theoderic; for example, the leading prosopography makes no reference to the Liber Pontificalis in the section on the king.4 I have chosen to use the name “Theoderic” throughout the present study (the variant “Theodoric” can be found in many publications as well),5 because of the presence of this form of the name in two of the most important sources,

2 M. Vitiello, 2005a, 9: Si tratta di argomenti che, nonostante l’incremento negli ultimi degli studi sull’Italia e la Roma di V e VI secolo, necessitano di una più esauriente trattazione; il loro studio giova alla comprensione di temi più complessi e di generale interesse. 3 In actual fact, Felix II, but the Liber Pontificalis 38 mentions the antipope Felix (355–365) as Felix II, hence this particular pope is known as Felix III; cf. J. N. D. Kelly, 2006, 51–52. 4 Cf. PLRE II, 1077–1084. 5 For the forms of the king’s name used in various periods, cf. M. Wilczyński, 2001a, 415. However, the author opts for “Theodoric” (Polish: Teodoryk). For the forms of the name asf used in various sources, cf. M. Schönfeld, 1911, 232–234; H. Reichert, 1987, 671. Furthermore, some sources also mention the name Alimericus, derived from the name of Theoderic’s uncle, Valamer; cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1993, 18–19.

11

Cassiodorus and the Excerpta Valesiana. Jordanes, who wrote his Getica on the basis of Cassiodorus’ work, changed the form of the name to “Theodoric,” but the reason for his choice remains unknown. The Greek form used in Procopius’ work is Θευδεριχος, and the king would use this form of the name himself, as attested by the multiplum of Senigalla, bearing an inscription with his image.6

1. Method I have chosen the Liber Pontificalis as the primary source to be followed, which has necessarily dictated a certain measure of dependence upon this particular work. In consequence, I proceed to discuss Theoderic’s decisions and actions in the chronological order of the individual pontificates, even though this method yields chapters of very different, at times widely varying, lengths. However, it would depend on the lengths of the individual pontificates and the weight of the issues attended to and resolved by the king in agreement, or with no co-operation, with the popes. It results in the chapter arrangement in the order of the successive pontificates: II – Felix III; III – Gelasius; IV – Anastasius II; V – Symmachus; VI – Hormisdas; VII – John I; VIII – Felix IV. Assigning this pivotal role to the Liber Pontificalis (with certain exceptions as mentioned below) has imposed some limitations on the author of the present study. For instance, some of the crucial problems related to the king’s religious policy recurring throughout his 30-year-long reign have to reappear in as many as several chapters. At a first glance, it could give the reader an impression of the presence of some unnecessary repetitions in the course of the chapters, which could have very likely been avoided if the structure of the book had been oriented on the particular problems rather than on the pontificates. On the other hand, Theoderic would undertake to deal with the same, or very similar, issues differently depending on the circumstances originating from the reign of each individual emperor or the pontificate of each individual pope. It has been my intention to discuss various aspects of Theoderic’s politics inter duas potestates in their specific, historically conditioned forms. Besides, selecting

6 REX THEODERICVS VICTOR GENTIVM; cf. M. Ożóg, 2011b, 51–58. Some authors describe this medalion incorrectly. P. Heather is convinced that the solid of Anastasius is Theoderic’s medalion, he describes it attaching an illustration of the solid on which bears the emperor himself! (P. Heather, 2013: Ch. 2: A Philosopher in Purple. Semper Augustus). M. Mączyńska in turn gives the wrong form of the legend. Cf. M. Mączyńska, 1996, 219 (the same mistake occurs with this author in the same thesis issued under a different title cf. M. Mączyńska, 2013, 224.).

12

any other source as the primary one would have possibly created a different set of limitations. Apart from the material and chapter arrangement concept drawn from the Liber Pontificalis, the present work contains two chapters that seem to be of particular importance in the broader context of the subject-matter, but these questions could not have been adequately discussed on the basis of the Liber Pontificalis alone, namely the Arian faith of the Goths in general, and of Theoderic in particular (ch. I) and the so-called Edict of Theoderic, which is very likely a document of Ostrogoth provenance. The edict serves as the source basis for the final chapter (ch. IX); in my opinion, the important contents of this document, such as many precepts concerning religious issues (ius asyli, de heredibus clericorum, interdictio sacrifici ritu pagano, violatio sepulcri) could not have been omitted in a comprehensive account of this topic. As I have pointed out, the question of the authorship of the LP continues to be a subject of scholarly research, hence it has been necessary to include a section dealing with this topic. Theoderic’s religious policy is best reflected in his approach to the “Laurentian” and “Acacian” schisms. Although the former one may be regarded as a controversy within the Church of Rome, the political dispute between the followers and opponents of a reconciliation with Constantinople (at odds with Rome amid the socalled “Acacian schism”) could be clearly seen at its inception. It would be difficult to approach these two schisms separately, with no attention to the chronology of the events, in the context of a discussion of Theoderic’s religious policy. For this reason, I have clearly marked out the individual stages of these two largely overlapping controversies. During the research work done in preparation for the writing of this study, I had several opportunities to present some of the conclusions as part of articles and conference papers, with the reservation that they would form part of a more comprehensive treatment of the subject. The information concerning such publications and papers can be found in footnotes.7

2. The Liber Pontificalis as a primary source It is not my intention to suggest that the Liber Pontificalis could be treated as a fundamental source for the research into the figure of Theoderic for every single aspect of the study. I shall only make an attempt to justify why I have chosen to give prominence to this particular collection of popes’ biographies in the present 7 Cf. M. Ożóg, 2010, 191–199; 2011a, 97–112; 2011b, 43–58; 2012a, 105–121; 2012b, 107–126; M. Ożóg, H. Pietras, 2011, 85–96.

13

work dedicated to Theoderic’s religious policy. Of course, my choice to focus on the LP does not mean that the other sources relevant to the subject have been disregarded or their importance diminished. It would be simply stating the obvious that all sources are biased and it is the historian’s duty to identify the truth. The principle would also hold true for the sources on Theoderic and the Goths. As will be shown in a presentation of the other sources, the authors of the documents under consideration had their own likes and dislikes, and it would have an impact on how the events were to be described. For instance, Jordanes’ Getica, which is basically a version of Cassiodorus’ History of the Goths, represents a view of the events that puts Theoderic (Cassiodorus’ patron) in a favourable light. A similar account can be found in the anonymous Excerpta Valesiana, at least up to a certain point, as in the depiction of the final years of Theoderic’s reign the author shows so much indignation at the Ostrogoth ruler’s actions and offers such a radically different appraisal of his conduct that it would seem to imply the existence of two different authors involved in the composition of this source. In view of the fact that the main theme of the present study is Theoderic’s religious policy, it would stand to reason to rely on an overtly ecclesiastical source that offers an account of the king’s attitudes and actions from the perspective of the Roman Curia. It is easy to see that the papacy would have regarded the political activity of the Arian king with a certain measure of reserve.8 For this reason, a source composed within the realm of the papal influence may serve as a counterpoint to the clearly biased sources dependent on Cassiodorus’ work. For many centuries, Damasius and Jerome had been credited with the authorship of the Liber Pontificalis. Among various attributions that would follow, the most significant was the 16th-century identification of the anonymous author with Anastasius Bibliothecarius, which would be convincingly disproved in the 19th century.9 The question of the authorship of the LP continues to be a subject of debate to this day. Passing over the historical deliberations, I would begin with the modern editions by Luis Duchesne10 and Theodore Mommsen.11 According to Duchesne, the original work was written in Rome ca. 530, but it would survive only in the form of two epitomes, which he named Abrégé Fèlicien 8 Cf. Ch. I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.” 9 For an informative overview of those opinions, see L. Duchesne, 1877, 1–3. 10 Cf. Le Liber Pontificalis, texte, introduction et commentaire par l’abbé Louis Marie Duchesne, tome premier, Paris 1886 (recension I: 48–116; recension II: from p. 117; Fragmentum Laurentianum: 44–46). 11 Cf. Libri Pontificalis pars prior, ed. Theodor Mommsen, MGH GPR, Berlin 1898.

14

and Abrégé Cononien, whereas Theodor Mommsen would refer to them, respectively, as Epitome Feliciana and Epitome Cononiana. Both of them use the abbreviations F, for Felix IV (530), and K, for Conon (687), marking the pontificates that constitute the end period for each version.12 Apart from these two texts, there exists a version known as p, which would be, according to Duchesne, a second recension of the first version, composed shortly after 530, with as many as several decades missing, and subsequently resumed and continued until the pontificate of Adrian II, i.e., up to 872.13 Among the manuscripts that preserve the text in its fragments, perhaps the most noteworthy one is the so-called Fragmentum Laurentianum, extant in the 6th-century manuscript XXII of Verona.14 This source features the Symmachus note and enumerates several of his successors, with the same numerals as in the other copies of the LP. It may have possibly been some parallel Liber Pontificalis version, yet with an essentially different composition; contrary to the other surviving recensions, which would be definitely supportive of Symmachus and critical of Laurence, it clearly represents the interests of those in favour of the latter figure.15 On the basis of the extant epitomes, Duchesne offered his own reconstruction of the first recension. However, to embrace this nonetheless very arbitrary effort, it would be necessary to agree with some of the fundamental assumptions made by this eminent scholar: firstly, the F and K are indeed the epitomes of the first recension and, secondly, a compilation of the contents drawn from the both texts may impartially reflect the original text. Likewise, Mommsen assumed that the F and K are summaries of the first recension, but dating from the 7th century.16 The arrangement of his edition, with juxtapositions of lections in the individual manuscript groups, differs from that of Duchesne. However, it does not seem to provide much information concerning the primary subject of this study, where details on Theoderic’s religious policy would be of greater use than various examples of papal foundations. Approaching the question from an archaeologist’s perspective that would presuppose particular interest in the vestiges of the material culture as depicted in the Liber Pontificalis, Herman Geertman arrives at the conclusions which are opposite to the propositions put forward by Duchesne and Mommsen, and argues 12 Cf. L. Duchesne, LP 1, XLIX–LXVII. 13 For further elaborations on the text of the LP, extending well past the period in question, cf. O. Bertolini, 1970, 390–395. 14 Cf. L. Duchesne, 1877, 24–25, 41. 15 Cf. Ch. V: “LP 53 on Symmachus.” 16 Cf. T. Mommsen, MGH GPR, VII–XVIII; LXIX–LXXIV.

15

that the F and K are in fact summaries, or readaptations, of the text known as p, resulting in its elevation to the rank of the original.17 Geertman’s argumentation has been revised by Lidia Capo, who cites the example of the biographical note on Symmachus and asserts that the F would appear to have been earlier than p and there is no ground for seeking a different “archetype” for the two epitomes, as the F would fulfil all the formal requirements for the role.18 Therefore, the F would be the original first recension, K – a reworking dependent on the F, but composed with the use of some new documents, whereas the so-called second recension (alternatively, the second edition), i.e., the text known as p, would have been written shortly after the F, in an attempt to make a synthesis of the contents from that work and the K. It should be noted that the text of the K relied in its “summarized” account of the later developments, which are beyond the scope of the present book, on the basis of the p.19 Another important point is the question of the author and the objective of the Liber Pontificalis. Duchesne draws a hypothetical link between the origin of the source and the popes’ portraits from the Basilica of San Paolo fuori le Mura, the work dating back to the time of Symmachus’ pontificate and the “Laurentian schism.”20 Until as late as the fire of 1823, an image of Laurence had been included in the gallery of the popes’ portraits inside that basilica church, apparently a testimony to the significant influence of his followers at the time.21 It seems that there has been a general consensus on the ecclesiastical provenance of the text; nonetheless, this product of the Lateran milieu is not an official document of the Holy See. The authors had drawn on the archival records, showing much concern for the clarity of language and ensuring that the text would be more accessible to broader audiences.22 These conclusions would suggest that the F text could be regarded as the primary source on the years of Theoderic’s reign. It reflects the views close to the Roman Curia, to the circles satisfied with the king’s resolutions in the vital matters such as the controversy resulting from the contested election of Symmachus and Laurence, the dispute between the Roman Curia and the senators over the alienation of church property (settled in 507), and the “Acacian schism.” All these issues have been discussed in the present work. 17 Cf. H. Geertman, 2004, 152 and 270. 18 Cf. L. Capo, 2009, 22–25, referring to R. Cessi, 1919, 71–96. 19 Cf. L. Capo, 2009, 24–25 and 45. 20 Cf. L. Duchesne, 1877, 36. 21 Cf. R. Davis, 1989, V. 22 Cf. L. Capo, 2009, 89–90.

16

This contentment of the milieu of the Liber Pontificalis may have contributed to the distinctly biased and partial nature of the source. As it appears, this would seem to provide just another argument for the choice of the Liber Pontificalis as the primary source, namely the existence of what could be called an alternative version, the Fragmentum Laurentianum, very critical of Symmachus as well as the king’s support he had received, and harbouring suspicions of intrigue and corruption. In terms of attention and interest, I have decided to give it the same treatment as the text of the F, which has been complemented at some places with the details from the p, even though one could not fail to notice at times that this particular document would be of a markedly libellous nature. The Liber Pontificalis text as quoted throughout the book comes in most part from the recension known as F; even if the current or future research should prove it would differ from the text of the original recension, it would still be the closest thereto. At certain points, it has been necessary to take note of the variants from the various manuscripts, in particular where it may be of significance in terms of a more adequate understanding or a better depiction of Theoderic’s religious policy. All the citations from the second recension are marked with square brackets; I have also used the paragraphs numbering as per the same version. To date, the Liber Pontificalis has not received very much attention in Polish academic literature. A noteworthy effort in the field is a new edition and Polish translation of the source, prepared by the editors of the series Synodi et Collectiones Legum as part of a research grant by courtesy of the National Centre of Science. All the contents drawn from the Liber Pontificalis have been verified through juxtaposing them with the other relevant sources, with particular emphasis on the earliest works such as Jordanes’ Getica and the Excerpta Valesiana. For the dating of the events under discussion, I have decided to rely on a majority of the contemporary chronicles, especially Cassiodorus, Victor of Tunnuna, and Marcellinus Comes, as well as several church histories. Any other sources pertinent to the present subject have been taken into consideration in proportion to their presumable credibility and relevance to the topic.

3.  Current state of research The existence of a very extensive amount of scholarly literature on the history of Goths and Ostrogoths attests to the enduring popularity of this theme.23 Perhaps 23 Cf., e.g., G. Pfeilschifter, 1910; L. Schmidt, 1933; P. Scardigli, 1973; T. S. Burns, 1980; J. D. Randers-Pehrson, 1983; J. Strzelczyk, 1984, S. Teillet, 1984; T. S. Burns, 1991; P. Heather, J. Matthews, The Goths in the fourth century, Liverpool University

17

the most outstanding expert in the field is Herwig Wolfram, of whose work Geschichte der Goten (1979)24 there have been several editions and translations. Over the course of years, the Austrian scholar has made certain modifications in his views on the origin of the Goths, which would testify to his continued commitment to exploring this question. On the other hand, the renowned methodologist Walter Goffart, the author of Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accommodation,25 takes a somewhat critical approach to Wolfram’s views. Finally, let us also mention a considerable body of publications dedicated to Theoderic and the related topics. He has been figured prominently in many works published in the 19th century26 and the interwar period,27 as well as monographic studies28 and books for the general public.29 Furthermore, Theoderic has been pictured as a protagonist of legends30 and a generous patron of arts.31 Some of the authors have concentrated on depictions of the ruler in the sources dating from before the year 1000, as featured in several articles32 and an extensive synthesis by Andreas Goltz entitled Barbar – König – Tyrann. Das Bild Theoderichs des Großen in der Überlieferung des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts.33 The author has

Press 1991; P. Heather, 1992; P. Amory, 1997; P. Heather, 1997; P. Heather, 2005; P. Heather, 2010. 24 Cf. H. Wolfram, 1979. 25 Cf. W. Goffart, 2011. 26 Cf. A. F. L. S. De Grimoard Beauvoir, 1846; G. Garollo, 1879; K. M. Emmendingen, 1888; W. J. Lancaster, 1896; T. Hodgkin, 1897. 27 Cf. H. Reier, 1934; M. Brion, 1935; J. Prestel, 1935; M. Brion, 1936; H. Neumann, 1937; G. Vetter, 1938; H. Eicke, 1938. 28 Cf. W. Ensslin, 1959; H. J. Zimmermann, 1972; L. Várady, 1984; J. Moorhead, 1992; G. Caravita, 1993; A. Giovandito, 1993; A. Engler, 1998; F. M. Ausbüttel, 2003; J. J. Arnold, 2008. 29 Cf. J. Prestel, 1935; H. Malewska, 1972; S. Salti, R. Venturini, 2001; R. Laidlaw, 2008. 30 Cf. C. Cipolla, 1892a, 7–98; G. Zink, 1950; J. F. Jones, 1952, 1094–1102; W. Haug, 1971, 43–62; D. McLintock, 1987, 99–106; J. Martínez Pizarro, 1995, 176–179; S. Pedone, 2008, 273–281. 31 For Theoderic’s building activity, cf. C. Cecchelli, 1960, 747–774; P. Verzone, 1968; R. Sörries, 1983; M. J. Johnson, 1988, 73–96; S. G. MacCormack, 1990, 230–240; B. Pferschy, 1989, 259–328; C. La Rocca, 1993, 451–490; C. Barsanti, 2008b, 185–202; A. Augenti, 2007, 425–454; I. Wood, 2007, 249–263; D. M. Deliyannis, 2010a, 106–198. 32 Cf. A. Pizzi, 1994–95, 259–282; P. Lamma, 1968b, 187–195; A. Goltz, 2002, 547–572. 33 Cf. A. Goltz, 2008.

18

already dealt with the religious aspects of Theoderic’s politics in his M.A. thesis (unpublished).34 The figure of Theoderic, at times depicted in negative terms as well, would continue to remain popular through the Middle Ages. Notably, as Dietrich von Bern, he was a protagonist of many German and Icelandic poems, ballads, and sagas.35 In a majority of the publications to date, Theoderic is portrayed as a great leader, the ruler of the Ostrogoths, later the king of Italy. He is often depicted as a figure who ushered in a new era. It is worth noting that his religious policy tends to be treated rather peripherally and would be predominantly discussed in the context of his internal or foreign policies. Obviously, any religious policy ought to be considered as an integral part of the internal and foreign relations, but most of the relevant works would talk of the religious aspects of his rule only to a limited extent. The most comprehensive view of this theme was presented in the late19th-century study Der Ostgotenkönig Theoderich der Grosse und die katholische Kirche by Georg Pfeilschifter.36 Several decades later, Erich Caspar would take up the same subject in part. Unfortunately, his book entitled Theoderich der Grosse und das Papsttum37 would not reach beyond the texts comprised in the  Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Another noteworthy publication is Richard Irwin Harper’s The Relationship Between Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, and the papacy, A.D. 490–A.D. 526 (1961).38 References to Theoderic’s relations with the papacy and the Church can also be found in several comprehensive histories of Late Antiquity, the papacy, and the Church.39 I have relied for a major part on the now classic Geschichte des Papsttums. Von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft by Erich Caspar40 and Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. 2, by Ernest Stein.41 Among the most interesting articles, let us mention those by Francis Dvornik42 and Thomas Noble.43 The authors point out that despite his affiliation with Arianism (after all, a Christian

34 Cf. A. Goltz, 1995. 35 E.g., Hildebrandslied, Nibelungenlied, Thidrekssaga. 36 Cf. G. Pfeilschifter, 1896. 37 Cf. E. Caspar, 1931. 38 Cf. R. I. Harper, 1961. 39 Cf. F. X. Seppelt, 1931; J. Haller, 1951; J. Richards, 1979, 57–135; J.-M. Mayeur, Ch. Pietri, L. Pietri, 1995. 40 Cf. E. Caspar, 1933. 41 Cf. E. Stein, 1949. 42 Cf. F. Dvornik, 1955, 3–23. 43 Cf. T. F. X. Noble, 1993, 395–423; T. F. X. Noble, 1995, 505–540.

19

heresy), the king would play an active role in the relations with the Holy See. However, the assumed profile of these works would not allow much space for discussing Theoderic’s relationship with the Church more comprehensively or in more detail. It cannot be said, of course, that there is no scholarly literature on the subject; apart from the above-mentioned publications, there is also a certain amount of minor studies that attempt to deal with the problem of Theoderic’s involvement in church affairs or his relations with the popes. The most extensive amount of literature deals with the pontificate of Symmachus, overshadowed by a schism within the Church of Rome.44 The pope was the main subject of an international symposium whose end result was a collection of academic papers entitled Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514), with the most notable contributions by V. Grossi, M. Montesano, M. Cecchelli.45 Aside from Symmachus, the popes who have generated much scholarly attention are Gelasius,46 for his uncompromising stance in his relations with the emperor, and John,47 who was imprisoned on Theoderic’s orders and died in captivity. Besides, a considerable number of publications have been devoted to the two schisms of the period, “Acacian”48 and “Laurentian.”49 Some of the issues concerning Theoderic’s religious policy can be found in modern publications on the history of the Gothic rule in Italy (e.g., H. Löwe,50 L. Várady,51 A. Engler,52 F. M. Ausbüttel53) and papers delivered as part of the

44 Cf. W. T. Townsend, 1937, 233–259; Ch. Pietri, 1997, 771–787; for more literature, see also the references for the sections on the “Laurentian schism.” 45 Cf. Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514), 2000. 46 Cf. H. Koch, 1935; A. K. Ziegler, 1942, 412–437; W. Ensslin, 1955, 661–668; W. Ullmann, 1981. 47 Cf. W. Ensslin, 1951, 127–134; H. Löwe, 1953, 83–100. 48 Cf. S. Salaville, 1920, 2153–2178; E. Schwartz, 1934; W. T. Townsend, 1936, 78–86; W. T. Townsend, 1937, 233–259; W. Haacke, 1939. 49 Cf. R. Cessi, 1919, 71–96; A. Alessandrini, 1944, 167–197; J. Moorhead, 1978b, 127–128; P. A. B. Llewellyn, 1976, 417–427; C. Pietri, 1997, 771–787; A. Schwarcz, 2004, 40–41; T. Sardella, 2000, 11–37; T. Sardella, 1996; E. Wirbelauer, 2000, 39–51; E. Wirbelauer, 1993; C. Capizzi, 2000, 79–110; P. A. B. Llewellyn, 1977, 245–275; G. B. Picotti, 1958, 743–786. 50 Cf. H. Löwe, 1956. 51 Cf. L. Várady, 1984. 52 Cf. A. Engler, 1998. 53 Cf. F. M. Ausbüttel, 2003; F. M. Ausbüttel, 2007, 137–155.

20

international conferences of Milan54 and Ravenna.55 Another valuable source of reference I have used is Romanobarbarica (an irregular scholarly series published since 1976) dedicated to the Barbaro-Roman cultural relations. Considering the title Inter duas potestates, I would not have overlooked the publications dealing with the religious policies of the Byzantine emperors, among which the works of the Polish scholars Jan Prostko-Prostyński and Rafał Kosiński are of particular interest.56

54 Cf. Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia, vol. 1–2, 1993. 55 Cf. Carile A. (ed.), 1995. 56 Cf. P. Charanis, 1939b; P. Lamma, 1968a, 27–57; J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1994; R. Kosiński, 2010b.

21

Chapter I The arian church of the Goths 1.  The Anti-Nicene Attitude of the Goths It was around the year 341 that Wulfila, a descendant of Cappadocian captives (seized in 258), who had been raised among the Goths, was consecrated bishop by a man named Eusebius.57 The sources tend to rely on Philostorgius58 and report that the consecration had probably been performed by Eusebius of Nicomedia.59 Even though it is not stated explicitly, it would correspond with the Goths’ eventual embrace of Arianism. If the identification of the man called Eusebius with the Bishop of Nicomedia is correct, one could do nothing but agree with the view that the consecration would have taken place at Antioch during a great synod summoned to consecrate a church there in the same year.60 Philostorgius notes that it had happened at the time of the Gothic envoys’ visit to Constantinople, which would have called for Eusebius presence there. Thus, the clergymen who assisted him would not have participated in the Antioch synod but in the synodus endemousa at the capital.61 The ambiguity of this mention may result in disparate interpretations. For instance, Timothy D. Barnes says that Wulfila’s consecration may have taken place in connection with the celebration of Constantine’s tricennalia that commenced in 335.62 I have noted that this would fit in with the later Arian faith of the Goths, but drawing a link between that fact and the consecration performed by Eusebius appears to be anachronistic. At that time, Arianism had not been established as

57 Cf. Philostorgius, HE II, 5; K. Schäferdiek, 1977, 502; K. Schäferdiek, 1979, 107–146; H. Sivan, 1995, 280–292; E. Prinzivalli, 2004, 50; A. Chauvot, 1995, 864. On Wulfila’s life, consecration, and the disputed date of his death, cf. R. Gryson 1980, 144–161. The years 261–262 have been proposed as well; S. Longosz, 1983, 126–159 (also a list of the sources referring to Wulfila); K. Ilski, 1995, 68–78; M. Wilczyński, 2005, 244–245. 58 Philostorgius (368–433) was an Arian and the author of the Church History in 12 volumes that encompass the years 300–425. 59 Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 341), Patriarch of Constantinople since 338. 60 Cf. Antioch (341), SCL 1, 129–142. 61 Cf. SCL 6, 151, note A. 62 Cf. T. D. Barnes, 1990, 541–545. For a discussion of all the possibilities, see P. J. Heather, J. Matthews, 1991, 132–133.

23

an organized Church or even an ecclesial community, and the bishops whose theological views would have been close to those of Arius were legitimate hierarchs who led the followers of the Nicene Creed and vice versa. Moreover, in as early as 341 no one would have acted against the Arian faith with the aid of a written creed. Arianism would only just begun to separate itself from the Church, which would have taken place towards the late 330s.63 The opinion proposed by Henryk Pietras, which I assume to be correct, is a relatively recent argument that is different from the textbook point of view, yet it has not seen any critical response to date. In 360, Wulfila took part in the synod of Constantinople, which adopted the Nike creed, as a matter of fact the so-called fourth formula of Sirmium, which had been accepted at Rimini not long before.64 As much as it was an anti-Nicene position, it would not have been tantamount, in all likelihood, to a conscious adoption of Arianism. Let us now have a look at this particular creed and consider the question if Wulfila could have realized it might have involved some sort of a catch. “We believe in One God, Father Almighty, from whom are all things; And in the Only-begotten Son of God, begotten from God before all ages and before every beginning, by whom all things were made, visible and invisible, and begotten as Only-begotten, only from the Father only, God from God, like to the Father that begat Him according to the Scriptures; whose origin no one knows, except the Father alone who begat Him. He as we acknowledge, the Only-begotten Son of God, the Father sending Him, came hither from the heavens, as it is written, for the undoing of sin and death, and was born of the Holy Ghost, of Mary the Virgin according to the flesh, as it is written, and convened with the disciples, and having fulfilled the whole Economy according to the Father’s will, was crucified and dead and buried and descended to the parts below the earth; at whom hades itself shuddered: who also rose from the dead on the third day, and abode with the disciples, and, forty days being fulfilled, was taken up into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, to come in the last day of the resurrection in the Father’s glory, that He may render to every man according to his works. And in the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-begotten Son of God Himself, Christ, our Lord and God, promised to send to the race of man, as Paraclete, as it is written, ‘the Spirit of truth’ (Joh. xvi. 13), which He sent unto them when He had ascended into the heavens.”65

63 Cf. H. Pietras, 2007b, 35–50; L. Ayres, 2004, cap. V: “The Creation of ‘Arianism’: AD 340–350,” 105–130; K. Schäferdiek K., 2002, 320–329. 64 Cf. Nike (359), SCL 1, 235–236; Socrates Scholasticus, HE II, 41; R. W. Mathisen, 1997, 672. 65 Nike (359), [in:] Athanasius, De synodis 30, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV (trans. P. Schaff).

24

On Wulfila’s consecration, if the consecrating bishop had been Eusebius of Nicomedia indeed, one could fairly safely assume that he would have been told the story of the synod of Nicaea in 325, exactly how Eusebius would have wished to see it, namely referring to a convocation responsible for formulating the unfortunate confession of faith that was in need of emendation. In the same year (341), four propositions of a new creed arose at Antioch.66 It is difficult to say if anybody would have shown him the Nicene Creed at that time. Let us recall that Athanasius of Alexandria would have started to act in defence of the recognition of the Nicene Creed since about 350, i.e., since the moment he realized that it would be impossible to reach a consensus on any other creed. The situation changed in 360, but it would not become any clearer. The abovementioned confession of faith had been adopted by the bishops at the synod of Rimini in 359 and considered as orthodox by the majority. In the following year, the synod of Paris would accept the Nicene Creed officially.67 In actual fact, both creeds were orthodox, yet it was the former that would be remembered in history as Arian, whereas the Nicene Creed as orthodox. It seems, however, that Henryk Pietras is right in saying that labelling something as Arian is the work of Athanasius and did not need to have anything to do with a person’s theological views, rather with someone’s attitude to them. Athanasius would simply call all his enemies “Arians”, with the intent of being regarded as persecuted for his faith.68 There is no reason to believe that Wulfila would have been concerned with theological disputes on a philosophically sophisticated level; therefore, he may have taken the creed of Nike/Rimini at face value and would not have perceived any disturbing novelty therein. At the time, he must have been already busy with translating the Scriptures into the Gothic language, with omissions of certain parts,69 for which purpose, in the first place, he would have had to create the suitable alphabet.70 It

66 Cf. Antioch (341), SCL 1, 129–134. 67 Cf. Paris (360/361), SCL 1, 247. 68 Cf. H. Pietras, 2008, 855–869. 69 Cf. J. Hunter, 1969, 338–362. Salvianus of Marseilles held that the Goths had used the mistranslated parts of the Bible and claimed that the Germanic Arianism had arisen from ignorance; cf. Salvianus Massiliensis, De gubernatione Dei V, 2, 5–8; P. Lebeau, 1963, 160–175; M. Maas, 1992, 282. 70 The alphabet is mentioned by all of the relevant authors: Socrates Scholasticus, HE IV, 33; Hermias Sozomenos, HE VI, 37; Philostorgius II, 5; Theodoretus, HE IV, 37; Jordanes, Getica 51; Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita, et obitu Ulfilae (SCh 267). On the invention of the alphabet of the Gothic language, see also Jordanes, Getica 267. Cf. M. Simonetti, 1975, 442–443; J. Strzelczyk, 1997, 56–57.

25

may be assumed then that he would have reached deep into the Biblical vocabulary and was probably open to the argumentation of the opponents of the Nicene Creed, who reproached him for his use of the terms not present in the Bible (with “consubstantiality” among the most notable ones), provided that he would have been given such explanations at all. The second half of the 360s marked a war between the Goths and the emperor Valens in the territories along the Danube, concluded by a peace treaty on the Danube in 369. Ammianus Marcellinus states that the treaty was detrimental to the Empire,71 but very likely the Gothic advance to the south could not have been stopped any more. Following the signing of the treaty, Athanaricus, the commander and the official iudex Gothorum,72 i.e., the general leader in times of war, began the persecution of Christians in his ranks,73 whether Arians or Catholics, as Emanuela Prinzivalli notes.74 Or, possibly, he may have been simply unaware of the divisions amid the Christians. Regardless of the specific nuances, it had been, after all, the religion of his enemies. An armed conflict between the two Gothic tribes, under Athanaricus and Fritigern, broke out around 370.75 Athanaricus gained the upper hand, which made Fritigern solicit the emperor Valens’ aid. The ruler agreed to provide assistance, which would become a matter of great urgency in the face of the Huns’ attack on the Goths.76 In this way, the group of the Goths on the emperor’s side would embrace the creed promoted by Valens,77 motivated mostly by its political merits.78 According to Jordanes, Valens imposed the acceptance of “his” Arianism on them. Let us have a look at the following passage: “When Valens learned this, he gladly and promptly granted what he had himself intended to ask. He received the Getae into the region of Moesia and placed them there as a wall of defense for his kingdom against other tribes. And since at that time the Emperor Valens,

71 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum XXVII, 5, 9. 72 Cf. Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae 58. 73 Cf. Hieronymus, Chronicon, A.D. 369 (GCS 47, 245). 74 Cf. E. Prinzivalli, 2004, 52. 75 These and the subsequent events are depicted in Socrates Scholasticus, HE IV, 33, though not necessarily in chronological order. 76 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum XXXI, 3. 77 Cf. J. Liebeschuetz, 1990, 49; P. Régerat, 1997, 171–184. 78 Cf. M. Simonetti, who opted for the hypothesis by E. A. Thompson, according to which the political conversion would have been invented by the Catholic opponents hostile to Valens; cf. E. A. Thompson, 1956, 370–371.

26

who was infected with the Arian perfidy, had closed all the churches of our party, he sent as preachers to them those who favored his sect. They came and straightway filled a rude and ignorant people with the poison of their heresy. Thus the Emperor Valens made the Visigoths Arians rather than Christians. Moreover, from the love they bore them, they preached the gospel both to the Ostrogoths and to their kinsmen the Gepidae, teaching them to reverence this heresy, and they invited all people of their speech everywhere to attach themselves to this sect.”79

It appears to be plausible then that the Arian faith of the Goths would have been the outcome of the emperor Valens’ action, not of their own conscious choice. It is significant that according to the creed incorporated in his testament Wulfila would distance himself from both the followers of the consubstantiality and the likeness of the Father and the Son as to the essence, as I will demonstrate further on. It is also of interest to note how Theodoret of Cyrrhus depicts the adoption of Arianism by the Goths.80 He states that at the time of the signing of a peace treaty after the cessation of hostilities the emperor Valens followed Eudoxius’ advice81 and proposed to the Goths that the treaty be consolidated by means of the common faith. It is then worth taking a closer look at this adviser to find out what sort of religious views were offered to the Goths. Eudoxius, of Armenian descent, had baptized Valens before the conflict with the Goths82 and he would certainly have exerted much influence on the emperor.83 Theodoret of  Cyrrhus links the ruler’s decision to become baptized with his pious preparations before the campaign. However, as based on the account of Ammianus Marcellinus, it may be surmised that Valens would have decided to do so afflicted with a serious illness.84 Eudoxius took part in the synod of Philippopolis in 343, which was polarized over what the Eastern bishops had seen as a scandal, namely the fact that the bishops of the West had invited the condemned Athanasius to participate in the synod of Serdica.85 In 358, Eudoxius took part in the synod at Sirmium, where the second creed of Antioch (341) was

79 Jordaes, Getica 132 (trans. Ch. C. Mierow). Cf. Hermias Sozomenos, HE VI, 37. 80 Cf. Theodoretus, HE IV, 37. 81 Cf. M. Simonetti, 1975, 390–391. 82 Cf. Theodoretus, HE IV, 12. 83 Cf. Hermias Sozomenos, HE VI, 7. 84 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum XXVI, 4, 4. As inferred by D. Woods, 1994, 220; M. B. & M. J. Leszka, 2011, 52. 85 Cf. Serdica (343), VII, Decretum sinodi orientalium apud Serdicam episcoporum a parte arianorum, quod miserunt ad Africam, SCL 1, 170–183; Socrates Scholasticus, HE II, 20; Hermias Sozomenos, HE III, 11.

27

accepted86 and the formula of  Sirmium was pronounced as third. Athanasius claimed that his information on the proceedings of the synods at Rimini87 and Seleucia was reliable.88 The two synods took place at the same time, immediately following the synod of Sirmium, where the creed was essentially orthodox, but failing to embrace the Nicene consubstantiality. He charged him with obstinately declining to endorse the Nicene Creed, even though Eudoxius would agree on speaking of the perfect resemblance between the Father and the Son as to the essence. He explained it by citing associations with Acacius, Eusebius’ successor at  Caesarea, and their common reliance on Aetius, a very radical Subordinationist, who would deny any resemblance between the Father and the Son.89 In the 360s, Eudoxius made efforts to present the matter in somewhat softer terms. Perhaps, he may have been motivated by career-related considerations: as Bishop of Antioch, he succeeded in being elevated to Bishop of Constantinople in 36090 and would have a part in imposing the Nike creed (359) on the bishops assembled at the synod of Rimini. Now let us revert to the previously stated information on Wulfila’s participation in the synod of Constantinople in 360. For this reason, the narrative of Theodoret would have most probably concerned the same events that were contemporaneous with the signing of the peace treaty ca. 370. Like in 360, the Goths may have been unaware of the theological minutiae or some other religious controversies in the Eastern Church. They held Wulfila as their authority and simply wished to share his faith. He did subscribe to the Nike credo, but he would not have to be aware of becoming an Arian. However, since the creed question reappeared in 370, some uncertainties may have arisen around that time, but Eudoxius resorted to gifts, persuasion, and arguments to convince Wulfila that there was no difference between the creed of Valens (i.e., the one from Rimini, affirmed ten years before) and the other professions of faith, except for some inessential points. In consequence, they gave their consent, but, as Theodoret notes, they would require certain clarifications. They agreed to affirming that the Father is greater than the Son, yet they would absolutely refuse to refer to the latter as “being created.” It is difficult to identify the source of this information, as the “testamental”

86 Cf. Antioch (341), SCL 1, 130–132. 87 Cf. Athanasius, De synodis 1; J. T. Lienhard, 1978, 415–437. 88 Cf. Athanasius, De synodis 12; Cf. SCL 225–236. 89 Cf. Athanasius, De synodis 38. 90 Cf. Socrates Scholasticus, HE II, 43. Cf. M. Simonetti, 1975, 342.

28

creed of Wulfila (in its longer version) makes reference to the Son as “being created,” although the exact sense of this expression is not clear.91 According to Alain Chauvot, the Goths had been converting en masse to Arianism since 376, but from Catholicism rather than paganism.92 His opinion is based on the commentaries of the later Catholic authors, in particular Socrates and Theodoret, who had shared Athanasius’ view that everybody embracing a non-Nicene creed would have been necessarily an Arian.93 In my opinion, it is safer to say that the Christian faith of the Goths would begin to take on some characteristics of a “national” church, with their own liturgical language, the Bible translated into that language, and a creed interpreted in ways which are not entirely clear.94 Apparently, they used it to stress their distinct identity. It is likely that at the time they would not have realized that someone might be calling them “Arians.” The actual fact is that the emperor Valens had granted land in Thrace to Fritigern’s Goths, content that he gained soldiers at an inexpensive cost (cf. Socrates Scholasticus); it was estimated that as many as 200,000 armed men resettled,95 which would put the total number of the people at close to 1 million, apparently a vastly exaggerated number. It is evident that the Goths would not prove to be capable of “enjoying” the emperor’s favour. As Socrates reports: “The barbarians having been put into possession of Thrace, and securely enjoying that Roman province, were unable to bear their good fortune with moderation; but committing hostile aggressions upon their benefactors, devastated all Thrace and the adjacent countries.”96

91 Cf. below. 92 Cf. A. Chauvot, 1995, 166–167. In his view, Wulfila and the Goths of his tribe had been Arians from the beginning. Arianism would have been one of the reasons for the dissemination of Gothic identity. Cf. P. J. Heather, 1992, 332; D. Kasprzak, 2008, 29; A. Schwarcz, 1999, 454; C. Schäfer, 2001, 182–197. Some scholars do not speak of Arianism as an element of Gothic identity, citing various arguments (cf. P. Amory, 1997, 236–276), but I prefer to avoid contesting the views which may be contrary to my own opinion and engage in a polemical discussion to prove them wrong. 93 Cf. H. Pietras, 2008, 864–868. 94 R. Collins refers to the Gothic liturgy and the Bible as additional elements defining their identity; cf. R. Collins, 1991, 216. 95 Cf. Socrates Scholasticus, HE IV, 34; Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum, XXXI, 4. Cf. J. Strzelczyk, 1984, 97–99. The figure 200,000 can be found in Zosimos, HN IV, 6. 96 Socrates Scholasticus, HE IV, 35 (trans. A. C. Zenos).

29

It is clear to see that Socrates does not show much sympathy for the Goths. Nonetheless, on the other hand, Ammianus Marcellinus mentions some other reasons for the rebellion, such as famine, exorbitant food prices, exploitation, selling people into slavery, or even some bartering practices such as offering dogs to the starving Goths (apparently, they would eat dog meat), at the rate “one dog for one slave.”97 It should be dated probably to 377, and the confirmation of these details can be found in Jerome.98 At that time, let us recall, Eusosius (an opponent of the Nicene Creed, former disciple of Arius, who would later distance himself from the radical Arianism99) died in Antioch, the Church of Alexandria had been divided into the adherents and opponents of Nicaea, while the people of Constantinople would have been already dissatisfied with the emperor’s policy, in particular with the presence of the Goths.100 Eventually, it was impossible to avoid a conflict; the emperor Valens suffered a defeat and was killed in the Battle of Adrianopol on 9 August 378.101 The victorious Goths rushed to Constantinople with the intention of conquering and plundering the city. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, they 97 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum XXXI, 13–14; Jordanes, Getica, 137–38: Illa namque dies Gothorum famem Romanorumque securitatem ademit, coeperuntque Gothi iam non ut advenae et peregrini, sed ut cives et domini possessoribus imperare totasque partes septentrionales usque ad Danubium suo iuri tenere, quod conperiens in Antiochia Valens imperator mox armato exercitu in Thraciarum partes egreditur; ubi lacrimabile bello commisso vincentibus Gothis in quodam praedio iuxta Adrianopolim saucius ipse refugiens ignorantibusque, quod imperator in tam vili casula delitisceret, Gothis, ignemque, ut adsolet saeviente inimico, supposito, cum regali pompa crematus est, haut secus quam dei prorsus iudicio, ut ab ipsis igni conbureretur, quos ipse vera fide petentibus in perfidia declinasset ignemque caritatis ad gehennae ignem detorsisset quo tempore Vesegothae Thracias Daciaque ripense post tanti gloria tropaei tam quam solum genitalem potiti coeperunt incolere. Cf. J. Strzelczyk, 1984, 99. 98 Hieronymus, Chronicon, A.D. 377: Gens Hunorum Gothos vastat, qui a Romanis sine armorum depositione suscepti per avaritiam Maximi ducis fame ad rebellandum coacti sunt. Superatis in congressione Romanis Gothi funduntur in Thracia. 99 Cf. M. Simonetti, “Euzoio di Antiochia,” 1876. 100 Cf. Socrates Sholasticus, HE IV, 37–38; Hermias Sozomenos, HE VI, 40; Theodoretus, HE III, 14; Philostorgius, HE IX, 17; Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum XXXI, 11. 101 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum XXXI, 12–13. Cf. J. Strzelczyk, 1984, 100–102. Jerome’s Chronicle dates the events to the year 379: Lacrimabile bellum in Thracia, in quo deserente equitum praesidio Romanae legiones a Gothis cinctae usque ad internecionem caesae sunt: ipse imperator Valens, cum sagitta saucius fugeret et ob dolorem nimium saepe equo laberetur, ad cuiusdam villulae casam deportatus est, quo persequentibus barbaris et incensa domo sepultura quoque caruit.

30

would give up as soon as they realized the sheer size of the walls and the strength of the defence.102 It may have seemed they were defeated, yet the emperor Theodosius’ later campaigns against the Goths would have rather shown that the Empire did not underestimate the enemy and continued to approach them with due caution, granting them many privileges, as we shall see further on. At that point, the Gothic creed could have been called “Wulfilian.” I have already referred to the negotiations between Valens and Wulfila in 376, when the latter would have adopted the formula that made no mention of consubstantiality, but it would not speak of the Son as a created being, either. As commonly known, Valens’ successor in the Eastern Roman Empire, Theodosius the Great, promulgated his decree on faith in 380:103 “It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans, as the religion which he introduced makes clear even unto this day. It is evident that this is the religion that is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, according to the apostolic discipline and the evangelic doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment.”104

There is no doubt it should have concerned the Goths as well. But would anyone have been concerned about their actual confession? The Empire did have some

102 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum XXXI, 16; M. B. & M. J. Leszka, 2011, 62. 103 Cf. K. Ilski, 1999, 463–479. 104 CTh XVI, 1, 2: Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia Trinitate credamus. Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos (trans. C. Pharr).

31

problems with the Goths, but those issues would have been outside the domain of religious controversies. The Goths had to withstand the pressure from various Germanic tribes, they needed land to settle on, which would make them come and occupy some territories within the frontiers of the Roman Empire. It appears that they would not engage in religious disputes, but it is probable that just as they had adhered to Wulfila’s position during the negotiations with Valens in 376 and would subsequently agree with his views, he would also continue to remain their highest authority later on. It may be surmised that Theodosius was aware of the fact and even though he summoned the bishops to Constantinople and had them subscribe to the Nicene Creed very clearly,105 he would have nevertheless made allowance for the different treatment of the Romans (in a broader sense of this term) and the barbarians as regards the religious policy. Let us quote the final passage of Canon 2, which was affirmed at that synod: “As for God’s churches among the barbarian peoples, they should be administered in accordance with the custom accepted by our fathers.”106

Apparently, it may refer to all the Germanic tribes that would have organized their own church structures with Wulfila’s Bible in their hands and treated him as their patriarch. Perhaps, the entire Gothic clergy would have descended from Wulfila on the strength of Apostolic succession. It would mean that those structures had been approved and it turned out, shortly afterwards, that Auxentius of  Durostorum, Wulfila’s disciple, installed himself in Milan, under empress Justina’s patronage, beside the Catholic bishop Ambrose, most likely with the support from many local priests still recalling the other clergyman named Auxentius, Ambrose’s predecessor in Milan, and a staunch opponent of the Nicene credo.107 At this point, one should ask what that Arian creed of the Goths was like. Auxentius quotes a brief version of the creed and states that Wulfila had written it down before his death, but earlier in the text the Gothic bishop had discussed the point quite extensively and provided many important details. On account of the Goths’ attachment to Wulfila’s tradition, it may be fairly safely assumed that his testamental credo would continue to remain in use after his death. The brief version of the creed reads as follows:

105 Cf. Constantinopolis (381), c. 1, DSP 1, 70. 106 Constantinopolis (381), c. 2, DSP 1, 72. 107 Cf. Socrates Scholasticus, HE V, 11; Hermias Sozomenos, HE VII, 13; M. Simonetti, “Aussenzio di Durostorum,” 662; W. Myszor, 2001, 37.

32

“I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord. I believe that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: ‘Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high.’ (Luke 24:49) And again: ‘And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit.’ (Acts 1:8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.”108

It can be seen that the creed is clearly a Subordinationist one, but it is not heretical in what it says about the Son of God. The Son is described as someone who has no one similar to Him: non hebentem similem suum. In all probability, it ought to be interpreted in the sense that Arius’ creed refers to the Son as “the perfect creation of God, but not as other creatures.”109 This creed does not make any mention of the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and therefore referring to the Gothic creed as a homeic doctrine110 is highly inaccurate. On the other hand, the statement on the Holy Spirit is evidently Macedonian and in denial of the Spirit. However, this creed does not refer to the Son as “being created” at all, and it is possible that Theodoret of Cyrrhus would have drawn on this particular text for his aforementioned statement that the Goths believed in the Son’s inferior position in relation to the Father but not in the fact that He is created. Nonetheless, the association with Arius’ letter and the longer version of the creed would not warrant such a view. As Auxentius quotes (or relates in his own words, it is hard to be certain on this point): unigenitum deum creavit et genuit, fecit et fundavit.

108 Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae 63: virtutem ab alto, item et: Accipietis virtutem supervenientem in vos Sancto Spirito, nec Deum nec deum nostrum, sed ministrum Cristi […] subditum et oboedientem in omnibus Filio, et Filium subditum et oboedientem et in omnibus Deo Patrique suo […] per Cristum eius in Spiritu Sancto ordinavit (trans. J. Marchand). Here and further on, the text as cited from R. Gryson’s edition (SCh 267), with all his emendations included; cf. M. Simonetti, 1976, 297–323. 109 Arius, Epistola ad Alexandrum; cf. H. Pietras, 2007a, 198. 110 Cf. B. Dumézil, 2008, 687; Ennodius, Panegyricus Theodorico 80, MGH AA, VII, 213; J. Moorhead, 1992, 89, 109; thereafter, cf. Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae 47.

33

These are the four verbs mentioned in the Proverbs, where the Wisdom speaks of herself: “22. The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. 23. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 24. When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. 25. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth.”111

It would be awkward to criticize anybody for quoting from the Scriptures, but, the specific words aside, it is fairly easy to discern the Subordinationist inclination in Auxentius’ explanations. He regards the followers of consubstantiality as dangerous heretics, while the proponents of the resemblance as to the substance are not much better. Let us have a closer look at his arguments in order to throw some more light on his doctrinal position. Auxentius states that Wulfila considered the former as the followers of the doctrine which is “odious and abominable, depraved and perverse confession of the Homousians as a devilish invention and doctrine of demons,”112 and he would oppose them with this argument: if one can believe that the only-begotten Son created everything on earth and in heaven, why not believe that the Father created one being that is His own work? He countered the Homoiousians by arguing that there is no likeness, only a great difference between the Father and the Son, the same one as that between the Son and the world He has created.113 To make his point more specific, he goes on to say: “Wherefore he scattered the sect of the Homousians, because he believed not in confused and concrete persons, but in discrete and distinct ones. The Homoiousians, however, he put to flight, since they defended the assumption that they were not of comparable but different substance,” as the term adfectus may be rendered.114 One must admit, therefore, that his views were quite clear and convincing, although the supporters of consubstantiality did not profess the belief in the mingled or material persons at all,115 and those who believed in the resemblance as to the substance would definitely make a distinction between the persons. Wulfila died in Constantinople in the early 380s,116 but his creed (which, apparently, he would not have composed on his deathbed, as he had professed

111 Proverbs 8:22–25. 112 Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae 45 (trans. J. Marchand). 113 Cf. Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae 46. 114 Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae 47 (trans. J. Marchand). 115 Cf. Eusebius Caesarensis, Epistola ad suam parrochiam 7, DSP 1, 57. 116 Cf. Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita et obitu Ulfilae 61.

34

it before) points out that he would not take the theological argumentation of Athanasius or anybody else into account at all: his faith was straightforward and unconcerned with philosophical deliberations. Let us also note that this particular position was endorsed by the emperor and the “imperial” Church in Canon 2 of Constantinople (381), where it is pronounced that the barbarians have their own, previously defined, structures and are allowed to function therein. To continue the same course of his religious policy, Theodosius promulgated his pro-Nicene law, as noted, but later on, he issued the following constitution (386): “Emperors Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius Augustuses to Eusignius, Pretorian Prefect. We bestow the right of assembly upon those persons who believe according to the doctrines which in the Times of Constantius of sainted memory were decreed as those that would endure forever, when the priests had been called together from all the Roman world and the faith was set forth at the Council of Ariminum by these very persons who are now known to dissent, a faith which was also confirmed by the Council of Constantinople. The right of voluntary assembly shall also be open to those persons for whom We have so ordered. If those persons who suppose that the right of assembly has been granted to them alone should attempt to provoke any agitation against the regulation of Our Tranquillity, they shall know that, as authors of sedition and as disturbers of the peace of the Church, they shall also pay the penalty of high treason with their life and blood. Punishment shall no less await those persons who may attempt to supplicate Us surreptitiously and secretly, contrary to this Our regulation. Given on the tenth day before the calends of February at Milan in the year of the consulship of Emperor Designate Honorius and of Evodius – January 23, 386.”117

The reference to those who might have believed that they were the only ones who could assemble officially appears to have been a warning addressed to the followers

117 CTh XVI, 1, 4: Imppp. Valentinianus, Theodosius et Arcadius AAA. ad Eusignium praefectum praetorio. Damus copiam colligendi his, qui secundum ea sentiunt, quae temporibus divae memoriae Constanti sacerdotibus convocatis ex omni orbe Romano expositaque fide ab his ipsis, qui dissentire noscuntur, Ariminensi concilio, Constantinopolitano etiam confirmata in aeternum mansura decreta sunt. Conveniendi etiam quibus iussimus patescat arbitrium, scituris his, qui sibi tantum existimant colligendi copiam contributam, quod, si turbulentum quippiam contra nostrae tranquillitatis praeceptum faciendum esse temptaverint, ut seditionis auctores pacisque turbatae ecclesiae, etiam maiestatis capite ac sanguine sint supplicia luituri, manente nihilo minus eos supplicio, qui contra hanc dispositionem nostram obreptive aut clanculo supplicare temptaverint. Dat. X kal. feb. Mediolano Honorio nob[ili] p[uero] et Evodio conss (trans. C. Pharr).

35

of the Nicene Creed who would have felt empowered by the emperor Theodosius’ previous decree on the catholic faith118 and wished to prevent the situation that the barbarians (effectively, the Goths) could have their own ecclesial structure, in accordance with Canon 2 of 381, independent of the “imperial” one. In 386, this would not have amounted to a full-fledged schism yet, although the pro-Nicene circles considered the others as heretics, and the other way round, as evident in Wulfila’s creed, to name just one example. During Theodosius’ reign, the newly appointed bishops were, in principle, adherents of the Nicene Creed, even though the constitution cited above demonstrates that the opposite could have been the case as well. If it ensured the right to assemble, it means that it recognized the right to summon gatherings by some ecclesiastical authority. I have mentioned the bishop named Auxentius (the other one) in Milan, together with Ambrose. However, he does not seem to have been a “legitimate” or “formal” bishop of that city, but simply a bishop who had arrived there from somewhere else. The constitution of 386 made it possible to formally appoint barbarian bishops, though it is not known since when it had been put into practice. It is not certain who might have been the supporters of the creed of Nike/Rimini, apart from the Goths. On the strength of the imperial order, everybody else was obliged to abide by the Nicene Creed, which was pronounced to be inviolable in Constantinople (381), as enshrined in Canon 1. For this reason, I would venture that the constitution in question may be considered as an official affirmation of the national church of the Goths, with the credo of Rimini. It seems, however, that this concession was held to be valid solely in the territories thought to be under Gothic rule, not in larger municipalities. This situation may be reflected in one of the accounts concerning the events from the years 395–400, under the emperor Arcadius.119 One of the commanders of the imperial troops was a Goth named Gainas,120 who intended to maintain order in the city, apparently on his own terms. For instance, he ordered the assassination of a man named Rufinus,121 notorious for his extortionist practices, and it is possible that Jordanes speaks of this particular individual, referring to his “shenanigans” in  Constantinople.122 Until as late as 399, Gainas would have served as comes for the military affairs. In the same year, another revolt, led by the Gothic comes Tribigild, broke out. It was to be suppressed by Gainas, but he would come to 118 Cf. CTh XVI, 1, 2, Thessalonicae (27 februarii 380). 119 Cf. M. B. & M. J. Leszka, 2011, 64–66. 120 Cf. PLRE I, 379. 121 Cf. Zosimos, HN V, 7. 122 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 176.

36

agreement with the leader of the rebellion, joined the plundering, and eventually turned up with his troops at Chalcedon, putting the capital in danger. The emperor proposed negotiations, which would proceed to Gainas’ advantage. In effect, he became commander-in-chief and was allowed to enter the city with his Gothic forces, so that in consequence, as Sozomen notes, he would grow in pride and disturbed the peace of the Church: “He was a Christian, and, like the rest of the barbarians, had espoused the Arian heresy. Urged either by the presidents of this party, or by the suggestions of his own ambition, he applied to the emperor to place one of the churches of the city in the hands of the Arians. He represented that it was neither just nor proper that, while he was general of the Roman troops, he should be compelled to retire without the walls of the city when he wished to engage in prayer.”123

When bishop John heard the news of this incident, he decided to take action and went to the palace, accompanied by the bishops who were in the city at that time. In the emperor’s presence, he proceeded to address Gainas in a rather lengthy speech. He recalled the Gothic officer’s homeland, his flight, and the significant moment when the latter man, rescued by the present emperor’s father, had taken a solemn oath to act for the good cause of the Romans, the emperor and the emperor’s children, and to respect the laws which, at that particular moment, he was going to disregard and violate. To prove his point, he showed the constitution issued by Theodosius, which forbade the religious dissidents to assemble for their services within the walls of the city. Then he addressed the emperor, urging him to keep in force the constitution against all the other religious sects, intimating to him that it would be better to resign the imperial authority than to become a godless man by betraying the house of God. This act of courage proved that John would not tolerate new measures in the matters of the Church under his leadership. This episode is also featured in the History by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who presents a dialogue between Gainas and John Chrysostom.124 Gainas argues that his request is justified by his military efforts for the Romans. Besides, it is known that the Goths would have religious services officiated in their language at St Paul’s Church in Constantinople. But it is possible that they were held for the orthodox, not Arian, Goths.125 When violent riots, which culminated in a massacre of the

123 Hermias Sozomenos, HE VIII, 4 (trans. Ch. D. Hartranft). 124 Cf. Theodoretus, HE, V, 32; M. B. & M. J. Leszka, 2011, 66. 125 Cf. P. Batiffol, 1899, 568–569; J. Liebeschuetz, 1990, 169, and 190; A. Cameron, J. Long, 1993, 385.

37

Goths, broke out in the city in the summer of 400, some of the Goths would have reportedly taken refuge inside that church and were burned there alive.126 Gainas was killed by the Huns that formed part of the troops under command of another Goth. It could be said that the Eastern Roman Empire had been increasingly becoming a hostage in the fighting among the particular Gothic tribes, just as the Western Empire would have been increasingly dependant on the Germanic peoples. In Rome, there was one Arian church (which should be probably understood as “Gothic”), and, according to Pope Gelasius, there were plans to erect another one during the pontificate of Hilarius (461–468). The Pope opposed it vehemently, even threatening the emperor Anthemius with a refusal to dispense the holy sacraments.127 As for the former one, it is not known when it had come into existence and who was the head of that church; most likely, it had no bishop, as the Gothic Arians would never come to enjoy a strong standing in Rome.

2.  Theoderic’s “national” Arianism The arrival of Theoderic’s Ostrogoths had a profound effect on the religious situation in Italy.128 All of them (or almost all of them) were Arians, with their own clergy, their own Bible as well as church structure. Though still a minority, they continued to possess the power and would not hesitate to use it.129 In such circumstances, the majority could not help but accept that fact. At any rate, this must have been the actual nature of the exemplary religious tolerance in Theoderic’s kingdom.130 For instance, there is no information on whether he had ever objected to the fact that his mother was a Catholic and complemented her Gothic name

126 On the burning, see Socrates Scholasticus, HE VI, 6; Zosimus, HN V, 18–22; Marcellinus Comes, Chronica, A.D. 399, MGH AA XI, 66. Cf. J. N. D. Kelly, 2001, 170–172. 127 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 95, 61; Coll. Avell. 390–392. 128 Cf. T. S. Brown, 2007, 417–422. 129 Cf. C. Sotinel, 1998, 316–317. 130 Theoderic founded many buildings for the Arians. However, this question is beyond the scope of the present book and would require a separate scholarly treatment. For a discussion of this subject, cf. the following works: C. Cecchelli, 1960, 747–774; R. Sörries, 1983; G. Caravita, 1993, 118–125; G. Montanari, 2002, 27–50; C. Barsanti, 2008b, 185–202.

38

Ereliliava or Ereleuva131 by adding the Christian name Eusebia,132 even though it is presumed that the name would not have been used either by herself or her native tribe.133 As regards Ereleuva’s name, it should be noted that even Pope Gelasius addressed her as Hereleuva, not Eusebia.134 The relations between Gelasius and Ereleuva must have been very good indeed, as he relied on her patronage in his efforts to obtain the king’s assistance for the starving people of Rome.135 As based on the text of the Excerpta Valesiana, Bruno Luiselli infers that Ereleuwa would have converted from Arianism into the Catholic faith, yet it does not follow from that text at all. Moreover, it would rather have met with her son’s disapproval.136 On the other hand, as regards the baptism of Theoderic’s mother, Bruno Dumézil notes that this fact “would indicate that she had been a pagan before,”137 which is rather a fairly peculiar remark in view of the fact that everybody is a pagan prior to their baptism. Besides, Wilhelm Ensslin emphasizes that since in accordance with the tradition of the Catholic Church the marital union between a Catholic woman and an Arian man could not have been recognized as a legitimate marriage, the Arians may have taken a very similar approach. Hence, Ereleuva was Theodemir’s common-law wife, which would not have prevented their son, Theoderic, from enjoying the full rights of a legitimately born child, whereas Ereleuva was entitled to be recognized as queen.138 As for Theoderic’s tolerance of the religious differences, regardless of the actual reasons for his attitude, it is worth noting the difference between his position and the behaviour of Vandals in Africa. The Vandal king Geiseric was succeeded by his son Huneric, who “with Arian perfidy condemned to banishment and forced to flee over 334 catholic bishops, closed down their churches, and persecuted the people in various ways; although he had cut off the hands and tongues of many, he did not succeed in eradicating the catholic faith.”139 131 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 269. 132 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 58; Jordanes, Getica 269; Ennodius, Panegyricus Theodorico 42, MGH AA, VII, 208. 133 Cf. W. Ensslin, 1959, 12; M. Wilczyński, 2001a, 415. 134 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 58. 135 Cf. Epistulae Theodorici 4, MGH AA XII, 390. 136 Cf. B. Luiselli, 1995, 306. 137 B. Dumézil, 2008, 687. 138 Cf. W. Ensslin, 1959, 13; J. Moorhead, 1992, 11–12. 139 Paulus Diaconus, HR XV, 19. The course of the persecution is depicted in detail in Victor Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae tempore Geiserici et Hunerici regum Wandalorum, II, POK 14, Poznań 1930; J. Strzelczyk, 2005, 149–153; R. Kosiński, 2010b, 118–123; I. Milewski, 2011, 517–525.

39

One of his successors, Thrasamund, continued in much the same vein and banished 220 bishops to Sardinia.140 It is interesting to note that in his Panegyric Ennodius refers to the faith in which Theoderic was raised as simply the worship of the supreme God, with no concern for his Arianism.141 Bruno Dumézil somehow infers from this statement that the author refers to a “homeic faith,”142 whereas Gregorio Caravita claims that Theoderic had been raised a Catholic at the Byzantine court, and would only become an Arian in order to rule over the Goths.143 Another significant circumstance was the “Acacian Schism,” which overshadowed nearly the entire period of Theoderic’s reign, as it began in 484 and would last until 518. Theoderic’s indulgent attitude came to an end when the emperor Justin radicalized his position on the Arians in the East.144 In 524, Justin promulgated a law on the strength of which the Goths in the East were deprived of the freedom of religion and their church buildings were to become the property of the Catholics.145 However, according to the Excerpta Valesiana, Theoderic’s position was different: he was concerned with the possibility of the Arians’ return to their faith (those who had been forcefully converted to Catholicism) rather than with the restitution of the church buildings. “Then the king, on his return to Ravenna, acted no longer as a friend of God, but as an enemy to His law; forgetful of all His kindness and of the favour which He had shown him, trusting to his own arm, believing, too, that the emperor Justinus stood in great fear of him, he sent and summoned to Ravenna Johannes, who at that time sat upon the apostolic throne, and said to him: ‘Go to the emperor Justinus in Constantinople, and tell him among other things to restore those who have become reconciled and joined the Catholic Church’. To him the Pope Johannes replied: ‘What you will do, O king, do quickly. Lo! here I stand before you. But this thing I will not promise you to do, nor will  I give the emperor your command. But anything else which you may enjoin upon me with God’s help I shall be able to obtain from him.’”146

140 Cf. Paulus Diaconus, HR XVI, 3. 141 Cf. Ennodius, Panegyricus Theodorico 80, MGH AA, VII, 213; J. Moorhead, 1992, 89, 109. 142 Cf. B. Dumézil, 2008, 687. 143 Cf. G. Caravita, Teoderico. I Goti a Ravenna V–VI secolo, 40–48. 144 The principal source of information on the subject is the Liber Pontificalis 55. Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 94; see also B. Luiselli, 1995, 311. 145 Cf. LP 55. 146 Excerpta Valesiana 15.88–89 (trans. J. C. Rolfe).

40

The king dispatched Pope John to Constantinople in order to obtain the emperor’s revoking of that decision.147 Gregory of Tours referred to the restitution of church buildings, attributing the wish to the pope, not the emperor. That fact would have reportedly angered Theoderic to such an extent that he dispatched bands of gladiators to murder the Catholics found travelling on the roads of Italy. Pope John decided to remonstrate with the king, but he was arrested and died in captivity.148 The Liber Pontificalis is consistent in referring to the restitution of the church buildings as Theoderic’s demand;149 the author of the Excerpta Valesiana also claims that the emperor had promised to fulfil all the requests expressed by the king’s envoys “except that those who had become reconciled and returned to the Catholic faith could by no means be restored to the Arians.”150 The differences in the various accounts are conspicuous and significant in the context of Theoderic’s religious policy. It may be assumed that Theoderic’s petition brought to Rome by the pope, senators, and bishops treated of the two issues: restitution of the church buildings and restitution of the “souls,” namely the possibility of a return of the Arians “converted” to the Catholic faith. “Converted,” because they might have been the followers of Arianism who joined the Catholic Church as if appropriated along with their church building. Perhaps, some more formal declaration may have been required on that occasion? Certainly, Theoderic would not have been concerned about the restitution of the buildings as such, but the restoration of their proper function, i.e., the reinstatement of the Arian (Gothic?) communities, with their own clergy and their own Church. At that time, some Romans had converted to Arianism,151 but it is worth noting that Theoderic would have likely not condoned any conversions and the Goths would not have coerced anyone to change their faith following the Gothic takeover of Italy, as affirmed by the Gothic envoy named Romeo, who had been entrusted with entering in negotiations with Belisarius, Justinian’s commander-in-chief during the campaign in Italy.152 The sources state that the king had sentenced a certain deacon to death, 147 For a discussion of the relations between Theoderic and Pope John, cf. H. Löwe, 1953, 83–100. 148 Cf. Gregorius Turonensis, Libri miraculum 40 (PL 71, 741). 149 Cf. LP 55. 150 Excerpta Valesiana 15.91 (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 151 Cf. T. S. Brown, 2007, 419. 152 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Gothico II, 6; T. S. Burns, 1980, 125–126. In case when members of the Germanic tribes joined the Roman armies, they could convert from their pagan religion to Christianity; cf. P. Scardigli, 1967, 47–86.

41

who wished to ingratiate himself with the ruler and converted to Arianism, explaining his verdict with the argument that those who would not persist in their faith could not remain loyal to the people.153 In my opinion, Giovanni B. Picotti is right in saying that this would not have amounted to religious tolerance, as the very concept would have been anachronistic in relation to ancient times. Theoderic did not wish to urge the populations of Gothic (Arian) and Roman (Catholic) origin to come together in one Church.154 It is easy to see that such a Church would have been much more difficult to control. For this reason, I would not agree with Biaggio Saitta’s view that, in consequence, Theoderic would not have tolerated mixed marriages.155 This may seem rather implausible, as the scale of the mixed marriages was far from reaching proportions that would turn it into a social problem, while they would have been motivated by political expediency. It is clear that this would apply to the upper classes in the first place, apparently without much regard for others. At the same time, Theoderic must have realized that mixed marriages would have been possible only with the provision that everybody respected the Roman law.156 The emperor agreed to restore the buildings, but would not allow the people to return to their Arian faith. In response, Theoderic decided to take a retaliatory action, as will be seen in Chapter 5: “Then Symmachus, an advocate and a Jew, at the order of a tyrant rather than a king, announced on an appointed day, which was a Wednesday, the 26th of August, in the fourth indiction, under the consulship of Olybrius, that on the following Sabbath the Arians would take possession of the Catholic churches. But He who does not allow his faithful worshippers to be oppressed by unbelievers soon brought upon Theoderic the same punishment that Arius, the founder of his religion, had suffered; for the king was seized with a diarrhoea, and after three days of open bowels lost both his throne and his life on the very same day on which he rejoiced to attack the churches.”157

153 Cf. Theodoros Anagnostes, Excerpta II, 18, (PG 86/1, 193; Theodoros Anagnostes, Kirchengeschichte, herausgegeben von Günther Christian Hansen, Berlin 1971); cf. A. Garzya, 1995, 344. 154 Cf. G. B. Picotti, 1956, 180; T. S. Brown, 1993, 85–87. According to P. Amory, Theoderic would seek the separation, rather than assimilation, of those two peoples, cf. P. Amory, 1997, 52. 155 Cf. B. Saitta, 1993, 70. 156 Cf. O. Bertolini, 1956, 25–28; B. Saitta, 1990, 399; R. Soraci, 1974, 45–72 and 153–160. 157 Excerpta Valesiana 16.94–95 (trans. J. C. Rolfe).

42

At the same time, the kingdom of Theoderic saw an escalation in Jewish riots and other incidents aimed against the Catholics. Possibly, as Bruno Luiselli notes, they may have been the effect of the deterioration of the Arian-Catholic relations. The Jews may have taken advantage of the situation, just as they had done in Gaul, where they joined forces with the Arian Goths in order to act against Caesarius of Arles.158 The change in Theoderic’s attitude to the Catholics towards the end of his life contributed to the creation of the unfavourable image of the King of the Ostrogoths, which would ultimately give rise to many legends portraying him in the definitely negative terms.

158 Cf. Vita Caesarii I, 29, MGH SRMer., III, 467.

43

Chapter II Liber Pontificalis 50 on Felix III (13 III 483–25 II 492)159 “1. Felix160, born in Rome, son of Felix, [priest of the titulus of Fasciola]161 held the see 8 years, 11 months and 15 days.162 [He was bishop in the time of king Odoacer until the time of Theodoric [king163]. He built the basilica of St Agapitus close to the basilica of St Laurence the martyr].”164 “2. During his episcopate, among other things, the fathers in Greece communicated that Peter of Alexandria established communion with Acacius [of Constantinople]. Then, the venerable Felix [archbishop of the Apostolic See of Rome] designated a plenipotentiary appointed by a synod assembled at the see and condemned Acacius and Peter.”165

The following passage that can be found in the second recension: “in the time of king Odoacer until the time of Theodoric [king]” seems to suggest that a certain period of time would have elapsed between the rule of Odoacer166 and Theoderic’s reign.167 Most probably, however, this sentence had been added to 159 Cf. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. Philippus Jaffé, ed. secunda ausp. Gulielmi Wattenbach, curaverunt S. Loewenfeld, F. Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald, Lipsiae: Veit et Comp. 1885, 591–618. 160 He may have been the same Felix, whom Leo had entrusted with the renovation of St Paul’s Basilica, according to one of the extant epitaph inscriptions: De Rossi, Inscriptiones Christianae, vol. 1, 831; L. M. Duchesne, vol. 1, 240, n. 7. 161 Only in the second recension. According to Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 482: ordinatus, vixit annos XII. The present building is the Church of Saints Nereus and Achilles near the baths of Caracalla; cf. R. Bratož, “Felice III.” 162 According to the second recension: 17 days. 163 As present in some of the codices. 164 LP 50, 1: Felix, natione Romanus, ex patre Felice presbitero [de titulo Fasciolae], sedit ann. VIII mens. XI dies XV. [Hic fuit temporibus Odoacris regis usque ad tempora Theodorici regis. Hic fecit basilicam sancti Agapiti iuxta basilicam sancti Laurenti martyris]. 165 LP 50, 2: Huius episcopatum iterum venit relatio a patres Greciarum, Petrum Alexandrino revocatum ad communionem ab Acacio [episcopo Constantinopolitano]. Tunc venerabilis papa Felix [archiepiscopus sedis apostolicae urbis Romae] mittens defensore ex constituto synodi sedis suae, et damnavit Acacio cum Petro. 166 Cf. PLRE II, 791–793. 167 Cf. PLRE II, 1077–1084.

45

the original text, as it might no longer have been obvious that the reader remembered that fact.

1.  The Beginning of Theoderic’s Rule in Italy The question of the dates relating to Theoderic’s ascension to power has already been discussed in much detail by many authors,168 and I will only refer to this issue as much as may be necessary. To the author of the note on Felix III in the Liber Pontificalis, it would have been apparently of little significance, but if the mention were to point, though indirectly, to the fact that it would not have happened in a day, as it must have been a certain process (as I understand the above sentence), let us see if any other sources offer some justification. For this purpose, several dates should be taken into consideration. In 476, Odoacer divested Romulus Augustulus of his imperial title, thus assuming authority in Italy.169 According to Paul the Deacon, Odoacer ruled for the next 14 years, until the arrival of Theoderic from the East.170 It would mean that he dated the beginning of Theoderic’s rule to 490. On the other hand, Jordanes states that Odoacer ruled for 13 years: usque ad Theodorici praesentiam […] obtenuit. 171 Therefore, his reign would have begun in 489. In 484, Theoderic was invited and received with honours by Zeno. The emperor acknowledged him as his son, after which Theoderic took part in a triumph ceremony, at Zeno’s expense, and was awarded consulship,172 which, as Jordanes

168 E.g., M. Vitiello, 2005a, 39–55. 169 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 476, MGH AA XI, 91: Odoacar rex Gothorum Romam optinuit. Orestem Odoacer ilico trucidavit. Augustulum filium Orestis Odoacer in Lucullano Campaniae castello exilii poena damnavit. Hesperium Romanae gentis imperium, quod septingentesimo nono urbis conditae anno primus Augustorum Octavianus Augustus tenere coepit, cum hoc Augustulo periit, anno decessorum regni imperatorum quingentesimo vigesimo secundo, Gothorum dehinc regibus Romam tenentibus. Cf. also, e.g., R. A. Krieger, 1991, 371–381. 170 Cf. Paulus Diaconus, HR 15, 10: deiecto ad Augustali dignitate Augustolo urbem Odouacer ingressus totius Italiae adeptus est regnum. Quod dum per annos quattuordecim nullo inquietante tenuisset, ab Orientis tunc adveniens Gothorum rex Theodericus Italiam possesurus intravit. For a listing of relevant excerpts from the chronicles, see M. Meli, 1991, 298–305. 171 Jordanes, Getica 243. For a similar account, cf. Excerpta Valesiana 10.45: Odoacar […] deposito Augustulo de imperio, factus est rex mansitque in regno annos XIII. 172 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 483, MGH AA XI, 92; VICTOR TUNNUNENSIS, Chronica, A.D. 484, MGH AA XI, 190; M. Wilczyński, 2001a, 436–439.

46

recounts, “the world recognizes as the good of the highest order and the very special glory.”173 Moreover, Zeno placed an equestrian statue in honour of Theoderic in front of the palace.174 This is also confirmed by the author of the Excerpta Valesiana, who explains the emperor’s generosity with his gratitude for Theoderic’s aid in vanquishing the usurpation of Basiliskos, at the same time referring to the campaign in Italy, which I shall discuss in more detail further on.175 To put it more precisely, Theoderic became an ordinary consul in charge of the Eastern part of the Empire, not an honorary one in the West, which is the point stressed by Elena Malaspina.176 In the years 484–488, the relations between Theoderic and the emperor would definitely not always follow along the peaceful lines, as the Gothic ruler’s political ambitions were far-reaching indeed. For instance, in 487, he threatened that he would go so far as to seize Constantinople, since, as Marcellinus puts it, “he could not be content with what he had.”177 It seemed that Zeno and Theoderic would not have much trust in one another.178 In 489, in agreement with the emperor Zeno, Theoderic entered Italy.179 Let us have a look at his speech reportedly addressed to the emperor, in an attempt to induce the latter to agree that Theoderic become king in the West:

173 Jordanes, Getica 289. 174 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 289. It is not known when such a statue would have been erected or if it existed at all; cf. M. Wilczyński, 2001a, 436 (n. 85). 175 Excerpta Valesiana 11.49: Zeno itaque recompensans beneficiis Theodericum, quem fecit patricium et consulem, donas ei multum et mittens eum ad Italiam. Cf. Jordanes, Getica 291; Paulus Diaconus, HR 15, 14. Cf. S. Orlandi, 1997, 39; J. Moorhead, 1984b, 261. On the usurper Basiliskos, cf. M. B. Leszka, 1993, 71–78; M. Redies, 1997, 213–214; J. Prostko-Prostyński, 2000, 259–265. 176 Cf. E. Malaspina, 2003–2005b, 32–33. 177 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 487, MGH AA XI, 93: Theodoricus rex Gothorum Zenonis Augusti numquam beneficiis satiatus cum magna suorum manu usque ad regiam civitatem et Melentiadam oppidum infestus accessit plurimaque loca igne cremata ad novensem Moesiae civitatem, unde advenerat, remeavit; Beda Venerabilis, Chronica maior, A.D. 488, MGH AA XIII, no. 501, 305–306; cf. P. Heather, 2005, 223. 178 Cf. A. Caruso, 1998, 35; J. Moorhead, 1984b, 261–266. 179 Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 489, MGH AA XI, 93: Idem Theodoricus rex Gothorum optatam occupavit Italiam. Odoacer itidem rex Gothorum metu Theodorici perterritus Ravennam est clausus. porro ab eodem Theodorico periuriis inlectus interfectusque est; Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 489, MGH AA XI, 159: His conss. felicissimus atque fortissimus dn. rex Theodericus intravit Italiam; Marius episcopus Aventicensis, Chronica, MGH AA XI, 233.

47

“The western country, long ago governed by the rule of your ancestors and predecessors, and that city which was the head and mistress of the world, – wherefore is it now shaken by the tyranny of the Torcilingi and the Rugi? Send me there with my race. Thus if you but say the word, you may be freed from the burden of expense here, and, if by the Lord’s help I shall conquer, the fame of Your Piety shall be glorious there. For it is better that I, your servant and your son, should rule that kingdom, receiving it as a gift from you if I conquer, than that one whom you do not recognize should oppress your Senate with his tyrannical yoke and a part of the republic with slavery. For if I prevail, I shall retain it as your grant and gift; if I am conquered, Your Piety will lose nothing – nay, as I have said, it will save the expense I now entail.”180

It is very likely only a literary representation of one of the talks between Theoderic and Zeno, but if Jordanes renders this version in his summary of Cassiodorus’ book, it may have been identical with the original contents of the conversation, which would mean that the members of Theoderic’s court desired for such a version of the account. It is possible that some sort of a deal may have been forged between Zeno and Theoderic.181 It is hard to resist the impression that the account was intended to arouse feelings of admiration for Theoderic, for his cunning and courage. Jordanes goes on to say that the emperor “was anguished over the estrangement, but he did not want to sadden Theoderic.”182 This distinctly subdued phrasing might have been used to conceal the fact that the emperor had been pondering on whether he should agree to Theoderic’s proposal, not necessarily in fear of being anguished over his imminent departure. According to Procopius of Caesarea, Zeno would attempt to persuade Theoderic into conquering Italy and defeating Odoacer,183 perhaps with a view to have the latter eliminated before he began to pose any threat. In the emperor’s eyes, the rule of Theoderic in Italy may have seemed a safer option.

180 Jordanes, Getica 291: “Hesperia”, inquid, “plaga, quae dudum decessorum prodecessorumque vestrorum regimine gubernata est, et urbs illa caput orbis et domina quare nunc sub regis Thorcilingorum Rogorumque tyrranide fluctuatur? dirige me cum gente mea, si praecepis, ut et hic expensarum pondere careas et ibi, si adiutus a domino vicero, fama vestrae pietatis inradiet. expedit namque, ut ego, qui sum servus vester et filius, si vicero, vobis donantibus regnum illud possedeam; haut ille, quem non nostis, tyrranico iugo senatum vestrum partemque rei publicae captivitatis servitio premat. ego enim si vicero, vestro dono vestroque munere possedebo; si victus fuero, vestra pietas nihil amittit, immo, ut diximus, lucratur expensas” (trans. Ch. C. Mierow). 181 Cf. V. Neri, 1995, 326. 182 Jordanes, Getica 292 (trans. Ch. C. Mierow). 183 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Gothico I, 1.

48

Ultimately, Zeno was to give his consent, but on the condition that following the conquest of Italy Theoderic would rule there on the emperor’s behalf and only until the arrival of the latter.184 This date is confirmed in some other sources as well.185 Michel Rouche offers his own interpretation of this event and suggests that Zeno would have proposed the rule over Italy to Theoderic so that the latter could leave and move on to somewhere else.186 Jordanes reports that “before he left, [the emperor] entrusted the Senate and the people of Rome to him.”187 Paul the Deacon relates a similar account: “By a special decree, he conferred Italy on him and confirmed it by presenting him with a sacred vestment. He submitted the Senate and the people of Rome to his custody and allowed him to leave.”188 On the other hand, the Excerpta Valesiana offers a brief note that “he presented him with generous gifts and dispatched him to Italy.”189 Jordanes’ words should be understood in the sense that the emperor recommended the rights of the Senate and the people of Rome to his attention, to extend his custody over them, or act in agreement with the Senate. Likewise, Rouche offers a different view of the situation and infers that the passage carries the implicit information on the insignia of authority (SPQR) being handed over to Theoderic.190 It would mean that, from then on, he was to fight and win under that sign, as if effectively assuming the post of commanderin-chief of the Imperial troops, which is not, in fact, out of the question. Another chronicle yields yet another interpretation: under 511, it says briefly that Theoderic had been removed by Zeno, after which he arrived in Italy, forced

184 Excerpta Valesiana 11.49: Cui Theodericus pactuatus est, ut si victus fuisset Odoacer, pro merito laborum suorum loco eius, dum adveniret, tantum praeregnaret. Ergo, superveniente Theoderico patricio de civitate Nova cum gente Gothica, missus ab imperatore Zenone de partibus Orientis ad defendendam sibi Italiam. 185 Cassiodorus, Chronicon, with the following information recorded under 489: His conss [sc. Probino et Eusebio] felicissimus atque fortissimus dominus rex Theodericus intravit Italiam (MGH AA XI, 159); Marcellinus offers the same facts, yet without bias in the ruler’s favour, while also noting, under the previous year, that he had already left for Italy by then: Chronica, A.D. 488–489, MGH AA XI, 93. For a reconstruction of the deal made in 488, see J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1994, 111. 186 Cf. M. Rouche, 1996, 219. For the same opinion, cf. F. Cardini, 2009, cap. 1. 187 Jordanes, Getica 292: senatum populumque ei commendans Romanum. 188 Paulus Diaconus, HR XV, 14: Italiamque ei per pragmaticum tribuens sacri etiam velaminis dono confirmavit, senatum illi populumque Romanum commendans abire permisit. 189 Excerpta Valesiana 11.49: donans ei multum et mittens eum in Italiam. 190 Cf. M. Rouche, 1996, 219.

49

Unulf to flee and killed Odoacer.191 In 511, Theoderic did not enjoy much support in the south of Gaul, as we shall see further on, and hence this particular opinion.192 In all likelihood, therefore, the circumstances of the Goths’ departure from the territories in the Eastern Roman Empire and their emergence in Italy were not entirely clear and would lead to various, at times contradictory, interpretations, just as would all of the diplomatic talks. The followers of the emperor were concerned with making his role appear more prominent, while Theoderic’s supporters wanted to downplay that role.193 One way or another, Theoderic entered Italy and would proceed to tighten the ring around Odoacer and his forces. According to some estimates, he had 100,000 men under his command.194 Everything seems to point to the fact that Theoderic understood very well that the success of his rule in Italy should depend, on the one hand, on his continuing to remain in the emperor’s shadow and, on the other, on being able to prevent anybody else in the West from overshadowing him.195 In 491, Theoderic’s rule was sanctioned by the emperor Zeno. Massimiliano Vitiello notes that the consulship dates present in the Excerpta Valesiana, namely the years 490 and 491, may be indicative of the fact that they would not as yet have been counted as the years of Theoderic’s reign.196 Unfortunately, he does not seem to have drawn the correct conclusions, unlike Jan Prostko-Prostyński.197 As a matter of fact, he draws on the account by Jordanes, who states that even during the conflict between Theoderic and Odoacer, when the latter fled for Ravenna and attempted to seek a truce, it was in the third year following his arrival in Italy, in 491, that Theoderic would begin to wear the regal vestments, with the emperor Zeno’s approval, as the ruler of the Goths and Romans. If it were to be reconciled with the information by Paul the Deacon, it would imply that he

191 Chronica Gallica a 511: Theodericus expulsus a Zenone imperatore ingressus Italiam fugato Unulfo et occiso Odofagro; MGH AA 9, 665. The chronicler dates this event to the 11th year of Zeno’s reign, which does not seem to correspond with the actual dates (he reigned in the years 474–491). Cf. R. Burgess, 2001, 85–100. 192 For a survey of various opinions on this point as of 30 years ago, see M. Reydellet, 1981, 199–201. 193 Cf. P. Heather, 2005, 223–225. 194 Cf. P. Heather, 2005, 243; J. Moorhead, 1992, 17–31. 195 E. Bach, 1957, 419: Théoderic avait compris le prix du succès d’un chef germanique dans l’empire romain; il lui fallait strictement respecter la souveraineté de l’empire romain, mais il ne pouvait admettre aucune autre piussance à ses côtés en Italie. 196 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 43. 197 Cf. J. Prostko-Prostyńcki, 1994, 131ff.

50

would not have used the king’s vestments until he assumed full authority.198 He married Audefleda, daughter (?) of Clovis, king of the Franks, here named Lodoin.199 Vitiello dates those events to 493.200 However, according to the Excerpta Valesiana, Theoderic dispatched Festus, chairman of the Senate,201 to Zeno, “in the hope that the emperor would allow him to don the regal vestments.”202 It would have likely taken place in late 490.203 Zeno died on April 9, 491,204 i.e., shortly after Festus’ return. Theoderic had already managed to dispatch another delegation led by Flavius Anicius Probus Faustus, also known as Faustus Niger.205 He held consulship for 490, and served as magister officii in 493 and the king’s ambassador at Constantinople in the years 492–494.206 Pope Gelasius, in his special Commonitorium, had also entrusted him207 with attending to some ecclesiastical matters, which would testify to the good relations between the Pope and the king. The matter in question was the “Acacian schism.”208 It is suspected that the letter might have been a forgery,209 but Gelasius makes reference to that mission in his Epistle 12 to the emperor Anastasius.210

198 Cf. Paulus Diaconus, HR XV, 14. 199 Jordanes, Getica 295: tertioque, ut diximus, anno ingressus sui in Italiam Zenonemque imperatorem consultum, privatum habitum suaeque gentis vestitum reponens, insignem regium amictum, quasi iam Gothorum Romanorumque regnator adsumit, missaque legatione ad Lodoin Francorum regem, filiam eius Audefledam sibi in matrimonio petit. In a letter addressed to him, Theoderic used the name Luduin, cf. Cassiodorus, Variae II, 41; Paulus Diaconus, HR XV, 20. 200 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 91. For similar accounts, see J. Strzelczyk, 2005, 127 and P. Heather, 2005, 227. Following his account of Odoacer’s assassination, Vitiello concludes: All’indomani della victoria, l’esercito proclamò re Teodorico. 201 Cf. PLRE II, 467–469. 202 Excerpta Valesiana 11.53: Et mittens legationem Theodericus Festum, caput senati, ad Zenonem imperatorem et ab eodem sperans vestem induere regiam. For more on Festus, cf. a discussion of the Liber Pontificalis text on Pope Anastasius II. 203 Cf. E. Stein, 1949, 56–57. 204 Cf. VICTOR TUNNUNENSIS, Chronica II, 6, MGH AA XI, 185. 205 Cf. PLRE II, 454–456. 206 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 12. 57; PLRE II, 454; P. A. B. Llewellyn, 1977, 258; J. Moorhead, 1984a, 109. 207 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 10; Thiel 341–348. 208 For a comprehensive account of the events that originated the schism, see V. Grossi, 2000, 423–428. 209 Cf. W. Haacke, 1939, 37–38. 210 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 12; Thiel 349–358.

51

The Excerpta Valesiana report that the envoys left for Constantinople but the emperor Zeno had died by the time they reached the capital. Consequently, their assignment would have been left unsettled (strictly speaking, the purpose of their mission remains a mystery). However, when the news of the emperor’s death arrived at Ravenna, the Goths proceeded to proclaim Theoderic king, “not waiting for the new emperor’s orders.”211 Let us have a look at how Evagrius Scholasticus describes the new emperor: “This Anastasius, being of a peaceful disposition, was altogether averse to the introduction of changes, especially in the state of the church…”212

If such an opinion had been already spreading at the time of his accession to power, the Goths in Italy may well have been rather unconcerned about him. Theoderic had already been the king of the Goths for many years, at least since the time when he received the leadership from his father, i.e., around 474, or even ca. 470/471, when he captured Singidunum (present-day Belgrade), his first dominium.213 Since Jordanes records this particular piece of information as the first one referring to Theoderic’s dominium, it would have been probably mentioned in Cassiodorus’ lost work History of the Goths, summarized in Jordanes’ chronicle. It is then not certain why Vitiello would believe that Cassiodorus failed to mention the year of the beginning of Theoderic’s reign in the Chronicle,214 as it had already been stated in the History. Considering the lack of any conclusive evidence, let us at least hypothesize on the beginnings of Theoderic’s formal rule in Italy and try to reconstruct the course of the events. With Odoacer ousted from power and forced into flight, Theoderic had fulfilled his obligation towards Zeno and conquered Italy for the emperor. In effect, he delegated Festus to recount the events to the emperor and obtain his permission to rule Italy formally. The permission was granted, but Theoderic received no 211 Excerpta Valesiana 12.57: Et moritur Constantinopolim Zenon imperator et factus est imperator Anastasius. Theodericus enim, qui in legationem direxerat Faustum Nigrum ad Zenonem, at ubi cognita morte eius antequam legatio reverteretur, ut ingressus est Ravennam et occidit Odoacrem, Gothi sibi confirmaverunt Theodericum regem non expectans iussionem novi principis. Cf. D. Claude, 1978a, 1–13. 212 Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 30 (trans. E. Walford). Cf. V. Grossi, 2000, 423. 213 Jordanes, Getica 282: civitatem, quam ipsi Sarmatae occupassent, invadens, non Romanis reddidit, sed suae subdedit dicioni. (“Having captured the city of Singidunum held by the Sarmatians, he would not pass it to the Romans but subordinated it to his rule”); Paulus Diaconus, HR 15, 12; M. Vitiello, 2005a, 56. 214 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 53–54.

52

crown. It may be supposed that his compatriots would have seen it as a somewhat limited measure of trust, as they refrained from officially recognizing Theoderic’s royal title despite his recently donned monarch’s vestments. It would not be long before he sent off another delegation, the one led by Faustus Niger. The objective of the mission is not known, but it would have apparently had something to do with ensuring the crown for him, as the Goths did not hesitate to affirm his royal title upon the news of Zeno’s death and would not wait for the election of a new emperor. The move may have been intended to exert pressure on the new emperor, to put him in a fait accompli situation where he would not only sanction Theoderic’s rule but also allow him to assume the royal crown. It actually came to happen in 497 with the aid of the same man, Festus, who had already proved to act with much success back in 490/491. The Excerpta Valesiana seem to count the years of Theoderic’s rule from 493, distinguishing it clearly from the time of his arrival in Italy. The author notes that Theoderic had ruled for 33 years215 (though this mention is apparently an interpolation), “showing much good will in all situations,” and then refers to 30 years of his reign as a happy and peaceful time.216 In the same year, Theoderic killed Odoacer with his own hands, as the  Excerpta Valesiana recounts,217 had his wife starved to death and their son banished, only to have him assassinated later on.218 Since then, there would have been no more rivals to challenge Theoderic’s authority.219 As Ernest Stein noted, this horror would mark the beginning of one of the most fortunate periods of rule in Italy.220 215 According to Procopius, 37 years (489–526); cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Gothico I, 1. 216 Excerpta Valesiana 12.59: Ergo praeclarus et bonae voluntatis in omnibus , cuius temporibus felicitas est secuta Italiam per annos triginta ita ut etiam pax pergentibus esset. Likewise, Jordanes, Romanica 349. I shall return to this question on the occasion of discussing the alleged 30th anniversary of Theoderic’s reign in 500. 217 Excerpta Valesiana 11.55: manu sua Theodericus eum in Lauretum pervenientem gladio interemit; Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 493, MGH AA XI, 159: Hoc cons. dn. rex Theodericus Ravennam ingressus Odovacrem molientem sibi insidias interemit. Marius Episcopus reports that Theoderic killed Odoacer at Loreto, cf. Marius Episcopus, Chronica, MGH AA XI, 233. 218 Cf. Johannes Antiochenos, Fragmenta 99; Excerpta historica jussu imperatoris Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta IV, De insidiis, ed. De Boor, 1905, 120. 219 For a discussion of Theoderic’s status as a ruler and his dependence on Constantinople, see A. Garzya, 1995, 341–351; P. Heather, 2005, 226–227. 220 Cf. E. Stein, 1949, 58.

53

2.  Theoderic and the “Acacian Schism” – a Prelude The so-called “Acacian schism” began in 484, during the pontificate of Felix III, and would last until as late as 519 (the pontificate of Hormisdas).221 The disruption of the ecclesiastical communion between the Bishop of Rome Felix III and Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius222 took place when the latter established communion with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who refused to accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451),223 which was of great importance to Rome. Moreover, Acacius failed to take part in a synod of Rome, which he had been summoned by the Pope to attend, thus exposing himself to accusations of supporting the Monophysite views of Eutyches, who was condemned at Chalcedon. Notably, the emperor Zeno would be accused of the same thing.224 His “fault” was that he had enabled Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch to re-establish communion on the strength of a document known as the Henotikon.225 The Liber Pontificalis reports concisely that during the pontificate of Felix III:226 “the news came from the fathers in Greece that Peter of Alexandria established communion with Acacius [of Constantinople]. The venerable Felix [Archbishop of the Apostolic See of Rome] then appointed a plenipotentiary designated by the synod assembled at the see and condemned Acacius and Peter.”227

This passage makes reference to Peter Mongos, who was elected as Bishop of Alexandria following the death of Timothy Ailuros. The emperor Zeno was dissatisfied at first and even condemned Peter to death, replacing him with Timothy 221 On the “Acacian schism,” cf., e.g., S. Salaville, 1920, 2153–2178; W. T. Townsend, 1936, 78–86; J. Richards, 1979, 57–68; T. S. Burns, 1982, 107–110; R. Kosiński, 2010b, 177–201; M. Ożóg, 2012b, 107–126. 222 Cf. R. Kosiński, 2010c, 63–97. 223 Cf. Concilium Chalcedonense, Documentum fidei and Canon 28, DSP 1, 214–225 and 251. 224 Cf. VICTOR TUNNUNENSIS, Chronica, MGH AA XI, 190: Zeno imperator Eutychiani poculo erroris sopitus Acacium Constantinopolitanum episcopum damnatoribus synodi Calchedonensis Petro Alexandrino et Petro Antiocheno episcopis per henoticum a se prolatum socians eorum communione polluitur et cum eis a catholica fide recedit. 225 Cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III 13; E. Stein, 1949, 31–39; R. Kosiński, 2010a, 433–451. 226 Cf. Jaffé 591–618. 227 LP 50, 2: (F) iterum venit relatio a patres Greciarum, Petrum Alexandrino revocatum ad communionem ab Acacio [episcopo Constantinopolitano]. Tunc venerabilis papa Felix [archiepiscopus sedis apostolicae urbis Romae] mittens defensore ex constituto synodi sedis suae, et damnavit Acacio cum Petro.

54

Salophakialos.228 On the other hand, another contender to the See of St Mark, John Talaios, would go to Constantinople and ask the emperor to allow the people to elect their bishop next time. The emperor agreed on the condition that John take an oath he would not make an attempt to become one. Nonetheless, when Timothy Salophakialos died, John would have allegedly bribed his way to become elected.229 Zeno had him exiled (John left for Rome230) and proceeded to write his Henotikon231 (which will be mentioned a bit further on); he would also consent to Peter Mongos’ accession to the see if the latter signed the document authored by the emperor.232 Peter agreed, subscribed the Henotikon, and proceeded to propagate it in Alexandria.233 The document was conceived as a well-balanced compromise between the followers of the two natures in Christ and those of the one (i.e., divine) nature, which was fundamentally the most prominent theological problem during the Council of Chalcedon. It was not meant to question the orthodox position, as its main concern was to circumvent the theological issue that had arisen during and after the Council, containing references to the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople I (381), and Ephesus (431).234 Acacius was openly charged with supporting the adversaries of the Council of Chalcedon235 and condemned.236 The schism would set in even further when

228 Cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 11. 229 For the most part, the episcopate dates of these four bishops tend to overlap: Timothy Ailuros (457–477), Timothy Salophakialos (460–482), Peter Mongos (477–490), John Talaios (482); cf. J. M. Szymusiak, M. Starowieyski (ed.), 1971, 416. 230 Cf. VICTOR TUNNUNENSIS, Chronica, A.D. 494, 191; cf. A. K. Ziegler, 1942, 424. 231 Cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 14; Zacharias Rhetor, HE V, 8. See also L. Perrone, 1980; P. Maraval, 1998, 119–122; V. Grossi, 2000, 424–428; Morrison C. (ed.), 2007, 88–90; R. Kosiński, 2010a, 433–451. 232 Cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 12. 233 Cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 13. 234 Cf. R. Kosiński, 2010c, 63–97. 235 Roma (28 iulii 484), SCL 6, 282: Therefore, if you notice that the hostile hearts turn against the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and you remain silent, believe me, I do not know how you can claim you are a member of the Church. 236 Cf. the letter of Pope Felix condemning Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople for his readmission of Peter and other heretics without the consent of the Apostolic See, SCL 6, 283–285; Thiel 243–247; E. Schwartz, 1934, 6–7 (Collectio Veronensis).

55

Fravitas, Acacius’ successor, sent a conciliatory letter to Rome but would not decide to condemn his predecessor.237 The common recognition of the Council of Nicaea would not have posed much of a problem already since the emperor Theodosius’ edict of 380, which had imposed it on everybody else except for the Goths.238 As for the Council of Ephesus, all the principal sees shared the same view, while the followers of Nestorius (who was condemned there) had to move farther to the East. However, the recognition of the synod of Constantinople (381) would pose a certain problem. The synod sanctioned the aforementioned Theodosian constitution on the Nicene Creed, with the intention of putting an end to contentious disputes, but at the same time it recognized the superior position of Constantinople in the East,239 which was not very well received in Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. The first two sees considered themselves to be churches of Apostolic origins, i.e., “superior,” whereas the See of Rome disapproved it on political grounds. The extant documents do not indicate any important theological decisions that would have been taken there, except for the upholding of the position affirmed by Constantinople. Canon 1, which affirms the Nicene Creed as obligatory and unalterable, only cites the emperor Theodosius’ constitutions of 380 and January 381:240 “The creed of the holy Fathers assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia cannot be changed but ought to be preserved in all of its authority; likewise, all heresies should be excluded, particularly the heresy of Eunomians, that is, Anomeians, Arians or Eudoxians, and

237 Cf. V. Grumel, Les Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. 1: les actes des patriarches, fasc. I (381 a 715), Paris 1972, n. 173. 238 CTh XVI, 1, 2: Thessalonicae (27 Februarii 380). Imppp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius AAA. Edictum ad populum urbis Constantinopolitanae. Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Alexandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia Trinitate credamus. Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitrio sumpserimus, ultione plectendos. Dat. III kal. mar. Thessalonicae Gratiano A. V et Theodosio A. I conss. (trans. C. Pharr). Cf. Chapter I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.” 239 Cf. Constantinopolis (381), c. 3, DSP 1, 72. 240 Cf. CTh XVI, 5, 6, 235–236.

56

semi-Arians, also called Pneumatomachians, as well as [the heresies] of Sabelians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians.”241

Even the very wording of this canon points out that the information concerning the formulation of any confession of faith during that convocation is just a myth, and the so-called “Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed” had not existed prior to 451, when it was pronounced as having been formulated in Constantinople in 381, although even in 448 the synod of Constantinople acknowledged only the Nicene (325) and Ephesian confessions of faith (431).242 The elevation of this synod of the Eastern bishops to the rank of a council equal to the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus took place at Chalcedon, when, in view of the extant sources, the expression “Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed” was used for the first time.243 For this reason, if someone affirmed the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and agreed with them, it would signify that they also recognized this particular mention of the formula of faith (allegedly formulated there) as well as Canon 28 of the same synod that confirmed the leading role of Constantinople in the East.244 Rome would not acknowledge the synod of Constantinople in 381 as a general council or agree to the superior role of Constantinople, but recognized the Council of Chalcedon as it condemned Eutyches and  Monophysitism and praised Pope Leo and his Christological document Tomus ad Flavianum, treating of the two natures in Christ.245 It appears that there were Christians in the East, especially in Antioch and  Alexandria, who would have possibly endorsed the doctrine of Chalcedon, yet they could not have approved of the elevated stature of the new see. One of them may have been Timothy Ailuros, Bishop of Alexandria in the years 457–477 (only for three years as sole bishop, and for the rest of his tenure in opposition to Timothy Salophakialos), who was regarded as a Monophysite and adhered to the decisions of Nicaea and Ephesus, but refused to acknowledge the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, as communicated in a letter of his followers. There is nothing Monophysitic about this document; nonetheless, they state very clearly that they

241 Constantinopolis (381), c. 1, DSP 1, 71. 242 Cf. Constantinopolis (448), 229, SCL 6, 63. Cf. H. Pietras, 2007b, 35–50. 243 Cf. Concilium Chalcedonense (451), Documentum fidei, DSP 1, 214–225, 251; H. Pietras, 2013. 244 Cf. Concilium Chalcedonense (451), c. 28, DSP 1, 250. 245 Cf. Leo I Magnus, Tomus ad Flavianum, DSP 1, 196–213.

57

know of an assembly of bishops at the capital but do not consider it as a legitimate synod and do not recognize the Council of Chalcedon.246 There were also others who became reconciled with the necessity to recognize the capital of the Empire as superior in the ecclesiastical hierarchy as well, even though they would view the doctrine of the two natures as a novelty and a result of the Nestorian influence. In the emperor’s eyes, it seemed that he could pass over such subtleties as one or two natures in Christ but only on the strength of the reliable church authorities and on the condition of elevating the position of Constantinople. However, Peter of Alexandria established communion with Peter the Fuller of Antioch,247 an adamant opponent of Chalcedon, the fact which was disturbing to Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, who attempted to find some consensus with the emperor on diplomatic grounds but was rather reluctant to become an overt enemy of the decisions of Chalcedon.248 His main concern was to preserve the privileged status of his see and, for this reason, he would not stand for rejecting Chalcedon altogether, simply because it would have meant that the decision referring to the status of Constantinople. In effect, he convoked a synod at the capital and condemned Peter the Fuller.249 In response, Peter wrote a letter to appease the situation, where he stated that he had not rejected the decisions of Chalcedon. According to Evagrius,250 the letter was intended to deceive Acacius. The emperor and Acacius perceived the Henotikon as a good solution. It avoided mentioning Chalcedon, offered no support to either Monophysitic or Duophysitic party, but emphasized the important position of Constantinople. For these reasons, it was not well received in Rome. It may be assumed that Theoderic would have seen the “Acacian schism” as something of an opportunity, primarily because the divisions within the Catholic Church were favourable to the Arians. Political considerations of the issue were of as much importance as religious aspects. First of all, Arianism became the Goths’

246 Cf. Alexandria (458) III: Epistola quorundam episcoporum Aegyptiacae dioecesis, SCL 6, 206–208; cf. the concluding part of the document: Synodum vero centum quinquaginta nescimus: novimus autem, quia beati patres nostri et archiepiscopi post concilium, atque in Constantinopolitana ecclesia congregati sunt. Synodum enim Chalcedonensem ecclesia maximae civitatis Alexandrinae non suscipit. 247 Bishop of Antioch in 468 and in 470/471. 248 Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 16. 249 Cf. Constantinopolis (ca. 477), SCL 6, 275 (see note). 250 Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 17.

58

“national” faith251 as well as a constituent element of their identity.252 It is then much easier, in this light, to understand some of the decisions and actions taken by Theoderic, which would simply point out that he did not oppose the schism and would rather concentrate on turning the whole situation to his advantage. The attitude of Theoderic towards the “Acacian schism” is a complex and elusive question, fairly difficult to render in comprehensive and coherent terms, exactly as it is the case with respect to the whole extent of his religious policy (cf. Giovanni Battista Picotti’s opinion).253 The synod mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis is an otherwise unattested event. As a matter of fact, it may have been a council of the local clergy (synodus sedis suae) with whom the Pope decided on the question of sending a delegation to Constantinople. In all likelihood, it would have taken place shortly after the promulgation of the Henotikon, in 482. “3. Three years later, the emperor Zeno communicated that Acacius had agreed to [do] his penance. Pope Felix convoked a synod and dispatched two bishops, Misenus and Vitalis, to Acacius and, should they find him an adherent of Peter, they were to renew the anathema, and if not, they would present him with instructions on his penance. When the two bishops arrived at Constantinople [or Heraclea, according to some of the manuscripts], they were bribed and did not proceed as ordered by the Apostolic See.”254

The synod “after three years” is the one that took place on 28 July 484. Evagrius recounts that John of Alexandria addressed a letter to Felix, asking the Pope to condemn Acacius for remaining in communion with Peter.255 These events had occurred prior to Theoderic’s arrival in Italy, and I have only mentioned them here in passing. Let us note, however, that the accounts may differ as to the city, 251 Not all of them, of course, as some of them, e.g., the Crimean Goths were not Arians; cf. M. Salamon, 2010, 158. 252 Cf. G. B. Picotti, 1956, 213; H. Wolfram, 1979, 342–343. A. Schwarcz, 1999, 454. 253 Cf. G. B. Picotti, 1956, 173. 254 LP 50, 3: Post annos III iterum venit relatio ab imperatore Zenonem ut paenitens rediret Acacius. Tunc papa Felix fecit concilium, ex consensum misit duos episcopos, Mesenum et Vitalem, ut si invenirent conplicem Petri Acacium, iterum damnarent; si non, offerrent libellum paenitentiae. Qui dum introissent in civitatem Constantinopolim, corrupti pecuniae datum supra dicti episcopi et non fecerunt secundum praeceptum sedis apostolicae. 255 Cf. Felix III, Epistola Felicis papae III ad Acacium Constantinopolitanum and Epistola Felicis papae damnantis Acacium Constantinopolitanum episcopum, Roma (28 iulii 484), SCL 6, 279–285; cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 18; E. Schwartz, 1934, 69–73 (Collectio Berolinensis); J. Wojda, 2006, 34–41.

59

Constantinople or Heraclea. The earlier source Epitome Feliciana makes reference to the capital, but the manuscripts of the groups II and III (Mommsen) mention Heraclea. The latter option is not as incongruous as it may seem at first. Heraclea was a harbour on the route to Constantinople, and the envoys must have travelled by sea.256 Besides, Heraclea had always been the metropolitan see for the city of Byzantium and the transformation of the latter into Constantinople would not have changed that status at all in the eyes of the Roman pontiffs, who would not regard, only if strictly pro forma, the bishopric of Constantinople as a metropolitan see. It is then quite possible that the Pope would have dispatched his delegation to Heraclea in the first place, as it was formally the metropolitan see for the suffraganate of Constantinople. The alleged corruption of the two bishops who were sent on that mission would be subsequently debated during several synods. “4. When they arrived at Rome, to the apostolic see, Pope Felix summoned a synod257 and, after the matter had been considered, the both bishops, Misenus and Vitalis, were found guilty and removed from communion. Then, Bishop Misenus admitted that he had taken the money and the synod determined the time for his penance. It happened during the reign of king Odoacer.”258

According to Evagrius,259 the news of the betrayal of Misenus and  Vitalis was brought to Rome by a Constantinopolitan monk named Simeon and presbyter Silvan, who accompanied the bishops.260 J. Wojda argues that the condemnation of Acacius was carried through by the authority of the Pope, rather than by the synod, as the latter would only have played a strictly auxiliary role here. This argumentation seems to be slightly anachronistic in view of our knowledge of the fact that the synod, presided over by the Pope, had indeed taken place, but there is no evidence on any theoretical disputes referring to the Pope’s superior position or, alternatively, the superior position of the synod.261 256 Cf. D. Gorce, 1925; A. L. Udovitch, 1981; R. Chevallier, 1988; L. Casson, 1994. 257 Cf. Felix III, Epistola ad Zenonem Imperatorem, Roma (5 octobris 485), SCL 6, 285–287. 258 LP 50, 4: Venientes vero Romam ad sedem apostolicam, fecit papa Felix concilium; et examinatione facta in concilio invenit eos reos et eiecit Mesenum et Vitalem episcopos a communionem. Tunc Mesenus episcopus non se tacuit corruptum per pecunia; cui concilius concessum tempus paenitentiae. Hoc vero facto temporibus Odovagri regis. 259 Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 21. 260 Cf. Ad clericos et monachos orientales; Coll. Avell., CSEL 35, no. 70 (O. Guenther, 1895); Epistola 11. Synodus Romana ad presbyteros et archimandritas, SCL 6, 287–290. 261 Cf. J. Wojda, 2006, 37–39.

60

It is difficult to ascertain if the annotation of the last sentence is of any significance. It appears in the first recension and it seems as if the author had wished to make a distinction between the action towards the “Acacian schism” before and during the reign of Theoderic. Nonetheless, this cannot be regarded as a strong argument. “5. He performed two December ordinations in Rome, 28 priests, 5 deacons; for [various] places 31 bishops. He was buried in St Paul’s. The bishopric was vacant 5 days.”262 “6. [After his death a decree about the whole church was issued by the priests and deacons ]”263

The duration of Felix III’s pontificate, as stated in the Liber Pontificalis, makes it possible to determine that he died on March 1, 492, shortly after Theoderic had been recognized as king by his subjects. Although Odoacer did not relinquish his grip on power, it appeared that there was no way but to accept the reality of Theoderic’s rule in Italy. Also, it was not certain at all what position the emperor would take on the two most important issues: the “Acacian schism” and the relations with Theoderic. Would he agree to his arbitrarily proclaiming himself as king or allow an Arian to exercise authority with the emperor’s consent? The reaction of Pope Felix is not known. Was it hope or apprehension? The final sentence of the passage from the Liber Pontificalis (recension II) is noteworthy: Cessavit episcopatum dies V. The bishopric was vacant for five days only, while the presbyters and deacons would have very soon taken some decisions, which would have otherwise been brought to conclusion after a lengthy period of time. Why were they in such a hurry? Could not they have waited for the election of a new bishop? Perhaps they were apprehensive about not easily predictable actions of Theoderic as well as those of the new bishop? The sources do not provide any account of the election.

262 LP 50, 5: Hic fecit ordinationes II per mens. Decemb., presb. XXVIII, diac. V, episcopos loca XXXI. Sepultus est apud beato Paulo. Cessavit episcopatum dies V (trans. R. Davis). 263 LP 50, 5: [Et post transitum eius factum est a presbiteris et diaconibus constitutum de omnem ecclesiam. ] (trans. R. Davis). According to L. M. Duchesne, the sentence in < > would rather refer to the vacatio sedis in 483, between Simplicius and Felix III.

61

Chapter III Liber Pontificalis 51 on Gelasius (1 III 492–21 XI 496)264 “1. Gelasius born in Africa, son of Valerius, held the see 4 years 8 months and 18 days265. He was bishop in the time of king Theodoric and the emperor Zeno. [In this time Manichaeans were discovered in the city of Rome; these he ordered to be deported into exile, and their books he burnt with fire before the doors of St Mary’s basilica].”266

The Liber Pontificalis is the only source referring to the African origin of Gelasius. There is in fact practically no information concerning his life before the pontificate. According to various handbooks and compendia, he had been the secretary of the Popes Simplicius (468–483) and Felix III (483–492).267 This assumption is based on the fact that the letters of these two popes contain many wordings very similar to those from Gelasius’ letters. It seems, however, that more plausible may be the opinion of Pierre Nautin, who argues that this de facto resemblance can be found only in those documents from the collection of Gelasius’ letters which may have been included therein by mistake, and had been written, in fact, by the two popes or their secretary.268 Therefore, there are apparently no grounds to assume that the newly elected Pope was a figure well-known in the pontifical circles of Rome. This could be a certain clue as to why some clergy had been so anxious to settle unspecified matters during the sede vacante, as mentioned at the close of the previous chapter. There is no evidence of any controversy over his election, which would have apparently pointed to the sufficient strength of his followers. Nonetheless, it seems that the expected result of the election may have aroused apprehension and spurred some people to act in haste and take care of certain matters. Very soon, Gelasius would prove to be a determined and adamant person, and there must have been good reasons to be apprehensive about 264 Cf. Jaffé 618–743. 265 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 494; R. Bratož, “Gelasio I.” 266 LP 51, 1: Gelasius, natione Afer, ex patre Valerio, sedit ann. IIII m. VIII d. XVIII. Fuit autem temporibus Theodorici regis et Zenonis Aug. [Huius temporibus inventi sunt Manichei in urbe Roma quos exilio deportari praecepit, quorum codices ante fores basilicae sanctae Mariae incendio concremavit] (trans. R. Davis). 267 See, e.g., M. Spinelli in the DPAC sub voce: “Gelasio I papa”; cf. A. K. Ziegler, 1942, 414–417. 268 Cf. P. Nautin, “Gélase I,” 284.

63

his strong and resolute character. It also appears that he may have been the first pope who used the term summus pontifex in reference to his office.269 For the sake of information, let us note that the codex E270 includes the following sentence here: Huius temporibus inventa est ecclesia sancti Angeli in monte Gargano. According to the hagiographical tradition, Archangel Michael’s apparitions took place there several times between the years 490 and 493. Afterwards, the cave of the apparitions would have been consecrated there.271 However, it seems that there was very likely no relation between this event and Theoderic. The biographical note for Gelasius in the  Liber Pontificalis contains some clearly inaccurate information. By that time, the emperor Zeno had been dead for one year, while Anastasius had reigned since lately. Theoderic would have only begun his rule. He had just proclaimed himself king, but he still needed the emperor’s sanction, and Gelasius regarded him as a king without crown. Let us notice one of the passages where, in the context of the disciplinary dispute with certain two clergymen who had appealed to the king, the Pope urged Theoderic to respect the prerogatives of the Holy See and to avoid interfering in the matters beyond his jurisdiction.272 In another passage, he calls the king his son, as if boasting of a certain closer relation with him.273 Addressing the dignitary Teius, he cited the example of a magnificent king whom everybody in the kingdom should imitate.274 Very clearly, Gelasius’ intention was to maintain the best possible relations with the king and he was not disheartened by the ruler’s Arian faith. One could even argue that the Pope would have contributed to consolidating Theoderic’s rule in Italy.275 Erich Caspar notes that Gelasius tolerated the existence of Arian churches throughout Italy, including Rome.276 His predecessor Felix had addressed the emperor Zeno in a similar manner, despite the ruler’s alleged support for Monophysitism.277 269 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 14, 6, Thiel 365; A. K. Ziegler, 1942, 421. 270 According to Mommsen’s edition. 271 Cf. L. Suchy (ed.), 1998. 272 Cassiodorus, EpThV 6, MGH AA XII, 391 (the letter of 496): Certum est magnificentiam vestram leges Romanorum principum, quas in negotiis hominum custodiendas esse praecepit, multo magis circa reverentiam beati Petri apostoli pro suae felicitatis augmento velle servari. 273 Cf. EpThV 4, MGH AA XII, 390. 274 EpThV 2, MGH AA XII, 389–390: ut quicumque sub illius regno vivit, quod facit rex magnificus imitetur, ne videatur supra illius tendere voluntatem; cf. P. Amory, 1997, 420. 275 Cf. T. F. X. Noble, 1993, 402. 276 Cf. E. Caspar, 1933, 74. 277 Cf. Roma (485), SCL 6, 285.

64

Gelasius was aware of the weight of good relations with the East, but he would not seem to show willingness to reach a compromise. For instance, after his pontifical election, he sent a letter of notification to the emperor Anastasius, as evident in the Commonitorium to Faustus, the king’s emissary to Constantinople, where the Pope included instructions to his legates at the capital.278 He also sent a polite reply to Bishop Euphemios of Constantinople (who felt slighted at not having been notified), addressing him as “beloved brother” and stating that he had not sent a letter of notification because Euphemios was a heretic.279 What ensued was a certain test of strength between the Pope, on one part, and the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, on the other. Gelasius would defend his pontifical authority with much resolve, even going so far as to reproach the Patriarch, as Stanisław Koczwara remarks.280 In 494, Gelasius addressed a letter to Anastasius,281 wherein he argued that the Pope’s authority was greater than that of the emperor. Considering these circumstances, Gay Lacam, in his richly illustrated catalogue La fin de l’Empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie de 455 à 493 attempts to make an iconographical analysis (which is, unfortunately, rather incorrect) of a coin bearing an image of Anastasius, struck at the mint of Rome in ca. 494–495. In his opinion: “La structure de la Croix prend alors toute sa signification. Elle affirme par toi fois l’existence de la Trinité, à l’encontre des Monophysistes que soutenait Anastase.”282

There is no way it could be a plausible interpretation because the Monophysites had not been opposed to the faith in the Holy Trinity. They professed the belief in one nature of Christ, in opposition to the doctrine of the two natures adopted by the Council of Chalcedon. It can be seen that the obverse of the solidus depicts a six-pointed star on the left instead of the eight-pointed star which is present on the other coins on the right. Gay Lacam offers the following explanation: “En déplaçant l’étoile à gauche dans le champ du revers, l’Eglise se voulait ignorer la présence sur le trône du Pars orientais d’un Empereur récalcitrant, fleurant l’hérésie, tandis qu’à travers les 6 branches, au lieu des 8 usuelles, elle réitérait sa foi en la

278 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 10, Thiel 341–348; Jaffé 619; E. Schwartz, 1934, 16–19 (Collectio Veronensis). 279 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 3, 1, Thiel 313; E. Schwartz, 1934, 49–55 (Collectio Veronensis); Jaffé 620: Quemadmodum vobis ordinationem renuntiatura est, cui vestro etiam testimonio haereticos damnatos praeponitis? 280 Cf. S. Koczwara, 2000, 69. 281 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 12, Ad Anastasium Augustum, Thiel 349–358; E. Schwartz, 1934, 19–24 (Collectio Veronensis). 282 G. Lacam, 1984, 916.

65

dualité des personnes dans le Christ, niée égalment par les Monophysistes, au sein de la Trinité (2×6).”283

This is an utter misconception, as the pope believing in two persons in Christ would have been regarded as a heretic. Besides, even heretics would not speak of two persons of Christ within the Holy Trinity. The view that the star was shifted to the left as a sign of discrediting the emperor of the East is not pertinent as well on account of the fact that the West is situated left of the East only in modern maps, while the ancient cartography had preferred the “orientation” towards the East. It is not known if the Pope had ever notified Theoderic of his election. Was it because the ruler was considered a heretic or simply because he had not received his crown from the emperor yet (and, for this reason, his authority would still need to be legitimized in full)? In advance of the events, I would like to notice that when Symmachus and Laurence had been both elected as Bishops of Rome on the same day in 498, the parties appealed to Theoderic, not to the emperor. But, let us recall, it happened after the ruler of Italy had received his crown. Such a state of affairs seems to imply that the “Acacian schism” may have worked to Theoderic’s advantage, as I have noted before. From his perspective, the accord between the Emperor and the Patriarch, on the one part, and the Pope, on the other, would have created a potentially dangerous situation. Indeed, after the end of the schism, the Emperor and the Pope would begin to take steps to eradicate Arianism, which would have basically spelled the termination of the period of Theoderic’s peaceful rule in Italy. I will return to this question in more detail in one of the following chapters. “1. During the synod, he summoned bishop Misenus, purified by his tears, after the completion of his penance [he restored to his church the man who had sinned in the matter of Acacius and Peter]. [2.] He was lover of [the clergy and284] the poor and he augmented the clergy. He delivered the city of Rome from danger to famine.”285

The problem of the “Acacian schism,” except for Theoderic’s role therein (see below), is mostly irrelevant to the present subject, and I shall not discuss the question of the penitent bishop Misenus in much detail (the particulars can be found 283 G. Lacam, 1984, 917. Most likely, he refers to the following calculation: 2 (persons) × 3 (Holy Trinity) = 6 (six-pointed star). 284 According to the manuscripts of the groups II and III (Mommsen’s edition). 285 LP 51, 1–2: Hic sub gesta synodi, cum fletu, sub satisfactione libelli, purgatum Mesenum episcopum revocavit [quem ecclesiae suae restituit, qui peccaverat in causa Acacii et Petri]. Hic fuit amator cleri et pauperum et clerum ampliavit. Hic liberavit a periculo famis civitatem Romanam (trans. R. Davis).

66

in the documents of the synod).286 However, the mention referring to “augmenting the clergy” deserves some attention. In one of his extant letters, Gelasius encourages ordaining the eligible monks as priests, because of the inadequate numbers of the latter.287 In fact, this circumstance might have been the first case of a “crisis of priestly vocations” in the Church and it would be worth finding out the reasons for it. Gelasius notes that it was caused by belli famisque, adding that it concerned, above all, the diocese of Ravenna, as he was informed of the situation by John, the bishop of that diocese. Another noteworthy point is the danger of famine mentioned by the author. In one of the extant letters addressed to the queen mother, Gelasius presents her with a recommendation for his delegate (defensor) Peter, who was sent to the king on a mission to ensure providing food for the poor. Let us have a look at the following extant passage of the letter: “I hurried to send Peter, a delegate of our Church, with my letters, addressing my lord and my son, the most serene king, in the matter of providing food for the poor. Immediately upon his arrival, he had come to greet Your Magnificence, beseeching You, for Your salvation and greater prosperity, to assist in the cause of those in need.”288

Since, as the Liber Pontificalis reports, he “delivered the city from the threat of famine,” his intervention must have been successful. The queen, the mother of Theoderic (whose protection the Pope would seek), was a Catholic.289 “[3. He issued a decree about the whole church. In this time there again came a report from Greece, that Peter and Acacius were causing many evils and murders at Constantinople. At that time John, the catholic bishop of Alexandria, came in flight to the apostolic see in Rome; blessed Gelasius received him gloriously and even provided a second bishopric from him.]”290

286 Cf. Roma (8–13 martii 495), SCL 6, 323–330. 287 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 14, 2–3 (Universis episcopis per Lucaniam, et Brutios, et Siciliam constitutis); cf. S. Pricoco, 1995, 404–405. 288 EpThV 4, MGH AA XII, 390: Gelasius Hereleuvae reginae. Qui pro victu pauperum domino filio meo excellentissimo regi cum meis litteris supplicaret, Petrum ecclesiae defensorem dirigere properavi. quo veniente sublimitatem quoque tuam salutare non destiti, plurimum deprecans, ut pro vestrae salutis et prosperitatis augmentis egentium causas iuvare dignemini. data V. k. Mar. Cf. B. Saitta, 2000, 400. 289 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 12.58; Jordanes, Getica 269; Ennodius, Panegyricus Theodorico 42, MGH AA, VII, 208. 290 LP 51, 3: Hic fecit constitutum de omnem ecclesiam. Huius temporibus iterum venit relatio de Grecias eo quod multa mala et homicidia fierent a Petro et Acacio Constantinopolim. Eodem tempore fugiens Iohannis Alexandrinus episcopus catholicus et venit

67

At the close of the chapter dedicated to Felix III, the Liber Pontificalis notes that the clergy had established the laws for all the churches. In the chapter presently discussed, it is said in reference to Gelasius. It is not known if there was any link between those facts. Even the listing of the documents issued or sent during his relatively brief pontificate is definitely impressive.291 Among the most significant ones, let us mention a collection of documents addressed to all the bishops of Lucania, Brutios, and Sicily.292 I shall not discuss the disputes and contentions in Constantinople, but it is worth explaining the false statement on John. In fact, John Talaia had departed from Alexandria at an earlier date,293 he took part in the synod of Rome in 484, whereas the bishopric of Nola was assigned to him by Pope Felix III. He died there ca. 495.294 There are also several other anachronistic details in the same passage: Acacius died in 489, Peter Mongos in 490, and Peter the Fuller of Antioch in 488. Therefore, the information refers to the previous pope, and it was inserted here by mistake. The other details relating to Gelasius in the Liber Pontificalis are not relevant at all to the primary subject of the present study. During this pontificate, Theoderic dispatched Bishop Epiphanius295 to Gundobad, king of the Burgundians, in order to negotiate a return of the captives Romam ad sedem apostolicam; quem beatus Gelasius suscepit cum gloria, cui etiam et sedem secundam praebuit (trans. R. Davis). 291 Cf. Jaffé 619–743. 292 Cf. Gelasius, Epistola 14, Thiel 360–379. 293 Cf. Victor Tunnunensis, Chronica, A.D. 494, 191. 294 On the flight of John of Alexandria: Breviculus historicus Eutychianistarum sive gesta de nomine Acacii: Cum ergo sanctae memoriae papae Simplicii nihil toties ad Acacium directa, propter Alexandrinae Ecclesiae quietem, et catholicae fidei integritatem, scripta proficerent, supervenit idem sanctus Joannes episcopus, qui sicut decebat, ab apostolica sede susceptus est. Nam et priores eius similiter Romanae Ecclesiae tempore persecutionis suffugium poposcerunt. Huius adventus plenius universa patefecit, PL 58, 932, Coll. Avell. 99. According to Evagrius, HE III, 15: “Whereas John, whom we have already mentioned before, having fled from Alexandria, arrived in the old Rome and began to confuse the matter there, saying that he had lost his bishopric for his defence of the pronouncements of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, and he was replaced by the opponent of those. When Simplicius, Bishop of the old Rome, concerned about this, wrote a letter to the emperor, Zeno replied to him, accusing John of perjury and explaining that exactly for this reason, and not for any other, John had been deposed from his office and bishopric”. 295 Theoderic’s obligations towards the emperor Zeno (following the treaty of 488; for a possible reconstruction of the deal, cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1994, 111) led to his

68

taken in northern Italy by the latter (in 491), when he attempted to deliver assistance to Odoacer. After the release of the prisoners, Theoderic gave his daughter in marriage to Sigismund, Gundobad’s son.296 In this way, around 6,000 captives would have been reportedly released, not to mention those who had been redeemed at the expense of gold. It is described by Ennodius in his biography of Epiphanius, but the author does not specify the number of those redeemed for gold. He praises Theoderic for his gesture, even arguing for his superiority over the emperor, like David over Saul.297 Saitta considers it as the reason why Pope Gelasius exalted Theoderic’s pietas in a certain letter dated to late 494.298 In any case, regardless of the actual reason for addressing this particular letter to the king, it had been certainly a good deed in the Pope’s eyes.

fairly good relations with the clergy, e.g., with Epiphanius of Pavia and Laurentius of Milan; cf. M. Wilczyński, 2005, 263. 296 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 297; Excerpta Valesiana 12. 63. The latter source shifts the names of Theoderic’s daughters in the context of their marriages: Theodegotha, not Ostrogotha, would have married Sigismund; cf. M. Rouche, 1996, 223. 297 Cf. Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii 172, MGH AA VII, 106. Cf. B. Saitta, 1993, 67; M. Reydellet, 1981, 161. 298 Cf. EpThV 1, Gelasius Teodorico Regis, MGH AA XII, 389.

69

Chapter IV Liber Pontificalis 52 on Anastasius II (24 XI 496–19 XI 498)299 “1. Anastasius born in Rome, son of Peter, [from the 5th Region, Caput Tauri], held the see 1 year 11 months 24 days. [He was bishop in the time of king Theodoric. He built the confessio of St Laurence the martyr, of silver weighing 80 lb].”300

There is very little on Theoderic in this passage, but it is noteworthy that Anastasius II had communicated the fact of his election to the emperor Anastasius301 and even the King of the Franks Clovis,302 but not to  Theoderic. It should be noted, however, that the primary intent of his letter to Clovis, written in the early months of Anastasius’ pontificate, was to congratulate him on his conversion and baptism. Since there is some doubt as to the authenticity of the letter, it is perhaps better not to overrate its importance.303 “2. At that time many clerics and priests removed themselves from communion with him, because without taking advice from [the priests, bishops and clerics of the whole catholic] church, he had entered into communion with a deacon of Thessalonica named Photinus [who was in league with Acacius, and because he wanted to reinstate Acacius secretly, though in this he failed. He was struck down by God’s will].”304

There is another inaccuracy in the second edition. Acacius died in 489, which would have relegated the question of remaining in communion with him back in

299 Cf. Jaffé 743–751. 300 LP 52, 1: Anastasius, natione Romanus, ex patre Petro, [de regione V caput Tauri], sedit ann. I m. XI d. XXIIII [Fuit autem temporibus Theodorici regis]. Hic fecit confessionem beati Laurenti martyris ex argento [pens. lib. LXXX] (trans. R. Davis). 301 Cf. Anastasius II, Epistola ad Imperatorem Anastasium (Epist. 1); Thiel 615–623; Jaffé 744. 302 Cf. Anastasius II, Ad Clodoveum Francorum Regem (Epist. 2), Thiel 624. 303 On the uncertainty as to the date of Clovis’ baptism and, in consequence, the uncertain authenticity of this letter, cf. G. Tessier, 1964, 118–126. 156; according to M. Rouche, Clovis’ baptism took place during the pontificate of Symmachus: M. Rouche, 1996, 269. Cf. M. Ożóg, H. Pietras, 2015, 157–174. 304 LP 52, 2: Epitome (K): Huic clerus et presbiteri multi se eregerunt a communione, eo quod communicasset sine consilio eorum diacono Thesalonicensi nomine Fotino. [Qui communis erat Acacio et quia voluit occulte revocare Acacium et non potuit. Qui nutu divino percussus est] (trans. R. Davis).

71

the past, whereas his “reinstatement” would probably refer to restoring his name among the bishops included in the Eucharistic prayer, from which he had been previously removed in the West. Anastasius II endeavoured to become reconciled with Constantinople, with the emperor Anastasius, but also with Patriarch Macedonius. He had also written to the emperor concerning this matter, informing him of the pontifical election and drawing his attention to the question of the unity in the Church. The bishops Cresconius and Germanus were entrusted with delivering the letter to the emperor,305 but Theoderic’s envoy Festus, the head of the Senate, had been present there at the time as well.306 His mission was to procure the emperor’s formal recognition of Theoderic as king of Italy. As noted in one of the previous chapters, he had already been entrusted with the same assignment before, during the emperor Zeno’s reign. I have argued in favour of the hypothesis that his mission had proved successful. In this case, likewise, he was to attain his goal once again. C. Sotinel conjectures that Festus may have also been an envoy of the Pope, but it would make the role of the above-mentioned two bishops somewhat more difficult to explain.307 The emperor reached an agreement with Festus, with the aim of persuading the Pope into accepting the Henotikon308 and it may have been the condition on which Theoderic’s rule had received recognition. It seems that Paolo Lamma may be right in arguing that even though the Pope had been reluctant to agree to any substantial compromise on dogmatic matters, he was much more accommodating than his predecessor as regards the form.309 The author of the Excerpta Valesiana only notes that Theoderic had come to terms with the emperor on the question of the previous usurpation of the kingdom and the latter handed back what Odoacer had sent to Constantinople, i.e., the enigmatic ornamenta palatii.310

305 Anastasius II, Epist. 1, 4, Thiel 618. 306 Cf. C. Lecrivain, 1888, 237. 307 Cf. C. Sotinel, 1998, 288; see also Coll. Avell. 102, 1. 308 Cf. Theodoros Anagnostes, Excerpta II, 17, PG 86, 192; GCS 54, 131; cf. also P. Charanis, 1939a, 20–22; CH. Pietri, 1981, 449–450; J. Wojda, 2006, 59. 309 P. Lamma, La politica dell’imperatore Anastasio I (491–518), 33–34: pur non cedendo minimamente nella sostanza delle questioni dogmatiche, si mostrò molto più arrendevole nella forma. 310 Excerpta Valesiana 12.64: Facta pace cum Anastasio imperatore per Festum de praesumptione regni, et omnia ornamenta palatii, quae Odoacer Constantinopolim transmiserat, remittit. Cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1994, 157–168; C. Rohr, 2002, 228.

72

Chapter V Liber Pontificalis 53 on Symmachus (22 November 498–19 July 514)311 “Symmachus, born in Sardinia, son of Fortunatus, held the see 15 years 7 months 27 days.312 He was bishop in the time of heretic Theodoric [or the king] and the emperor Anastasius the Eutychian, [from 22 November to 19 July].313 He loved the clergy and the poor, he was a good man and sagacious, kindly and courteous. He was ordained on the same day with Laurence because there was a dissension bishopric [Symmachus in the Constantinian basilica, Laurence in St Mary’s].”314

The author of the Excerpta Valesiana is very reticent here. The two candidates vied for the Holy See and “by God’s will, Symmachus won the election, just as he deserved it.”315

1.  Theoderic and the “Laurentian schism” (I) The “Laurentian schism” began in 498, when Symmachus and Laurence were both elected as pope on the same day.316 The contestants headed for Ravenna 311 Cf. Jaffé 751–769. 312 Marcellinus Comes confirms the information that Symmachus was elected during the consulship of Patricius and Hypatius, and held the See of Rome for 15 years; cf. MGH AA XI, 95. 313 The second recension refrains from calling Theoderic “heretic” and Anastasius “Eutychian,” which, in Teresa Sardella’s opinion, would be emblematic of a more critical, and disengaged, attitude; cf. T. Sardella, 2000, 16–17. 314 LP 53, 1: Symmachus, natione Sardus, ex patre Fortunato, sedit ann. XV mens. VII d. XXXVI. Hic fuit temporibus Theodorici heretici[vel regis] et Anastasii Euthiciani Aug. Hic amavit clerum et pauperes, bonus, prudens, humanus, gratiosus; et cum eo ordinatur Laurentius sub intentione episcopus. [Symmachus in basilica Constantiniana, Laurentius in basilica beatae Mariae] (trans. Davis, 1989). 315 Excerpta Valesiana 12.65: Eodem tempore intentio orta est in urbe Roma inter Symmachum et Laurentium: consecrati enim fuerant ambo. Ordinante Deo, qui et dignus fuit, superavit Symmachus. 316 John Moorhead argues that the “Laurentian schism” was, in a way, a continuation of the earlier “Acacian schism;” cf. J. Moorhead, 1978b, 127–128. For the “Laurentian schism,” see, e.g., E. Caspar, 1933, 87–129; E. Stein, 1949, 134–139; A. Alessandrini, 1944, 167–197; P. A. B. Llewellyn, 1976, 417–427; Ch. Pietri, 1997, 771–787; A. Schwarcz, 2004, 40–41.

73

to meet with the king Theoderic, who would acknowledge Symmachus’ claim. Theoderic had agreed to this arbitration rather reluctantly, convinced that such interference in church affairs could not become a custom.317 As Thomas Noble notes, the king’s intervention aimed to restore public order in Rome.318 It would be impossible to ignore the political background of the controversy.319 Theodore Anagnostes reports that the schism was caused by Festus, who had been sent to Constantinople as Theoderic’s envoy in order to act as a mediator between Pope Anastasius II and the emperor Anastasius, and persuade the former into signing the Henotikon, as I have noted before. However, after the Pope’s death, Festus would endeavour to secure the election of a successor also willing to enter in compromise with the emperor. Thus, Laurence was chosen as a proper candidate for Pope.320 In turn, the Liber Pontificalis offers a different account of the events: “That was why the clergy were split and the senate were also divided, some with Symmachus, others with Laurence. Once the dispute had begun, both sides agreed to go to Ravenna for king Theodoric to arbitrate. When they had come, he made the fair decision that the one who was ordained first and whose faction was found to be the first should hold the apostolic see. In applying this principle, as investigation into the facts found in favour of Symmachus321, and he was made prelate. Then pope Symmachus assembled a synod and, guided by sympathy for Laurence, set him up as bishop of the city of Nuceria.”322

317 Cf. Anagnosticum regis, MGH AA, XII, 425. Two monks requested Theoderic to act as an arbitrator in a certain controversy in one of the dioceses of Nola; the king refused and instructed them to submit the matter to the church court; cf. Gelasius, Epistola 8, MGH AA, XII, 391. 318 Cf. T. Noble, 1993, 404–417. 319 Cf. VICTOR TUNNUNENSIS, Chronica, A.D. 497, MGH AA XI, 191. 320 Cf. Theodoros Anagnostes, Excerpta II 17; GCS 54, 132. 321 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 12.65: Eodem tempore intentio orta est in urbe Roma inter Symmachum et Laurentium: consacrati enim fuerant ambo. Ordinante Deo, qui et dignus fuit, superavit Symmachus. 322 LP 53, 2: (F) Ex qua causa separata aliqua pars clericorum vel senatorum, alii cum Symmachum et alii vero cum Laurentium. Et facta intentione hoc constituerunt pariter, ut ambo Ravennam peterent ad iudicium regis Theodorici. Qui dum pervenisset hoc iudicium aequitatis invenit ut qui primo ordinatus fuisset, vel ubi pars maxima consentiretur, ipse sederet in sedem apostolicam. Quod tamen aequitas in Symmachum invenit et cognitio veritatis, et fuit praesul beatus Symmachus. Eodem tempore papa Symmachus fecit synodo et constituit Laurentium in Nuceria civitate episcopum, intuitu misericordiae (trans. Davis, 1989).

74

According to Salvatore Vacca, there existed two parties, pro- and anti-Byzantine, the former elected Laurence, whereas the latter had elected Symmachus “before Laurence’s pontifical consecration could have taken place.”323 Both of them made their way to Ravenna. According to the Liber Pontificalis, it was their own decision, but the Fragmentum Laurentianum claims that they had been summoned to come and, upon their arrival at Ravenna, Symmachus obtained the recognition of his election thanks to paying a large sum of money.324 Charges of corruption are often levelled at political opponents, but it would be rather difficult to imagine why Symmachus should have given or received a bribe. Since the king had acknowledged Symmachus’ election, there was no conceivable reason to bribe him. Perhaps, on the contrary, the words “moved by mercy” in the Liber Pontificalis would point to Symmachus’ having been bribed. In the sentence from the Fragmentum Laurentianum, Vacca takes note of the information referring to the bribery taking place already in the account of Symmachus’ election, but I have found no grounds to justify such conclusions.325 There is no reason to question Festus’ crucial role in the election of Laurence, as he [Festus] had been a very important and distinguished figure in the king’s eyes, having secured first the emperor Zeno’s recognition and then the royal crown acknowledged by Anastasius. Therefore, if he had wished to do no harm to Laurence, which would seem conceivable, he must have convinced Theoderic to share his point of view and to persuade Symmachus into taking a more clement position, appealing to his mercy. It does not seem, however, so very obvious that Symmach had gained the king’s support thanks to corruption, as argued by Teresa Sardella, who interprets the information from the Fragmentum Laurentianum in this sense326 (incidentally,

323 S. Vacca, 1993, 33: la corrente opposta […] puramente romana, elesse il diacono Simmaco, prima che avesse luogo la consacrazione di Lorenzo. On these two parties, see C. Piétri, 1997, 129–139; E. Wirbelauer, 2000, 41–42; C. Capizzi, 2000, 100–102. 324 Fragmentum Laurentianum: Tunc coguntur utrique, Symmachus scilicet et Laurentius, regium subituri iudicium petere comitatum. Ibi Symmachus multis pecuniis optinet; Laurentius ad gubernandam ecclesiam Nuceriam Campaniae civitatem plurimis coactus minis promissionibusque dirigitur. 325 Cf. S. Vacca, 1993, 42. 326 T. Sardella, 1996, 23–24: Il re decise a favore di Simmaco: un giudizio di equità, secondo la fonte simmachiana, fatto in considerazione di un criterio di priorità nei tempi di elezione, ma soprattutto in relazione alla maggioranza numerica dei sostenitori, sulla quale alcune fonti sembrano concordare. L’arbitrato reale favorevole a Simmaco è, invece, per il frammento laurenziano, solo frutto di corruzione e di compravendita di appoggi.

75

just as Biaggio Saitta does).327 As a matter of fact, let us note, a person who intends to bribe someone is the giver, not the recipient. In this particular case, considering the discrepancy between the Fragmentum Laurentianum and the LP, it is impossible to tell if Symmachus had received or given the money. There is another possible explanation for the aforementioned passage referring to the money which Symmachus would have allegedly received. Ennodius reports that he had acted as an intermediary in a deal between Symmachus and Laurence of Milan, where the latter man was to lend a sum of 400 solidi to Symmachus.328 Although the letter only makes reference to some vague expenses of the Pope at Ravenna, it offers some grounds for further speculation. For instance, Marc Reydellet is certain that it referred to the costs of the campaign against Laurence,329 while Saitta suspects some shady dealings involved there, though it is now impossible to prove. Obviously, one cannot preclude that Symmachus would have needed money for bribes to be paid, but it seems that the author of the Fragmentum Laurentianum would have made a note of such a significant fact, instead of simply stating that multis pecuniis optinet.

2.  Theoderic and the “Acacian schism” (I) Assuming that the “Laurentian schism” had been caused by the differences among the clergy and the senators of Rome as regards the relations with Constantinople, the reason for the king’s support for Symmachus should be quite clear: Theoderic had no interest in bringing the “Acacian schism” to an end.330 His actions seem to have been crafty and cunning, apparently putting the emperor Anastasius in a rather inconvenient position. As Jan Prostko-Prostyński puts it in his book, the relations between Theoderic and Anastasius had their ups and downs, depending on the period.331 Anastasius remembered a visit of Theoderic’s envoy, Festus, two years before, when the latter had most likely followed specific instructions on a possible religious reconciliation between the emperor and the pope, rather

327 Cf. B. Saitta, 2000, 400. 328 Cf. Ennodius, Epistola 3, 10, PL 63, 60. 329 Cf. M. Reydellet, 1981, 142. 330 Piccotti ruled out any possibility of the schism’s impact on the papal election; cf. G. B. Picotti, 1958, 747–750. For the “Acacian schism,” cf., e.g., S. Salaville, 1920, 2153–2178; F. X. Seppelt, 1931, 228–249; E. Caspar, 1933, 1–81; E. Schwartz, 1934; W. T. Townsend, 1936, 78–86; J. Haller, 1951, 215–242; J. Richards, 1979, 57–68; R. Kosiński, 2010b, 177–201. 331 Cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1994.

76

than submitting such a possibility on his own. It was Theoderic’s intention to obtain the emperor’s sanction for his royal crown and Festus would prove to be a very effective aide of the king. One could venture an opinion that Theoderic had made use of the schism in order to attain his crown. Afterwards, however, with his objective finally accomplished, he would prefer to seek convenient pretexts for giving his support to Symmachus, who appeared to take a more adamant position towards Constantinople. The emperor Anastasius was well aware of the situation, in view of his not very diplomatic letter to Symmachus, where he made a mention of the pope’s “irregular” election and would even go so far as to accuse him of Manichaeism. It is known from Symmachus’ reply, not very kind either, in which the pope charged the emperor with sympathizing with the position held by Acacius and Peter Mongos, that is, in effect, his adherence to the schism. It was true indeed, but reproaching the emperor in this manner would rather hint at Symmachus’ recalcitrant attitude.332 The letter in question dates from as late as 506, and I will refer to it further on; at this point, let us note that it is just an adequate example of the tense relations between Rome and Constantinople in that period. According to Teresa Sardella, it is surprising that the two pretenders would have appealed to the secular authority (to a heretical ruler, in fact!) in this specific matter.333 She goes on to discuss various hypotheses as well as the difference between the accounts of the Liber Pontificalis and the Fragmentum Laurentianum and concludes that Theoderic had interfered in the matter of his own will. I think there are no grounds for such conclusions. It would be anachronistic to believe that the bishops refused to accept the superior authority of the emperors or kings over the Church in Antiquity. They would struggle with secular authorities for ensuring that the latter intervene on the bishops’ terms, not for preventing authorities from interfering at all. The earlier popes did not reckon Theoderic to be a figure important enough to merit a notification of their election to the Holy See, as noted before. At that time, he had not, as yet, possessed the crown approved by the emperor, but he eventually managed to secure it and there was no longer any obstacle to appealing to him as to a legitimate ruler. One way or another, the previous popes would address letters to some emperors in a very polite tone, even though those rulers were perceived as heretics, as they would

332 Cf. Apologeticus Symmachi episcopi Romani adversus Anastasium imperatorem, Thiel 700–708; E. Schwartz, 1934; C. Capizzi, 2000, 104–109. 333 Cf. T. Sardella, 1996, 19–23.

77

prefer the declarations expressed in the Henotikon to the positions articulated by the Council of Chalcedon and refused to condemn the anti-Chalcedon party. There had already been some precedents of appealing to secular authorities in cases when two parallel bishops of Rome were elected. For example, the Liber Pontificalis recounts that two candidates, Boniface and Eulalius, were elected on the same day in 418 (sub intentione as well).334 Honorius and Valentinian were Augusti at the time, with their mother Galla Placidia acting as regent. The both Augusti were present at Ravenna and, subsequently, had the both elected claimants evicted from Rome. Boniface took up his residence near St Felicita’s cemetery at via Salaria, while Eulalius decided to stay at Anzio. Subsequently, they both arrived in Rome for Easter; the synod recognized Boniface as Bishop of Rome, while Eulalius was made bishop of the diocese of Nepi. This precedent may have constituted the basis for appealing to the king to take action and establishing Laurence as a bishop. It is evident therefore that the problems of the two schisms (or, rather, of their political fallout) had converged in Theoderic’s policy. Theoderic was aware of the fact that supporting Symmachus would be seen as an act hostile towards the emperor, whereas giving support to Laurence would result in strengthening the position of the friends of Constantinople, thus possibly paving the way for an accord with the Eastern Empire, while the king was more concerned with preserving the status quo.

3.  The synod of 499 In March 499, Symmachus convoked and presided over his first synod.335 The following extant text makes no doubt about it: P[ost] c[onsulatum] Paulini v. c. calend. Martii in basilica beati Petri apostoli, synodo praesidente beatissimo papa Symmacho. Strangely, Teresa Sardella renders the initial “p. c.” as “sotto il consolato,”336 but finds this interpretation problematic because Paulinus had been consul in 498. There is no inaccuracy in this passage, however, as there was no consul in the West for 499, and it was necessary to use the year of the previous one (hence, p[ost] c[onsulatum] Paulini). The absence of a consul in Italy for the year 499 may be explained by the specific circumstances in the West. Consular appointments were one of the prerogatives of the emperor, but when the latter had approved and sent 334 Cf. LP 44, 1. 335 Cf. Roma (1 martii 499), SCL 6, 338–347. For a discussion of the synod, see G. B. Picotti, 1958, 70–76; P. V. Aimone, 2000, 62–66. 336 T. Sardella, 1996, 28; di Berardino A. (ed.), 2008, 249.

78

the crown to Theoderic, he must have evidently conferred that capacity on the king and, consequently, had made no consular appointment for Italy. Let us now consider several dates. Pope Anastasius, Symmachus’ predecessor, died on November 19, 498. Festus had gone to Constantinople to meet with the emperor Anastasius not long before, as prior to his return he would have considered persuading the pope to affirm the Henotikon, as noted above. He reached Italy (arriving at Ravenna, in the first place) shortly before the pope’s death, perhaps in November. He was present in Rome on 22 November as a follower of Laurence, and it could be assumed therefore that Theoderic would have received his crown in November 489. Is it possible he may have forgotten to appoint consul for the new year, preoccupied with so many urgent matters, the emerging “Laurentian schism” being probably the most urgent of all? Perhaps, he may not have been aware that from then on it would have been in his capacity to do so. It is impossible to know for certain. Still, since he had appointed consuls in the previous years, it may signify that he had not designated anybody for the year 499 by sheer coincidence. The synod of March 1, 499, had to deal with the then most vital issue in the Church of Rome of those months, namely the contested pontifical election. Symmachus was intent on establishing a law that would prevent electing two bishops as popes and preclude making potential appeals to the king or emperor. It was decreed that no one could undertake to solicit for their own or anybody else’s candidacy for Bishop of Rome during the incumbent pope’s tenure (3), that the pope should himself choose his successor, and, if he failed to do so, the succession should be decided by majority vote; whereas those who would contest the election should be deposed from office (4); generous rewards would be given to those who informed the Church of any conspiracy aiming to influence the outcome of the election (5). However, there was no decision to exclude Rome’s clergy from electing bishops of Rome, as Teresa Sardella suggests, unfortunately without any evidence at all.337 It should be noted that the decisions of this synod were subscribed by 71 bishops from all of Italy as well as 67 presbyters of Rome.

4. Theoderic’s adventus to Rome The Liber Pontificalis makes no mention of Theoderic’s visit to Rome in 500. In my opinion, it was an important event, nonetheless. It bears evidence to Theoderic’s wish to maintain the best possible relations with the Bishop of Rome and 337 T. Sardella, 1996, 29: al concilio romano del 499 […] il clero romano era stato escluso dalle elezioni del vescovo di Roma.

79

his need for the approval from Rome’s aristocracy. Let us take a look at the following passage from the Excerpta Valesiana: “At that same time a dispute arose in the city of Rome between Symmachus and Laurentius; for both had been consecrated. But through God’s ordinance Symmachus, who also deserved it, got the upper hand. After peace was made in the city of the Church, King Theoderic went to Rome and met Saint Peter with as much reverence as if he himself were a Catholic. The Pope Symmachus, and the entire senate and people of Rome amid general rejoicing met him outside the city. Then coming to Rome and entering it, he appeared in the senate, and addressed the people at The Palm, promising that with God’s help he would keep inviolate whatever the former Roman emperors had decreed.”338

Theoderic’s conduct during his visit, depicted as correct by all means, and Pope Symmachus’ attitude towards him, showed that the king’s Arian faith was no obstacle to forming good relations. Ultimately, a crowned ruler whose authority possessed the emperor’s sanction would deserve esteem on a par with the emperor, regardless of his confession. The statement that the king had behaved ac si catholicus may have been inserted by Cassiodorus himself, who would not have wasted any opportunity to praise the ruler. The above-mentioned ad palmam was situated in the Forum Romanum, near the seat of the Senate.339 At that time, Fulgentius of Ruspe was present in Rome, when fuit in Urbe maximum gaudium, as his hagiographer reports, which allowed him to take the opportunity to listen to Theoderic’s speech at the so-called “Golden

338 Excerpta Valesiana 12.65–66: Post factam pacem in urbe ecclesiae ambulavit rex Theodericus Romam et occurrit beato Petro devotissimus ac si catholicus: cui papa Symmachus et cunctus senatus vel populus Romanus cum omni gaudio extra urbem occurrentes. Deinde veniens ingressus Urbem venit ad senatum et ad Palmam, populo adlocutus se omnia, Deo iuvante, quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt, inviolabiliter servaturum promittit (trans. J. C. Rolfe). Cf. H. Wolfram, 2001, 327; G. Pfeilschifter, 1896, 60. 339 W. T. Townsend hypothesized that the name derived from the portico of the Senate or the portico of St Peter’s Basilica. Cf. W. T. Townsend, 1937, 251. In my opinion, the mention refers to the domus ad palmam, in Trajan’s Forum, next to the Porticus Curva, which was the place where edicts were announced (e.g., the Theodosian Code). The citizens used the name “Trajan’s Forum” in reference to the Forum Romanum. Cf. S. B. Platner, T. Ashby, 1929, 187. It was also thought that the domus ad palmam referred to consul Faustus’ house, which was situated not far from the edifice of the Senate. Most likely, however, the 6th-century domus ad palmam would have been a different building; cf. R. E. A. Palmer, 1990, 49. The name “Golden Palm” may have derived from the statue of Victoria (with a golden palm in her hand) standing there; cf. M. Vitiello, 2004, 76.

80

Palm,” addressed to the people of Rome, yet with all the ceremonial and in the presence of the entire Curia.340 The author confirms the information from the Excerpta Valesiana that the character of the speech was rather ingratiating, which could be possibly compared with modern electoral campaign speeches, full of promises that would very likely remain unfulfilled (the hagiographer refers to them as favores). According to Bruno Dumézil, the objective of Theoderic’s visit was to reach “an amicable settlement of the crisis in Rome,”341 but there is nothing to support this view, as at the time Symmachus had exercised his pontifical authority peacefully, while Laurence continued to stay at Nuceria. Further on, the Excerpta Valesiana describe, rather disputably, the anniversary of the king’s rule allegedly taking place at that time. Let us see the following rendering of the relevant passage: “In celebration of his tricennalia he entered the Palace in a triumphal procession for the entertainment of the people, and exhibited games in the Circus for the Romans. To the Roman people and to the poor of the city he gave each year a hundred and twenty thousand measures of grain, and for the restoration of the Palace and the rebuilding of the walls of the city he ordered two hundred pounds to be given each year from the chest (de arca vinaria) that contained the tax on wine.”342

There is much speculation among scholars on the calculation setting the tricennalia in 500. The beginning of the reign should have taken place in 470,343 possibly 471, as normally such anniversaries would be celebrated in the 30th year, not after a period of 30 years. For instance, in the case of Constantine I’s celebration of the 20 years’ anniversary of his rule, the emperor commenced the festivities in August 325 (he came to power in 306).344 This question is discussed in much length by Massimiliano Vitiello, in an effort to find anything to substantiate this

340 Vita S. Fulgentii, cap. XIII, ASanc I, Januarius I, 37: in loco, qui Palma aurea dicitur, memorato Theodorico Rege, concionem faciente, Romanae Curiae nobilitatem, decus, ordinemque distinctis decoratum gradibus adspectaret, et favores liberi populi castis audiens auribus, qualis esset huius saeculi gloriosa pompa, cognoscereret. Cf. L. Gatto, 1992–93, 341–342. 341 B. Dumézil, 2008, 692. 342 Excerpta Valesiana 12.67: Per tricennalem triumphans populo ingressus palatium, exhibens Romanis ludos circensium, donavit populo Romano et pauperibus annonas singulis annis centum viginti milia modios, et ad restaurationem palatii seu ad recuperationem moeniae civitatis singulis annis libras ducentas de arca vinaria praecepit (trans. J. C. Rolfe); cf. M. Vitiello, 2009, 146–163. 343 As calculated by M. Wilczyński, 2001a, 420. 344 Cf. Eusebius Caesariensis, Vita Constantini III, 15.

81

circumstance. But the fact is that other sources do not even make a mention of the tricennalia. Vitiello concludes that the authors had evidently no interest in stressing that the king was an “imported” ruler.345 It may have been so, but the Excerpta Valesiana underscore this motivation as if it had actually guided Theoderic. Indeed, it would seem to be plausible. Theoderic was no doubt more proud of his very first conquests (in 471, he was only 18 years old)346 than of the fact that his father had appointed him successor in  474347 or the emperor dispatched him to conquer Italy.348 We have seen that the account of Theoderic’s bold oration addressing the emperor, as represented by Jordanes, is apparently a manipulation intended to convey the message that he had been a mastermind behind the campaign, not solely a commander-in-chief. There is however one more possible, probably hitherto unnoticed, hypothesis. The author of the Excerpta Valesiana makes a first mention of Theoderic not in 471 or 474, but when he had already been a commander (dux) of the Goths and the emperor Zeno asked for his assistance in defeating the usurper Basiliskos.349 At this point, the author does not refer to Theoderic as “king,” which would suggest that he may have been concerned with the actual period of the ruler’s authority, regardless of the title. Nonetheless, it seems that if the source had indeed referred to the thirty years of his rule, beginning in 471, perhaps such a significant occurrence would have been noticed very early in the author’s account (there is no such mention at all). In turn, it is worth quoting a brief passage from the same source, where a period of thirty years is mentioned: “Hence Theoderic was a man of great distinction and of good-will towards all men, and he ruled for thirty-three years. In his times Italy for thirty years enjoyed such good fortune that his successors also inherited peace.”350

It is not really known what would have been the reason for 33 years, as this particular mention disrupts the narrative and appears to be an insertion in the text. 345 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 56–71. 346 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 282. 347 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 288. 348 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 291. 349 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 9.42: Zeno confortans Isauros intra provincias, deinde misit ad civitatem Novam, ubi erat Theodericus, dux Gothorum, filius Walamarici, et eum invitavit in solacium sibi adversus Basiliscum, obiectans militem, post biennium veniens, obsidens civitatem Constantinopolim. 350 Excerpta Valesiana 12.59: Ergo praeclarus et bonae voluntatis in omnibus ,, cuius temporibus felicitas est secuta Italiam per annos triginta ita ut etiam pax pergentibus esset (trans. J. C. Rolfe).

82

In an introduction to his edition, R. Cessi considers it to be an incorrect and misleading insertion.351 He also suggests that the “thirty years” may simply signify the date of the composition of this laudatory account of Theoderic’s achievements, as it would be rather difficult to assume that the thirty years in question pertained to the king’s entire lifetime or reign. In view of the date of his death in 526, a thirtyyear period would set the beginning in around 496, and 33 years – 493, allowing for the fact that the last year of his reign was by no means fortunate and peaceful. These dates are not indicative of anything particular or curious. However, if we were to assume that the author would have calculated the duration of Theoderic’s reign beginning from the start of his rule in Italy to the time contemporary with the source, it would appear to be quite likely. Likewise, Jordanes in his “Roman History,” refers to a peaceful period lasting for “thirty years:” Romani populi principatum prudenter et pacifice per triginta annos continuit.352 Commentators of the Excerpta Valesiana have been, for the most part, in agreement as to the view that the section of the work devoted to Theoderic had been composed by two different authors, one of whom in favour of the ruler and the other one opposed to him (or, at least, very disappointed in the final years of his rule).353 This negative depiction of Theoderic’s reign would start after the emperor Anastasius’ death, but not necessarily immediately in the year 518. The first of the two authors had reportedly drawn from the same source as Jordanes, i.e., from Cassiodorus,354 whose work is the source of the mention referring to the thirty years of Theoderic’s peaceful rule. In his introduction to the Variae, Cassiodorus noted that he had already written the History of the Goths in 12 books,355 which means it should have probably taken place in the years 523–526 (cf., e.g., Edward Zwolski).356 Jordanes draws on Cassiodorus’ information according to which there would have been a period of thirty years of peace, which should make it necessary to assume the final date was no later than 523, as the peaceful period in Italy began in 493. Thus, Cassiodorus extolled Theoderic for the 30 years of his

351 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana: Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio primum edita, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XXIV, 4, R. Cessi (ed.), XC–XCIII. 352 Jordanes, Romana 45. 353 Cf., e.g., L. Winniczuk, a translation of the Excerpta Valesiana, “Meander” 17 (1962), 327. 354 Cf. E. Zwolski, Kasjodor i Jordanes, 73–86. 355 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae, Praefatio 11. 356 Cf. E. Zwolski, Kasjodor i Jordanes, 74.

83

peaceful reign in Italy, Jordanes would draw on this information in 551, while the Excerpta Valesiana make exactly the same point.357 In the same sense, I would suggest hypothetically assuming the mention on the tricennalia noted in connection with Theoderic’s visit to Rome. The author of the Excerpta Valesiana recounts that per tricennalem triumphans populo ingressus palatium,358 which would not have to be rendered in the sense “when he solemnly celebrated the tricennalia” (cf. the following Polish translation: kiedy obchodził uroczyście jubileusz trzydziestolecia).359 Vitiello is right in his opinion that there is no record of this anniversary celebration in the sources, suspecting however that there may have existed some earlier, now lost, source that contained a mention to that effect.360 I would say there are no grounds for such speculation. As a matter of fact, per tricennalem may be rendered as “during the tricennalia,” “before the tricennalia were over,” etc. I have already taken note of the question of what the tricennalia should refer to. It would signify that during his peaceful reign Theoderic had his triumph ceremony, held an “open day” at the palace to the enjoyment of the public, and distributed a number of various gifts and goods, to name just a few. All the relevant sources agree on this point.361 In his Chronicle, Cassiodorus records under AD 500 that the king showed clemency to the senators, gave food to the poor, provided for the distribution of relief funds in the years to come, renovated many buildings and erected some magnificent palaces, surpassing the former splendour.362 The 7th-century author Fredegarius records very similar facts, which would possibly imply that the king’s gracious attitude towards the citizens of Rome should deserve such a long-lasting commemoration.363

357 On the reliance of Jordanes and Anonym on Cassiodorus in this regard, see E. Zwolski, 1984, 47–88; M. Vitiello, 2006a, 113–133. 358 Excerpta Valesiana 12.67. 359 Excerpta Valesiana 12.67 (trans. L. Winniczuk). 360 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 58. 361 For a brief discussion of these sources, cf. P. Quaranta, 2008, 67–71. 362 Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 500, MGH AA XI, 160: Hoc anno dn. rex Theodericus Romam cunctorum votis expetitus advenit et senatum suum mira affabilitate tractans Romanae plebi donavit annonas, atque admirandis moeniis deputata per singulos annos maxima pecuniae quantitate subvenit. sub cuius felici imperio plurimae renovantur urbes, munitissima castella conduntur, consurgunt admiranda palatia, magnisque eius operibus antiqua miracula superantur. Cf. Paulus Diaconus, HR XV, 18; M. Vitiello, 2004, 105–106. 363 Cf. Ps-Fredegarius, Chronicon II, 57, MGH SRMer II, 82: Unum tantum modio plenum terrae annis singulis haerariis publecis dissolvebat, ut diceretur: “Theudericus

84

The author of the Excerpta Valesiana proceeds with his account of Theoderic’s visit to Rome: “He also gave his own sister Amalafrigda in marriage to Transimundus, king of the Vandals. Liberius, whom he had appointed praetorian prefect at the beginning of his reign, he made a patrician, and appointed for him a successor. Now his successor in the administration of the prefecture was Theodorus, son of Basilus. Odoin, his general, made a plot against the king. When Theoderic learned of it, he had Odoin beheaded in the palace which is called the Sessorium. At the request of the people he gave orders that the words of the promise which he had made to them should be inscribed upon a bronze tablet and set up in a public place.”364

The above passage takes note of several important figures in terms of Theoderic’s policy. Amalafrigda is mentioned in Jordanes’ work as Amalafrida: “And that he might extend his family as much as possible, he sent his sister Amalafrida (the mother of Theodahad, who was afterwards king) to Africa as wife of Thrasamund, king of the Vandals, and her daughter Amalaberga, who was his own niece, he united with Herminefred, king of the Thuringians.”365

It was an element of Theoderic’s far-reaching marriage strategy, aimed to unite the Arian kingdoms opposed to Byzantium as well as to Clovis. He was particularly interested in securing the assistance from the Vandal fleet.366 To gain the upper hand in this political manoeuvring, he sent his sister and dispatched a corps of 5,000 soldiers to Africa.367 This enabled him to take control of the entire Western Mediterranean, at least for a time. As Jordanes reports, one of his daughters was given in marriage to Alaric, king of the Visigoths, the other one married Sigismund, king rex modio pleno aerariis per singulis annis reddit publecis”; decretum imperiae, ut amplius ei nullo tempore quaererentur. 364 Excerpta Valesiana 12.68–69: Item Amalafrigdam germanam suam in matrimonium tradens regi Wandalorum Trasimundo. Liberium, praefectum praetorii, quem fecerat in initio regni sui, fecit patricium et dedit ei successorem [in] administratione praefecturae. Itaque Theodorus, filius Basili. [69] Odoin, comes eius insidiabatur ei: dum haec cognovisset, in palatia, quod appellatur Sessorium, caput eius amputari praecepit. Verba enim promissionis eius, quae populo fuerat adlocutus, rogante populo, in tabula aenea iussit scribi et in publico poni (trans. J. C. Rolfe). Successorem [in] as corrected in Cessi’s edition (see commentary on p. XXVII), where he notes that Theodorus did not have to be Liberius’ successor; in Mommsen’s edition: successorem. . 365 Jordanes, Getica 299: Et ut in plenum suam progeniem dilataret, Amalafridam, germanam suam, matrem Theodahadi, qui postea rex fuit, Africa regi Vandalorum coniuge dirigit Thrasamundo (trans. Ch. C. Mierow); cf., e.g., H.-J. Diesner, 1967. 366 Cf. M. Rouche, 1996, 225. 367 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Vandalico I, 8; P. Heather, 2005, 238.

85

of the Burgundians, while Amalafrida’s daughter (from her first marriage), Amalaberga, was given in marriage to the king of the Thuringians, Herminefred, several years later.368 His alliance with Thrasamund proved disappointing, as the king failed to obtain any assistance from him in 508, as will be seen further on.369 It seems that the aforementioned Liberius370 had deserved a promotion for his commendable service as praetorian prefect whose duties included paying out all subsidies and donations, from the main chest (aerarium) in case of special donations or from the praetorian chest (arca praetoriana) for ordinary funding. He was praised for his efforts by Ennodius,371 whereas the king applauded him in a letter addressed to the Senate (dated 507–511). According to the contents, Liberius had proved to be a very good administrator and was admired as a righteous man during his tenure as praetorian prefect (Cassiodorus wrote the letter on behalf of the king).372 Judging from the Roman perspective, his task was a fairly unrewarding one, because Theoderic had entrusted him with conducting the matters concerning the settlement of the Goths in the occupied territories as well as collecting the imposed taxes.373 The process of the Gothic acquisition of land property in Italy is not entirely clear. Walter Goffart argues that the Goths did not take over a 1/3 of land in Italy, but the Romans were obliged to pay a 1/3 of their taxes to the Goths, which was the amount expended for the maintenance of Theoderic’s army.374 According to Jean Durliat, the mention would refer to the land, meaning the property seized by Odoacer for his people,375 not the one acquired directly from the Romans. Actually, this would be, it seems, the only plausible reason why Ennodius would praise Liberius, the officer in charge of collecting taxes, for imposing no further burden on the Romans.376 In his discussion of this subject, Jan Prostko-Prostyński and

368 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 298–299; D. Shanzer, 1996–97, 225–255. 369 Cf. M. Rouche, 1996, 322. 370 Cf. PCBE II, 1298–1301; J. O’Donnel, 1981, 31–72. 371 Cf. Ennodius, Epistola 9, 23, 4; T. A. Burns, 1978, 162. 372 Cassiodorus, Variae II, 16; M. Vitiello, 2004, 93. On the Variae as a literary and apologetic work, not just a compilation of documents, see M. Reydellet, 1981, 184–197; L. Viscido, 1987, 15–24. 373 Cf. PLRE II, 677–678; H. Wolfram, 1979, 295–296; J. J. O’Donnel, 1981, 31–72; J. Durliat, 1988, 47–48; D. Vera, 1993, 138–143. 374 Cf. W. Goffart, 2011, 72–75, 100–101. 375 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Gothico I, 1; J. Durliat, 1988, 47. 376 Cf. Ennodius Magnus Felicius, Epistolae 9, 23.

86

concludes that the Romans were obliged to cede a 1/3 of their land first to Odoacer, then to Theoderic, or to pay the tax known as tertiae. The Goths themselves would pay the taxes on the land they had obtained.377 It is assumed that Theodorus succeeded Liberius and, as based on this assumption, Mommsen adds successit in (for more “clarity”). However, this particular sentence, in the light of the Ordo generis Cassiodororum, Cassiodorus’ autobiographical account, may be translated differently, as the latter work appears to imply that Cassiodorus the Elder became praetorian prefect in the year 500. H. Usener, the editor of the Ordo generis, renders this passage as follows: “… appointed the successor. Then, Theodorus, the son of Basil; his [that is, Theoderic’s] commander Odoin, conspired against him.”378 Flavius Theodorus, Basil’s son, descended from a prominent family. His father was consul in  480, his brother Inportunus - in  509, whereas Theodorus himself held the consulship in 505.379 His alleged prefecture is reported in just one source, the Excerpta Valesiana, provided that the said passage be construed in this particular sense. He would reappear, along with his brother, on the occasion of a delegation to Constantinople sent by Theoderic (with the participation of Pope John I). There is very little information on the conspirator Odoin, who was beheaded on Theoderic’s orders.380 He was a military commander (comes) and that is practically everything we know about him. Vitiello takes the very few facts on this figure and makes an attempt to shed some light on the enigmatic timeline of the events under consideration, that is, how it could have been possible to report that Theoderic celebrated his tricennalia in the year 500.381 As I have noted before, such efforts are all in vain. In all likelihood there had been no tricennalia celebrations, and the passage in question referenced the entire 30-year-long period of the king’s fortunate reign. During his six-month presence in Rome,382 Theoderic visited the various quarters of the city, showing concern for the condition of the buildings, providing funds for renovation works and charity. Cassiodorus does describe it all in his Chronicle,383 composed ca. 519, but it seems that Ludovico Gatto makes 377 378 379 380 381 382 383

Cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 2006, 37–39. Cf. A. Galonnier, 1997, 128 (in Usener’s edition, p. 298). Cf. J. Sundwall, 1975, 162–163. Cf. P. Amory, 1997, 401. Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 58–66. On Theoderic’s visit to Rome in 500, cf. W. Ensslin, 1959, 107–113. Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 500, MGH AA XI, 160.

87

a somewhat exaggerated proposition in having assumed that the relations between Theoderic and Cassiodorus would have taken on a more solid shape at that time. As we know, the author described the king’s renovation projects in the documents forming part of the Variae.384 Let us recall that Cassiodorus would have been under 15 years old at the time and there is no evidence attesting to his peregrination with the king. It is true that he was familiar with the City of Rome, but it is a different story. The earliest of the Variae date back to 507. The author of the Excerpta Valesiana then goes on to refer to the aforementioned marriage policy of Theoderic: “Then returning to Ravenna, five months later, he gave Amalabirga, another sister of his, in marriage to Herminefred, king of the Turingi, and in that way gained peace with all the nations round about. He was besides a lover of building and restorer of cities.”385

As shown before, Jordanes’ account is remarkably similar. I will return to the question of the political consequences of those actions later on. The Excerpta go on with the narrative of Theoderic’s visit to Rome, in anticipation of the things to come, and highlights the king’s role in the renovation of the existing neglected buildings and the erection of the new ones: “At Ravenna he repaired the aqueduct which the emperor Trajan had constructed, and thus brought water into the city after a long time. He completely finished the palace, but did not dedicate it. He completed the colonnades around the palace. He also built baths and a palace at Verona, and added a colonnade extending all the way from the gate to the Palace; besides that, he restored the aqueduct at Verona, which had long since been destroyed, and brought water into the city, as well as surrounding the city with new walls. Also at Ticinum he built a palace, baths, and an amphitheatre, besides new city walls.”386

384 L. Gatto, 1992–93, 345: Fu quindi allora – può almeno ritenersi a buon diritto – che ebbe meglio a saldarsi il rapporto tra il sovrano goto e Cassiodoro, il quale, fra l’altro, tradusse il programma urbanistico teodericiano in una serie di Atti – le “Variae” – in cui con lingua forbida e buona conoscenza tecnica furono consegnate ai posteri significative notizie sull’opera di costruzione. 385 Excerpta Valesiana 12.70: Deinde sexto mense revertens Ravennam aliam germanam suam Amalabirgam tradens in matrimonio Herminifredo, regi Turingorum: et sic sibi per circuitum placavit omnes gentes (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 386 Excerpta Valesiana 12.71: Erat enim amator fabricarum et restaurator civitatum. Hic aquaeductum Ravennae restauravit, quem princeps Traianus fecerat, et post multa tempora aquam introduxit; palatium usque ad perfectum fecit, quem non dedicavit; portica circa palatium perfecit. Item Veronae thermas et palatium fecit et a porta usque ad palatium porticum addidit; aquaeductum, quod per multa tempora destructum fuerat, renovavit et aquam intromisit; muros alios novos circuit civitatem (trans. J. C. Rolfe).

88

Let us recall that each new structure or renovation of an existing one would also serve as a pretext for embedding a commemorative inscription with the phrase ad perpetuam rei memoriam. Theoderic’s conduct in Rome and his considerable building activity would attest to his wish to be appreciated and remembered as a generous and righteous ruler. Our primary source, the Liber Pontificalis, makes reference to the schism four years after the elections of Symmachus and Laurence. “But four years later, of jealousy and pain, some of the clergy and some of the senate, particularly Festus and Probinus,387 were driven by jealousy to bring a charge against Symmachus; they suborned false witnesses whom they sent to king heretic Theodoric at Ravenna with their accusation against blessed Symmachus. They privately recalled Laurence after drawing up the written charge at Rome and they created a schism and the party withdrew itself from communion with Symmachus and asked king Theodoric to send Peter of Altinum as an inspector to the apostolic see.”388

5.  Theoderic and the “Laurentian schism” (II) The Epitome F points to the enemies of Symmachus in the Senate, while the Epitome K would rather see them among the clergy as well as in the Senate (which would be more likely). In turn, the Fragmentum Laurentianum mentions only the clergy.389 I do not refer to any of the insertions in the 2nd edition, as they do not offer anything of significance. Flavius Rufius Postumius Festus390 was a scribe as well as a scholar, the author of the Periegesis seu descriptio orbis terrarum.391 He was consul in 472 and

387 388

389 390

391

Cf. W. Neumann, 1979; I. König, 1986, 132–142; G. C. Manasse, 1993, 633–644; G. Valenzano, 1993; H.-U. Wiemer, 2007, 168. Probinus - consul in 489, patrician in 511; cf. PLRE II, 909. LP 53, 3: Post annos vero IIII, zelo et dolo ducti aliqui ex clero et aliqui ex senatu, incriminant Symmachum et subornant testes falsos quos miserunt Ravennam ad regem Theodoricum hereticum, accusantes beatum Symmachum; et occulte revocant Laurentium Romam: et fecerunt schisma et separaverunt se ab invicem pars aliqua a communione Symmachi, mittentes relationem regi, et petunt a rege Theoderico visitatorem sedis postolice Petrum Altinatem (trans. R. Davis). Fragmentum Laurentianum: Tunc presbyteri et diaconi nec non reliqui clericorum, quos secum deduxerat, adeunt regem et sine sua conscientia Symmachum fugisse testantur. Rufius Postumius Festus – consul in 472, patrician, chairman of the Senate in 490, Theoderic’s emissary to Constantinople in 490 and 497; in the latter capacity, he obtained the recognition of Theoderic’s authority from Zeno and, subsequently, the royal title for the ruler from Anastasius; cf. PLRE II, 467–468. Cf. A. Schulten (ed.), 1922; PLRE II, 454.

89

later on, in 490, Theoderic’s legate to Constantinople during the pontificate of Anastasius II.392 In 497, he obtained the emperor Anastasius’ recognition for Theoderic’s rule in Italy and the hand-over of the insignia of authority, somewhat enigmatically called ornamenta palatii.393 It may have been somehow linked with the reason why Ps-Zacharias Rhetor refers to Theoderic as “anti-Caesar.”394 Jan Prostko-Prostyński notices that the same historian used the term in reference to Justinian, who co-ruled with the emperor Justin for three months, until the death of the latter.395 It would seem to suggest that the court circles treated Theoderic as a formal co-ruler.396 It is noteworthy that Festus would have reputedly tried to convince the emperor to celebrate the feast of Sts Peter and Paul with more solemnity.397 In addition, he had probably brought the Henotikon from Constantinople, in the hope of submitting it for Pope Anastasius II’s endorsement. However, following the death of the latter, he would come to support Laurence, who represented the party willing to make a compromise (although it is not certain to what extent).398 Ennodius depicts him in very favourable terms, praising his virtues and wisdom.399 In C. Sotinel’s view, the actual cause of the schism was the controversy over money and property, not the relations with Constantinople. Symmachus called for more control of the funds, an effective ban on the alienation of property, and more opportunity for the Church to accumulate wealth, also for the purposes of charity. The aristocracy would be in opposition to such demands, as they were generally coerced to cede their land to the Gothic conquerors. They would therefore give support to Laurence, whereas the people of Rome aligned with Symmachus.400 The synod of November 501 would be indeed dedicated, besides the controversy of the papal election, to the question of the preservation of the church property.

392 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 11.53. 393 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 12.64. Antik. 394 Cf. Zacharias Rhetor, HE VII, 12 (ed. E. W. Brooks). Cf. E. Chrysos, 1986, 73–82; J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1993, 15–28. 395 Cf. Zacharias Rhetor, HE IX, 1 (ed. E. W. Brooks). 396 Cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1993, 24. On Theoderic’s titles, see A. Giardina, 2006, 141–159. 397 Cf. Theodoros Anagnostes, Excerpta II, 16; Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 5492. 398 Cf. PLRE II, 467–468. 399 Cf. Ennodius, Paraenesis Didascalica, PG 63, 253. 400 Cf. Theodoros Anagnostes, Excerpta II, 17; C. Sotinel, 1998, 296.

90

Let us take note of the dates: the first confrontation between Symmachus and Laurence, escalating into the clashes between their followers, happened immediately after the election, and Symmachus prevailed. Subsequently, Theoderic proceeded with his triumphant adventus in Rome, ceremoniously greeted by the senators and the pope. What could have been the reason then for the events that would take place soon after the king’s departure, when a group of [Symmachus’] adversaries sent some false witnesses to Theoderic, accusing the pope of immoral conduct? In 500, Theoderic would have been staying in Rome for as long as six months, visiting the St Peter’s and acting so devoutly “as if he were a Catholic.”401 There would have been then many opportunities to form his own informed opinion on the Bishop of Rome. There must have been some occurrence, either during Theoderic’s visit or soon afterwards, that sparked off this emergence of new enemies of Pope Symmachus, or at least galvanized the existing ones. Of course, those who had elected Laurence were still alive. But what exactly? And what made Theoderic rethink his attitude? The opponents of Symmachus claimed that one of the reasons for bringing the accusations before the king was the pope’s decision to shift the date of Easter in 501 from 22 April to 25 March. The April date was traditionally determined by the Church of Alexandria and celebrated in the East (though, in theory, anywhere else as well). But the pope decided to settle on a different date. The Fragmentum Laurentianum states that several years later (to be more precise, after four years, and there is indeed no other possibility) he would be accused of many crimes (pro multis criminibus!), including celebrating Easter on a different date, not together with the rest of the Church. For this reason, the king summoned him to Rimini.402 Sotinel notes that the pope restored the former Roman calculation method, renouncing the common practice.403 The same view is reiterated by Teresa Sardella, adding that the pope’s move was an overt provocation, like throwing down the

401 Excerpta Valesiana 12.65. 402 Fragmentum Laurentianum: Post aliquod autem annos pro multis criminibus aput regem Symmachus accusatur. Quem rex sub occasione paschali, quod non cum universitate celebraverat, ad comitatum convo[cat] rationem d[e tantae] festivitatis dissonantia redditurum: fecitque apud Ariminum resedere. 403 Cf. C. Sotinel, 1998, 292.

91

gauntlet.404 Eckhard Wirbelauer surmises that it may have been due to the pope’s reliance on the counsel of very bad advisors.405 It seems that this is not the point at all. The Roman custom of calculating the date of Easter was very well entrenched and frequently applied. Should we consult any list of ancient Easter dates,406 it becomes clear that the Romans would very often shift the date of Easter if it somehow coincided with the period around 21 April and practically always when it fell soon after that date. For instance, so was the case in the 5th century alone (not to mention the previous centuries): 406 and 417 (22 IV to 25 III), 425 (19 IV to 22 III), 463 (21 IV to 24 III), 482 (25 IV to 18 IV), and, after Symmachus’ death, in 520 (19 IV to 22 III). The reason is very clear indeed, and it had nothing to do with any provocation. In Rome, let us note, the date 21 April was (and continues to be, though not as festively) celebrated as the feast of the founding of the City, with all the accompanying public games, noisy and rowdy merry-making, so much in contrast to the solemnity of the Holy Week celebration and the tranquillity of prayerful contemplation.407 It seems therefore not very likely that the question of calculating the date of Easter could have become a boiling point. Unless the whole thing revolved around the politics and money, what possible interest could the senators have seen in strictly adhering to the practice originated in Alexandria? After Theoderic’s visit, the senators should have been rather contented with the results. In addition to reaffirming their rights and privileges, he gave away many gifts and donations. It is believed that the gold medal representing Theoderic in a solemn posture was struck on the occasion of the visit, to be given as a gift to the senators.408 There are also opinions that it may have been made in a later period, but regardless of Theoderic’s method of ingratiating with the senators, the king used it to his advantage and, perhaps, to the senators’ satisfaction. It would not have changed the fact that in the Gothic-occupied Italy a third of

404 T. Sardella, 1996, 26: Scelta di estrema coerenza o deliberata provocazione, la decisione di Simmacho ebbe per i suoi avversari il sapore di una sfida. Cf. also T. Sardella, 2000, 20–22. 405 Cf. E. Wirbelauer, 2000, 46. 406 Cf., e.g., A. Cappelli, 1998. 407 Cf. J. Naumowicz, 2000, 90; see pp. 91–93 for a discussion of several cases where Rome decided to yield and agreed to celebrate in accordance with the Alexandrian calculation. 408 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 57–58; M. Ożóg, 2011b, 43–58.

92

all land estates was to come into the Goths’ possession.409 The losses affected, for the most part, the wealthy senatorial class, but it is not known to what extent the whole procedure was applied to the property of the Church. And what the good and gracious king had given to the Church? He made a devout pilgrimage “as if he were a Catholic.”410 Possibly, it may have been an allusion to the emperor Constantine, who had been ac si catholicus as well (baptized on his deathbed), but was known for his generous donations for St Peter’s Basilica. It is perhaps no coincidence that the falsified records referring to Constantine’s donations for Pope Sylvester emerged during Symmachus’ pontificate. To emphasize the associations with that 4th-century pontiff, Symmachus founded a church in his name (cf. the Liber Pontificalis further on). False documents are usually produced when necessary. If they had come into existence at that particular point, the purpose must have been to use them in order to account for or confirm something.411 It is generally believed that they had been written in support of Symmachus, against the senatorial opposition.412 Of course, it would be difficult to deny it, but not necessarily all of it had been produced to serve this one particular purpose. Very fitting in this context of Theoderic’s generosity would have been some grand donation for Symmachus and the Church of Rome, so lavish it would have aroused envy of the senators, who had in fact received some benefits from the king but had already lost much more before, while the official who represented the king in the matter of those land estate requisitions, Liberius, was rewarded with the patrician title.413 In fact, the Constitutum Silvestri remarks in the prologue that the emperor Constantine “began to preach the Lord Jesus Christ appropriately and grant benefits to him” for the possessions obtained thanks to the pope.414 It is then no wonder that the senators would have attempted to find some means to get access to the resources of the Church and that Symmachus showed resistance. This would have also accounted for a sudden surge of accusations, shortly after Theoderic’s departure from Rome. It was rather inconvenient to 409 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae II, 16; J. Durliat, 1988, 48; J. Prostko-Prostyński, 2006, 30–40. 410 Excerpta Valesiana 12.65. 411 On the publication of those forged documents, see E. Wirbelauer, 1993b, 228–342; W. T. Townsend, 1933, 165–174. 412 For an article in this tone, see P. V. Aimone, 2000, 53–77. 413 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana, 12.68–69. 414 Constitutio Silvestri, Prolog, [in:] E. Wirbelauer, 1993b, 228, nos. 6–7.

93

touch upon the subject of money so overtly, especially if the reason should have been the king’s donations, in whichever form, for the pope; hence allegations of illicit liaisons and the disproportionately exaggerated problem of Easter dates. The fact is that the king had summoned the pope to Rimini or Ravenna, and Symmachus stopped by at Rimini. Since Theoderic’s arrival in Italy, no pope had ever changed the date of Easter, as in 482 the king had not come to Italy yet and he would have been easily convinced, it seems, that such an unheard-of thing had happened. Józef Naumowicz makes a note of several instances when the bishops of Alexandria tried to exert pressure on the bishops of Rome to coerce the latter into accepting the standpoint of Alexandria, and in 455, during Pope Leo’s pontificate, the emperor became embroiled in the whole dispute.415 Perhaps, therefore, the matter was represented to Theoderic as potentially harmful to his relations with the emperor, which was definitely a scenario he wished to avoid. It might have happened then that Symmachus encountered a woman named Conditaria, allegedly his mistress, while he was out walking. He pretended he had not seen anyone and left for Rome, but Sotinel conjectures that the reason for his flight may have been his apprehension of falling victim to a plot arranged to discredit him.416 Unfortunately, his detractors used the flight as a pretext for further accusations, and the pope had to take refuge at the St Peter’s. The king had indeed designated an inspector, Peter, Bishop of Altinum, who, according to the Fragmentum, had reportedly celebrated the “second” Easter on 22 April. This source is fairly confusing, nonetheless, and its bias against Symmachus is simply conspicuous. For this reason, it should be cited with caution, in terms of its contents and chronology. The Liber Pontificalis makes another significant shortcut here. It does not even mention that the people and the Senate would keep sending requests to the king, urging him to order the convocation of a synod and putting Symmachus on trial, as related, though not impartially, in the Fragmentum Laurentianum. Likewise, it fails to mention that the king did in fact call for a synod. In view of all the extant evidence, however, such an assembly had not taken place at all, despite the king’s intervention. Among the relevant sources there are the acts of the synods presided over by Symmachus, one in 501,417 and the next several ones in 502. It appears that the extant acts provide summaries of several synods in that year, with some interruptions, incidents of violence, and even casualties.418 There are 415 Cf. J. Naumowicz, 2000, 92, n. 22. 416 Cf. the Fragmentum Laurentianum; see also C. Sotinel, 1998, 292. 417 Cf. G. B. Picotti, 1958, 763 (he argues for the reverse order of the synods); Teresa Sardella, 1996, 77–89. 418 Cf. Paulus Diaconus, HR, XVI, 2.

94

also three praecepta of Theoderic urging the bishops to convene a synod and bring an end to the schism, the bishops’ response to the king, and one more order by Theoderic, but written by one of his officials.419 However, the dates and the circumstances of these particular synods are not entirely clear. At that synod, Symmachus reverted to the question already dealt with by the synod of 499, i.e., how to elect a Bishop of Rome, and touched on the issue of preserving the ownership of the church property, perhaps pointing to the actual pretext for all the accusations against him. The debating began with a reading of the king Odoacer’s decree that attempted to regulate the question of the ownership of property in the Church. The most important argument against that document did not focus on the contents, but on the fact that it was issued by a secular authority, which was deemed as a dangerous precedent. The synod decreed a total prohibition on the alienation of the church property, but with a certain reservation that afforded possibilities of abuses, namely “except for gold, silver, precious stones, vestments that are or will be owned [by the Church], and other fittings of no use to the adornment of church service.”420 The synod did not make any mention of the presence of Peter of Altinum or the highly controversial celebration of Easter on two different dates in 501. The absence of any information is no solid proof, but it cannot be easily ignored, either. It is therefore possible that Theoderic would have appointed his inspector only after that synod, in late 501 or early 502.421 At about the same time, Symmachus must have taken his refuge at the St Peter’s Basilica, while the other churches were taken over by Laurence’s followers. The situation was a typical stalemate, with Symmachus holding his wellentrenched position at the Vatican, Laurence probably staying at the Basilica of St John in the Lateran, and Peter of Altinum… At this point, it would be worth asking about Peter’s role. If he was to deal with the problem of the schism, he should have possessed the king’s authorization to convoke a synod and adjudicate on the alleged offences committed by Symmachus. It does not seem to have been the case. As I have noted, there are some extant letters of Theoderic that 419 As published by T. Mommsen in: MGH AA XII, 393–455; in Poland: SCL 6, 350–374. Cf. also the following earlier editions: Mansi VIII, 261–269; Thiel 682–695. 420 Roma (501), 6, SCL 6, 355. 421 As it is rightly assumed in Teresa Sardella, 1996, 30; unfortunately, further on, she notes that Peter of Altinum arrived in 502 and celebrated the Easter mass on 22 April, according to the Alexandrian calculation of Easter date, which cannot be correct because according to this calculation, the Easter date should have been 14 April in that year.

95

urged the bishops to summon a synod and pass a judgement on Symmachus, but they made no mention of Peter at all. The first of these letters is dated to the consulship of Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus,422 precisely August 8, 502. As it contains the best documentation of the unrest of that took place in early or mid502, it deserves being cited in full and discussed. First of all, let us take note of the letter’s date. Mommsen puts the consulship of Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus in the year 501,423 most likely wrongly interpreting the terse remark that in 501 as well as in 502 Avienus held the consulship. Cassiodorus states that the first one was Avienus, with his colleague Pompeius, whereas the next consulship was jointly held by Avienus the Younger and Probus.424 The other Fasti do not offer more detail, and since this is quite important in the context of Theoderic’s intervention, let us have a look at the following sources. Comes Marcellinus takes note of the two pairs of co-consuls: Pompeius and  Avienus (501), Probus and Avienus (502), with no further detail.425 In turn, Victor of Tunnuna determines the dates, referring to the joint consulship of Avienus and Pompeius (501), followed by Avienus the Younger.426 The so-called Paschale Campanum, spanning the period 464–599, mentions the names of the consuls for the years 501 and 502 very concisely: Avieno (501) and Avieno iuniore (502), adding to the latter that “a synod was convoked to deal with the question of Pope Symmachus” at the time.427 The document provides the name of just one consul. The chronicle by Marius of Aventicum, encompassing roughly the same period, mentions the both pairs of consuls, adding iunior to the second figure.428 The Fasti vindebonenses posteriores record the names for the both pairs: Avieno (or Abieno) et Pompeio (501) and Abieno iun et Probo (502),429 the same as those mentioned by Cassiodorus. The Continuatio to the above-mentioned Paschale Campanum, written by Prosperus Hauniensis, takes note of the two different figures named Avienus: Avieno (501) and Avieno alio iun. (502).430 In his Cursus Paschalis, Victor Aquitanus states the names of Avieno iuniore and Avieno Probo, respectively, according to one group of manuscripts, and Avieno iuniore, 422 Cf. PLRE II, 192–193. 423 Cf. MGH AA, XII, 419. 424 Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronica, MGH AA, XI, 160. 425 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, MGH AA, XI, 95–96. 426 Cf. Victor Tunnunensis, Chronica, MGH AA, XI, 193. 427 Paschale Campanum, MGH AA, IX, 747. 428 Marius Aventicensis, Chronica, MGH AA, XI, 234. 429 Cf. Fasti vindebonenses posteriores, MGH AA, IX, 330. 430 Cf. Continuatio Hauniensis Prosperi, MGH AA, IX, 331.

96

as per the other one; one of the manuscripts records the name Albinus, apparently as a result of the confusion over this or that Avienus.431 However, the Chronicon Paschale of  630 seems to provide the most confusing account: in the 10th year of Anastasius, that is, in 501, and in the next year , that is, for a second time.”432 The similar details can be found in the Fasti Heracliani, but without the misleading information referring to one and the same Avienus.433 In an index of consuls appended to Vol. 3 (dedicated to the chronicles), Mommsen stated that according to some accounts both figures named Avienus were referred to as iunior.434 Let us now have a look at the dating of the documents under consideration. Mommsen is aware of the existence of many confusing accounts and conflicting opinions on the identities of the two persons named Avienus, suggesting the order of the synods as stated above and assuming that the consul for 501 was Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus or Rufius Avienus Faustus.435 Therefore, to be consistent, he had to date Theoderic’s letters to the synod to this particular year, while he considers Flavius Avienus the Younger, appearing in the dating of the synod on the church property issue, as the consul for 502. In turn, Martindele argues very convincingly for a reverse order of the consulships in question, which would be more in line with the actual course of the events.436 The point is that both of them were iunior, but apparently descending from two different families. Rufius Avienus was the grandson of Gennadius Avienus, consul in 450, and it should not have been surprising that he was listed as iunior. “Aberrations” such as those mentioned in the letter must have been addressed during the synod of November 6, 501, or that synod would not have taken place at all. The letter reads as follows: “[1] King Theoderic to the holy and venerable Fathers, Laurence, Marcellinus, Peter, and all the bishops resident in the City.  [2] You have certainly acted according to your intention that we take care of your safe return, so as not to cancel, in imitation of actions of the others, the already convoked synod, to prevent even larger public disturbances, if there should be a general withdrawal from a judgement resolving the matter? We have not wished that

431 Cf. Victor Aquitanus, Cursus Paschalis annorum CXXXII, MGH AA, IX, 728. 432 Chronicon Paschale, PG 92, 853. 433 Cf. Fasti Heracliani, MGH AA, XIII, 406. 434 MGH AA, XIII, 540. 435 Cf. MGH AA, XII, 416. 436 Cf. PLRE II, 192–193.

97

the present delay should postpone the question of performing the examination by the holy assembly or the minds of the people continue in uncertainty because of the previous judgement – because postponing the decision cannot serve the peace in the City, nor a sentence fomenting discord [can serve] the proceedings of the clergy. [3] Therefore, having been informed of the confusion that has arisen, and because of the departure of the rest, due to the mob that has risen up out of the audacity or error of some, who have resumed the interrupted judicial proceedings (but who, so to speak, would rather think of staying in the city, following your example, in anticipation of the remedy for what has happened here, as ordered by Our prudence), when We considered this question in many ways, and ultimately Our concern has been expressed in the resolution to the effect that the priests, in the number the same as convened before, shall be assembled again on 1 September. It is then fitting that Your Holiness shall be readily awaiting the arrival of the others so that after the disturbances are suppressed and the discord eliminated, the matter originated by all should be terminated by all as well. [4] Since We have considered that the synod should not be convened at Ravenna, as you may have expected, as We are concerned for the inconvenience of some and the [old] age of the others.”437

437 Theodericus, Praeceptio regis, missa ad synhodum per Germanum et Carosum episcopos, SCL 6, 359–360: [1] Dominis sanctis et venerabilibus patribus, Laurentio, Marcellino, et Petro, et cunctis episcopis in Urbe residentibus, Theodericus rex. [2] Vos quidem rem fecistis proposito congruentem, nos potius de reditu vestro secundo consulere, quam indictum concilium alienae facultatis imitatione deserere; ne discedentibus universis sub manifesta deserti dispositione iudicii maior urbem regiam seditiosis motibus turba concuteret. Sed non optavimus commisisse, sanctae congregationis examinis sub hac protrahi dilatione negotium, nec universitatis animos gravius praeiudicio pendere suspensos. Quia nec tranquillitati urbis definitionis mora, nec sacerdotali proposito sententia potest convenire discordiae. [3] Molesta igitur accepta confusione, quae nata est, caeterorumque discessu, qui propter turbam quae aut ausu aut vitio aliquorum contigit interrupta quae coeperunt reliquere iudicia (qui tamen, si quid dixerit, potius cogitassent exemplo vestro in urbe residere, exspectantes de his quae illic facta de nostrae providentiae ordinatione remedium), cum in multas vias se cogitatio nostra disperserit, ad hunc se tramitem consilii cura convertit, ut rursum ad Kalendas Septembris diem, eumdem censuerimus sacerdotum numerum convenire, qui dudum fuerat convocatus. Ergo ingravatis sanctitatem vestram reliquorum praesentiam convenit opperiri, ut compresso tumultu et dissensione submota, quae ab omnibus orta est, ab omnibus causa peragatur. [4] Nam Ravennam, quemadmodum speratis, non putavimus revocandum esse concilium, dum aliorum labore, aliorum permovemur aetate.

98

The letter was addressed to Laurence, Bishop of Milan, Peter, Bishop of Ravenna, and a figure named Marcellinus, who cannot be found among the signatories of the acts of any synod in question. All of them had been staying in Rome at the time. It was already after the synod of November 501, and the resulting riots in the streets. The proceedings had to be discontinued and the bishops requested Theoderic to transfer the synod to Ravenna. The king refused, explaining that he wished to spare them the inconveniences of the journey to Ravenna. As it was only on 8 August that he would address the problem in his letter, with regard to summoning a synod, or the next session thereof, for 1 September, it could be assumed that he should have already sent his letters to the other bishoprics before. Theoderic’s determination to avoid interfering in the judicial proceedings concerning the pope as well as his refusal to transfer the synod to Ravenna are both worthy of some further consideration. I am inclined to agree with the view that crediting Theoderic with tolerating and respecting the autonomy of the ecclesiastical authority would be a grossly exaggerated anachronism. In 498, without much remonstrance, the king gave his support to Symmachus, in opposition to Laurence, and later on he would not hesitate to send Pope John I in a delegation to Constantinople, and then to have him arrested after the pontiff failed to satisfy his expectations. Like every ancient monarch, Theoderic would decide to interfere in the church affairs whenever he felt such actions would bring him some benefits. This specific modus operandi would have been employed since as early as Constantine’s reign. And since the king was unwilling to pass his judgement on the offences allegedly committed by Symmachus, he must have very likely seen some advantage resulting from this inaction. It seems that this particular aspect can be properly considered only until we have discussed all of Theoderic’s documents relevant to the case. The letter under consideration goes on as follows: “[4 continued] We are ready, should the synodal jury not decide, according to your wish, to bring the matter to a close at the second assembly, where, as you request, We should be present for the love of peace in Rome, and having postponed Our duties until a later time, rather arrive at Rome, by God’s will, so that in Our presence, despite the confusion and discord, and for the fear of God, such an important question could be settled at last. [5] May the royal city be no longer troubled by the violence of public disturbances, but for the justice of your jury should regain her peace. To prevent this delay from becoming a burden to you, it is appropriate for your prudence to consider if it shall be of advantage or for the sake of the peace of Our times tolerable, that, having dismissed the synod with no decision being taken, and in the situation of this still unresolved dispute, the Church should bring desolation to the City of Rome. (Alia manu) Pray for Us, Venerable Fathers

99

Issued on 8 August during the consulship of the most eminent Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus (AD 502).”438

Theoderic declares his readiness to come to Rome, but not to take the initiative and assume responsibility for the sentence. In his words, peace should be restored in the city “thanks to the fairness of your judgement.” It appears that the king suspected that a second assembly might not change anything if he promised to deal with the issue in person, and for that reason he expressed his readiness to attend, but nothing else. Still, the outcome of the letter turned out to be, most probably, different from Theoderic’s expectations, as the bishops would have failed to make the things much easier. The other of the two extant documents reports that they were apprehensive about the prevalent mood in the city and a resurgence of civil unrest; moreover, they failed to persuade Symmachus to show up at the synod, allowing the jury to pass verdict on his case. It is also notable that Theoderic had not written a letter to the pope (at least, there is no evidence attesting to the existence of such a document). This second letter, addressed to all the bishops participating in the synodal proceedings, bears the date 27 August of the same year. Let us have a closer look at a brief passage that refers to summoning Symmachus to arrive at the synod: “[9] To avoid making it appear that We have omitted anything, as you have deemed the presence of Bishop Symmachus as indispensable during the examination, We have dispatched the viri sublimi Gudila and Bedeulf, Our majordomos, with the respectable comes Arigernus, to attend to the present matter, to dispel all doubt. On Our orders, they shall swear an oath before the appointed bishop, in whichever manner he should choose. Your order shall suffice to ensure that everybody called to come to the synod could safely appear there, with no apprehension of the crowds or other obstacles. [10] (Et alia manu): Pray for Us, Holy and Venerable Fathers

438 Theodericus, Praeceptio regis, missa ad synhodum per Germanum et Carosum episcopos, SCL 6, 359–360: [4 cont.] parati ut nisi secundo conventu causae finem iudicium synodale posuerit iuxta desiderium vestrum, quo nos poscitis esse praesentes, occupationibus nostris Romae quietis amori postpositis, nos potius Romam Deo auctore veniamus, ut praesentibus saltem nobis citra confusionem atque discordiam, secundum Dei timorem, tanta causa terminum sortiatur. [5] Ut non diutius urbs regia turbarum tempestate fatigetur, sed vestri aequitate iudicii redeat ad quietem. Ne mora vobis videatur onerosa, fas est vestrae aestimare providentiae, si commodo sit, aut sub nostrorum temporum tranquillitate tolerandum soluto sine in aliqua definitione concilio sub incerto ecclesiam suam hoc certamine Romanam perdere civitatem. Alia manu. Orate pro nobis, domini ac venerabiles patres. Datum sub die VI Idus Augusti Rufo Magno, Fausto Avieno V. C. cos.

100

Issued on 27 August at  Ravenna, in the time of the fortunate reign of the aforementioned, during the consulship of the most eminent Rufius Avienus Faustus (AD 502).”439

Gudila and  Bedeulf are referred to as viri sublimi and maiores domus nostrae. They were to serve as a warrant of safety and therefore it would have been the king’s sole intervention to reach a settlement of the problem. Unfortunately, this effort would not bring any result, either. The course of the events is known from the contents of the bishops’ letter to the king, where Theoderic is praised for his clemency as well as his initiative to summon a synod, and then pass on to inform him that the attempt to make Symmachus come to the assembly failed. They also quote the pope’s very telling words: “First, with no hesitation, I came to meet with you when you had arrived at Rome, and I gladly surrendered my privileges to the will of the king and handed the authority to the synod, in accordance with the discipline of the Church. According to the law, I demanded restoration of the churches, but I received no response from you. Then, when I arrived with my clergy, I met with a brutal treatment. I shall no more subject myself to your scrutiny. It is in the power of God and the king what shall be determined in my case.”440

It would seem that Symmachus referred to his two appearances at the synod’s sessions, where he submitted himself to the proceedings of the jury. However, he was “brutally treated” following the second session and would not decide to attend any more. Even Arigernus, the king’s emissary, failed to convince him to return. In effect, the bishops asked for the permission to return to their dioceses, as it became impossible to reach any agreement on the case.

439 Theodericus, Praeceptio regis missa ad synhodum, SCL 6, 362: [9] Et ne quid omisisse videamur, cum necessariam credideritis episcopi Symmachi in cognitione praesentiam, Gudilam et Bedeulfum sublimes viros, maiores domus nostrae, nos de praesente misimus cum illustri comite Arigerno ne quid dubitationis habeat. Iussu nostro sacramenta praestabunt satisfacturi designato episcopo, quemadmodum existimaverit: ordinatio vestra sufficiet, ut vocatus ad concilium citra turbae et molestiae metu securus occurrat. [10] Et alia manu: Orate pro nobis, domini sancti et venerabiles patres. Dat est sub die VI Kal. Sept., Ravennae, regnante supradicto feliciter; Rufio Avieno Fausto V. C. cos. 440 Roma (501), Relatio episcoporum ad regem, SCL 6, 362: Primum ad conventum vestrum, quando Romae venistis, sine aliqua dubitatione properavi, et privilegia mea voluntati regiae submisi, et auctoritatem synodi dedi; sicut habet ecclesiastica disciplina. Restaurationem ecclesiarum regulariter poposci, sed nullus mihi a vobis effectus est. Deinde cum venirem cum clero meo, crudeliter demactatus sum. Ulterius me vestro examini non committo. In potestate Dei est, et domini regis, quid de me deliberet ordinare.

101

Theoderic’s reply of 1 October is noteworthy, and unflinchingly resolute: “Do not expect any verdict from Us, but rule as you wish. With or without a debate, pass a sentence for which you will be held accountable at God’s judgement.”441

As can be seen, the king did not yield and, finally, the synod took place on 23 October, to address the same unresolved question for the last time. Since Symmachus made his appearance at the synod, his biographer found it appropriate to note that the convocation had been summoned by the pope, without any pressure from the king or anyone else. As the Liber Pontificalis recounts: “4. Then blessed Symmachus gathered 115 bishops, and the synod was held in which he was acquitted of the false charge, while Peter of Altinum was condemned as an intruder into the apostolic see as was Laurence of Nuceria [for invading bishop Symmachus’ see while he was still alive]. Then the blessed Symmachus was reinstated with glory in the apostolic see by all the bishops, priests, deacons, the whole clergy [and people], to sit as bishop in the church of the St Peter’s.”442

I have added one sentence from the second edition, reminiscent of the actual nature of the schism. First of all, it should be noted that none of the extant synodal documents has 115 signatures of bishops. If we were to account for this number, it could be conjectured that in 502, at the several sessions of this synod, such an overall number of all the bishops in attendance may have been possible, whereas the signatures would have belonged to those who participated in the final session. There may have already been three such sessions before, and perhaps for this reason the acts produced by the last one are referred to as “the fourth synod” in the manuscripts.443 The account from that last synodal meeting (known as “at the Palm,” which was the same location where Theoderic had spoken to the people in 500444) contains a brief relation of the proceedings during all the individual sessions and makes it possible to reconstruct the course of the events.445 441 Theodericus, Praeceptio regis, SCL 6, 363–364. 442 LP 53, 4: Eodem tempore beatus Symmachus congregavit episcopos CXV, et facto synodo purgatur a crimine falso et damnatur Petrus Altinas invasor sedis apostolicae et Laurentius Nucerinus [quare vivo episcopo Symmacho pervaserunt sedem eius]. Tunc ab omnibus episcopis et presbiteris et diaconibus et omni clero [vel plebe] reintegratur sedi apostolicae beatus Symmachus cum gloria apud beatum Petrum sedere praesul (trans. R. Davis). 443 Cf. P. V. Aimone, Gli autori delle falsificazioni Simmachiane, 65; S. Vacca, 1993, 35 (opts for 501 as the year of that synod, following Mommsen’s opinion, but also recalling that some authors think otherwise). 444 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 12.65–66. 445 Cf. also G. B. Picotti, 1958, 766–785.

102

The document recounts that the king was asked about his opinion first, to which he responded that he wished a synod would take place and that the pope agreed to the idea as well.446 The pope’s letter concerning this question was included as part of a dossier sent by the king. The first session was then held at the Church of Santa Maria in Trastevere.447 It was there that the pope would have reportedly put forth his statement to the effect that he was willing to submit himself to the bishops’ judgement, but not before the withdrawal of the king’s inspector and the recovery of all the previously forfeited church buildings. The following passage is somewhat more enigmatic: “[5 continued] A large number of priests agreed that it was the proper thing to do, in order to attain the desirable result. [6] Yet the synod had not undertaken any action without the king’s knowledge, and the right suggestion would not elicit any expected response due to the negligent attitude of the legates. By the king’s ordinance, Pope Symmachus was obliged to face his enemies in a debate, even before he recovered the lost patrimony and churches. He was not willing to recover, in this particular order, the privileges resulting from his authority or [the things] that he had surrendered to have his conscience clear, as far as we may rightly appraise.”448

It would then follow that the emissaries entrusted with delivering Symmachus’ demands to the king had been indeed sent out on their way, but they would have allegedly failed to accomplish their task because of some negligence on their part. Another mystery can be found in the very next sentence of this passage: on the strength of the king’s instruction, Symmachus was to begin defending himself, still before any of his demands could be fulfilled. It is hard to believe that the legates could have afforded any neglectful conduct in the matter regarding which the king had addressed as many as three letters to Rome (unless some document testifying to their execution came to light). As we know, their mission was too serious to have been treated so carelessly. Besides, it is not clear whether they would have failed to deliver when on route to the king or back. They report that

446 A. Baron, 2011, 14. 447 Cf. T. F. X. Noble, 1993, 409; E. Caspar, 1933, 92–94; A. Schwarcz, 2004, 41. 448 Roma (23 octobris 502), Synodus habita Romae Palmaris, SCL 6, 367: [5 cont.] Digna res visa est maximo sacerdotum numero, atque ut mereretur, effectum. [6] Decernere tamen aliquid synodus sine regia notitia non praesumpsit, sed suggestio iusta per legatorum negligentiam non meruit secundum vota responsum. Iussus est regis praeceptionibus papa Symmachus ante patrimonii vel ecclesiarum, quas amiserat, receptionem, cum impugnatoribus suis in disceptatione confligere, qui potestatis suae privilegia, et quae pro conscientiae (quantum iuste aestimamus) emendatione submiserat, nec hac voluit vice resumere.

103

some decree of the king had reached Symmachus, perhaps referring to either one of Theoderic’s surviving letters addressed to the bishops gathered in Rome, with no mention of Symmachus at all. Next, they go on to mention the second session, held in Rome at the Church of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, and an assault on the pope and his retinue on the way back home. What in the bishops’ letter to the king is called “a brutal treatment” is described here in more detail: “[11] When it was being deliberated on what should be done, the aforesaid pope, intending to appear before the jury as the accused man, was not trying to hide and, when passing along, was so brutally treated by the throngs of his opponents that many of the priests who were with him found themselves in mortal danger, while the respectable comes Arigernus and the sublimes viri Gudila and Bedeulfus, maiores domus regiae, could see the still fresh injuries, as [the pope] had to take refuge behind the bars of the St Peter’s, whence he had come out.”449

Evidently, even the king’s emissaries suffered in a scuffle, which would not bode well for the cause of the assailants, that is, Symmachus’ enemies. For the time being, nonetheless, the king made no response at all and would avoid any direct intervention, as could be seen in his letter, only insisting that the controversy be settled by the parties involved. Before discussing the final proceedings of the synod, let us focus our attention on the relevant passages in the Liber Pontificalis. The accounts in the Epitome F and  K are much more succinct than the more elaborated P. Both of these texts would deserve some attention: The Epitome K (first edition): “The Festus, the patrician, began to slaughter the clergy who were communicating with the blessed Symmachus and he expelled consecrated women from their dwellings, and stripped women of their clothing and beat them with clubs and he killed many priests there.”450

449 Roma (23 octobris 502), Synodus habita Romae Palmaris, SCL 6, 368: [11] Et dum inter ista, quae essent facienda, tractatur, praefatus papa, ut causam diceret, occurrebat: qui veniens ab irruentibus turbis aemulorum suorum ita tractatus est, ut multis presbyteris qui cum ipso erant, per caedem ipsam mortis fuisset occasio, et recentium adhuc vestigia vulnerum illustris vir comes Arigernus, et sublimes viri, Gudila et Vedeulfus, maiores domus regiae perspexissent, quod se, unde egressus fuerat, ad beati Petri apostoli septa convexerit. 450 LP 53, 5: Tunc Festus patricius cepit intra urbe cedes facere in clero, qui communicabant beato Symmacho et deponens mulieres sanctimoniales de habitaculis suis, denudans sexum femineum, cedens fustibus ibique multos sacerdotes occidit (trans. L. R. Loomis).

104

But according to the second edition: “Then Festus the leader of the senate and exconsul and Probinus the exconsul began to struggle with other senators in Rome, particularly with Faustus the exconsul. Their malice caused slaughter and murder among the clergy. Those who were rightly in communion with blessed Symmachus and chanced to be at large in the city were killed by the sword; even dedicated women and virgins were displaced from their monasteries or houses; women were stripped, injured with cuts and wounded with blows. In the midst of the city there were battles every day against the church. Even many sacerdotes were killed.”451

To the author of the Liber Pontificalis, the expressions “then” or “at that time” were of totally general significance. In this case, it would probably refer to the entire year 502. The Epitome Cononiana is very terse, but the later text contains more details of interest. It says that Faustus Niger was one of the pope’s allies. He had already been a member of the joint royal and papal delegation to Constantinople in 490, very likely a royalist himself. But previously, Festus was a royalist too, having successfully negotiated the recognition of Theoderic’s authority with the emperor Zeno, subsequently also obtaining the emperor Anastasius’ consent for the return of the insignia (ornamenta palatii) to the West. He was instrumental in the pontifical election of Laurence, but I cannot see why he should have been blamed for committing criminal acts. According to the Fragmentum Laurentianum, Symmachus accusatur etiam ab universo clero Romano, although the Liber Pontificalis claims that the opposition had not reached such enormous proportions, since beatings and other violent incidents were quite common. The second edition of the Liber Pontificalis continues on with the sentence mentioning the murdered clergy: “5. Including Dignissimus and Gordian the priests of St Peter ad vincula and Saints John and Paul; these they killed with clubs and sword. They killed many Christians, so that it was unsafe for any of the clergy to travel in the city by day or night. On the church’s side there fought only the exconsul Faustus.”

451 [LP 53, 5: Eodem tempore Festus caput senati excons. et Probinus excons. coeperunt intra urbem Romam pugnare cum aliis senatoribus et maxime cum Fausto excons. Et caedes et homicidia in clero ex invidia. Qui vero communicabant beato Symmacho iuste, publice qui inventi fuissent intra Urbem gladio occidebantur; etiam et sanctimoniales mulieres et virgines deponentes de monasteria vel de habitaculis suis, denudantes sexum femineum, caedibus plagarum adflictas vulnerabantur; et omni die pugnas contra ecclesiam in media civitate gerebant. Etiam et multos sacerdotes occidit] (trans. R. Davis).

105

As shown above, there is nothing to hint at any incidents of violence and bloodshed prior to the synod of November 501. It would have been very difficult to explain the absence of any mention of such facts during the synod and the lack of any relevant remark or comment in the later documents. Therefore, if those two priests had been killed and the king’s envoys beaten up, as the acts of the “Palm” synod report, it must have occurred in 502, in between the sessions of the synod. The aforementioned Gordianus452 participated in the synod of 499, but not in 501, which makes Teresa Sardella conclude firmly that he had been certainly murdered by then.453 I can see no reason to think so, as there could have been many possible causes of someone’s absence, even if they wished or were required to be there. Assuming this reasoning to be correct, one would have to draw conclusions from the fact that Dignissimus had not taken part in any of Symmachus’ synods. But, we may ask, what kind of conclusions? It is now time to return to what the Liber Pontificalis summarizes at [4], namely the synod eventually acquitting Symmachus of the false charges against him, while determining that Peter of Altinum and Laurence shall be condemned (damnatur).454 This is confirmed in the deacon John’s letter to Symmachus, dated September 18, 506, where the author apologized and requested the pope to readmit him into communion (redintegrari me unitati).455 However, the synodal acts make no mention of it at all. Instead, there was a clear acknowledgement of Symmachus’ papal authority and nobody was condemned by the synod. On the contrary, the culprits were treated very leniently: “19. As regards the clergy of the aforementioned pope, those who had, some time before, deserted their bishop in contravention of the rules and caused a schism, we have decided that they should be treated with leniency after they become reconciled with their bishop, so that they could enjoy being restored to their ecclesial duties, because our Lord and Saviour rejoices when those sheep that were lost are found, as they had lost their way, and as the heavenly doctor, He shows the fatherly generosity to a prodigal son (Luke 15:4–5, 11–32).”456

452 Cf. P. A. B. Llewellyn, 1977, 258. 453 T. Sardella, 1996, 64: chiaro indizio che all’epoca era già stato eliminato. 454 Cf. W. Ensslin, 1959, 115; J. Richards, 1979, 71. 455 Symmachus, Epistola 8; Thiel 697. 456 Roma (23 octobris 502), Synodus habita Romae Palmaris, SCL 6, 370: De clericis memorati papae, qui ab episcopo suo ante tempus aliquod contra regulas discesserunt, et schisma fecerunt, hoc fieri decrevimus, ut eos satisfacientes episcopo suo misericordia subsequatur, et officiis ecclesiasticis se gaudeant restitui, quia Dominus et Redemptor noster oves perditas ab errore laetatur inventas, et super profugum filium paternam libertatem coelestis medicator accommodat.

106

There should be no delusions about it. If any authority, after suffering a temporary crisis, decided to refrain from punishing those who had caused the trouble, it would usually signify that it was not able to, not that it did not want to do so. The reason for this “clemency,” so inconceivable in the eyes of the author of the Liber Pontificalis, may have been either the clearly stated will of the ruler or the overwhelming numbers of the adversaries. The semblance of the firmness could be seen in the precept providing that whoever in the future would choose to act within any Church without Symmachus’ knowledge should be treated as a schismatic. As regards the restoration of the churches occupied by Symmachus’ opponents, it was decreed that “in accordance with the principal regulations, with which our authority is invested, we restore to him all the ecclesiastical authority in the holy city of Rome and beyond, entrusting the entire matter to God’s judgement.”457 Those fine resolutions were only to remain on paper, as it appears that nothing would change for the next four years. This is some extra proof to validate the view that the mitigation present in the synodal precepts pertaining to Symmachus’ opponents was a result of the actual weakness of the pro-Symmachus circles, as their adversaries had reasons to feel strong and confident. The Liber Pontificalis (50, 3) states that the followers of Laurence had brought him to Rome in secret, which would have supposedly taken place prior to the synod mentioned at [4] as the one summoned by Symmachus. This information is also reported by the opponents of Symmachus, but the tone is obviously very different. The Fragmentum Laurentianum recounts that some of the clergy and senators opposed to Symmachus made an appeal to the king, requesting him to allow Laurence to come to Rome. As we know, the “anti-pope” was still staying at Ravenna, “avoiding the violence and persecution from Symmachus.” After all, his supporters argued, he was elected as Bishop of Rome! As a result, Laurence arrived and held the See of Rome for four years,458 from 502 to 506. I have already mentioned the letter

457 Roma (23 octobris 502), Synodus habita Romae Palmaris, SCL 6, 370: Unde secundum principalia praecepta, quae nostrae hoc tribuunt potestati, ei quidquid ecclesiastici intra sacram urbem Romam, vel foris iuris est, reformamus, totam causam Dei iudicio reservantes. 458 Fragmentum Laurentianum: Clerus ergo et senatus electior, qui consortium vitaverat Symmachi, petitionem regi pro persona Laurenti dirigit, qui eo tempore Rauennae morabatur, Symmachi violentiam persecutionemque declinans, ut ipse Romanae praesederet ecclesiae, ubi dudum fuerat summus pontifex ordinatus, quia hoc et canonibus esset adfixum, ut unusquisque illic permaneat, ubi primitus est consecratus antistis, vel, si quibusdam commentis exinde remotus fuerit, eum modis omnibus esse revocandum. Sic Laurentius ad urbem veniens per annos circiter quattuor Romanam tenuit

107

by deacon John, who asked Symmachus in 506 to restore him into communion, which would seem to imply that the schism would have been over by that time, although, to be sure, it would not have to mean that everybody had surrendered. In a letter dated 11 March 507 Theoderic formally accepted the decisions of the synod of November 501, that is, more specifically, the prohibition on alienation of church property.459 I have an impression that his words are reflective of, so to speak, diplomatic hypocrisy: “And what is then as ungodly as that the donator’s will is not respected, while the things that, as everybody wished, should belong to the Church and be accumulated to draw a benefit from it, is appropriated by private individuals. Therefore, if whoever, in their perverse audacity, dared to violate this precept and, apart from the profit, wished to possess the thing itself, [utilized] by courtesy of the bishop or the clergy, the alienated thing, with due profits, shall be immediately reclaimed by a respectable church superior.”460

If Theoderic had written a letter like this immediately after the synod of 501, there would probably have been no schism at all. Apparently, things calmed down after the king’s decision that granted the See of Rome to Symmachus. Even back in 499, Laurence, having already accepted his defeat, took part in a synod as Caelius Laurentius archipresbyter tituli Praxidae, and afterwards he left for his new destination, the picturesque diocese of Nuceria, and no one seemed to protest. The real uproar erupted after the synod of November 501 and it would be rather hard to believe it should have had no connection with the decisions of that synod. Contrary to Teresa Sardella’s opinion, the discontent came mostly from the wealthy secular circles, not the clergy. As she argues, the acts of embezzlement were, for the most part, committed by the clergy, which she would see as one more proof that the controversies connected with struggling for the possession of property and power in that period were clearly of ecclesiastical provenance.461

ecclesiam. Cf. Teresa Sardella, 1996, 36–37; I would not agree with some of the conclusions in this particular book. 459 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia AM 5493. According to this source, the schism came to an end in 501. 460 Theodericus, Praeceptum regis, 11 III 507, MGH AA, XII, 392; Thiel 696: Quid enim tam profanum est quam ut in hac largientis parte violetur arbitrium, dum quod ad ecclesiam quisque voluit pertinere, privatae sibi vendicent pro usufructu rei personae contractum. Ergo si quis scelestis ausibus interdicta praesumpserit et ultra usumfructum rem tenere cupit episcopo vel clero lagriente, alienata res protinus cum fructibus a venerando praesule vindicentur. 461 T. Sardella, 1996, 98: Gli indebiti defraudatori del patrimonio titulare di pertinenza del vescovo di Roma erano evidentemente ecclesiastici perché la competenza giuridica

108

I think this argumentation is essentially groundless. The synod of 501 put a ban on the alienation of church property and aimed to prosecute both the sellers and the buyers. For obvious reasons, the former were clergymen of various rank, while the latter would be, just as obviously, either clergymen or laymen who could afford purchasing such property. The document of the synod makes this point very clear: “No clergyman or lay person may retain the property obtained in this way.”462

6.  Symmachus’ legacy for the Church Further on in the second edition of the Liber Pontificalis, there is a sentence strikingly similar to the mention concerning Pope Gelasius and his relentless struggle with the Manicheans. Let us have a look at these two passages: “In this time Manicheans were discovered in the city of Rome; these he ordered to be deported into exile, and their books he burnt with fire before the doors of St Mary’s basilica.”463 “After all this the blessed Symmachus found Manicheans in the city of Rome and burned with fire all their images and books before the doors of the basilica of Constantine and condemned them to exile.”464

Such a conspicuous affinity between them (there are also several more passages dealing with the Manicheans) seems to suggest the presence of a locus communis, which was evidently considered to be appropriate in the accounts referring to popes. Aside from having provided the ornamentations and fixtures for various churches, Symmachus was a founder of many new church buildings. Everything I have said about Theoderic’s building activity could well hold true for Pope Symmachus. The churches in question had been erected with a well-defined and predetermined purpose, not just for the common and regular use by the faithful. His

su di essi era solo ecclesiastica. Ancora una volta abbiamo un’altra conferma che anche gli scontri più concretamente legati ad interessi materiali e di potere nello scisma laurentiano intervenivano all’interno dell’ambiente ecclesiastico. 462 Roma (501) 4, SCL 6, 355. 463 [LP 51, 1: Huius temporibus inventi sunt Manichei in urbe Roma quos exilio deportari praecepit, quorum codices ante fores basilicae sanctae Mariae incendio concremavit] (trans. R. Davis). 464 [LP 53, 5: Post haec omnia beatus Symmachus invenit Manicheos in urbe Roma, quorum omnia simulacra vel codices ante fores basilicae Constantinianae incendio concremavit et eos ipsos exilio religavit] (trans. R. Davis).

109

most notable foundations include:465 the Basilica of Sts Andrew and Peter,466 the Holy Cross oratory beside the baptistery of the St Peter’s Basilica, two oratories dedicated to Sts John the Evangelist and John the Baptist, Basilica of St Agatha in via Aurelia, Basilica of St Pancratius, Basilica of Sts Sylvester and Martin, located within the city walls, near Trajan’s Baths, in the centre of Rome; the Basilica Church of St Peter in via Trivana, at the 27th milestone from Rome, on the request of patricians Albinus and Glaphyrus; quarters for the poor near the churches of St Peter, St Paul, and St Laurence.467 He also ordained that Gloria in excelsis should be sung on Sundays and holy martyrs’ feast-days, which is something of a liturgical novelty. And just one more excerpt of interest: “12. He performed four December and February ordinations in Rome, 92 priests, 16 deacons; for various places 117 bishops. He was buried in St Peter’s [on 19 July].468 The bishopric was vacant 7 days. As a confessor he rested in peace.”469

In view of this particular passage, the mention referring to the erection of the Church of Sts Sylvester and Martin at the centre of the city is noteworthy. This should be seen in the broader context of Theoderic’s policy towards Clovis, king of the Franks, as Michel Rouche observes in his book.470 Sylvester was the Bishop of Rome during Constantine’s reign and it was believed that he had baptized the emperor. Moreover, Constantine would have reputedly made a very lavish donation to the See of Rome during Sylvester’s pontificate, as confirmed by the documents forged during Symmachus’ pontificate. It is also worth noting that Martin of Tours was a very eminent figure in Clovis’ eyes, and the ruler made his decision to become baptized at the saint’s tomb.471

465 Cf. LP 53, 6–11. 466 Cf. J. D. Alchermes, 1995, 1–40; M. Cecchelli, 2000, 263–275. 467 Cf. Beda Venerabilis, Chronica maior, nr 501, MGH AA, XI, 406. 468 Cassiodorus remarks that the long-awaited peace came to Rome: Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 514, MGH AA XI, 160. 469 LP 53, 12: Hic fecit ordinations IIII in urbe Roma per mens. Decemb. et Febr., presbiteros XCII, diaconos XVI; episcopos per diversa loca CXVII. Qui etiam sepultus est apud beatum Petrum XIIII ka. Aug. in Pace. Et cessavit episcopatum dies VII. Qui etiam in pace confessor quievit (trans. R. Davis). 470 Cf. M. Rouche, 1996, 301. 471 Cf. Nicetius Trevirensis, Domine clementissime in Christo filiae, Hlodosvinde regine 18, CCL 117, 422; M. Rouche, 1996, 524.

110

7.  Theoderic and the “Laurentian schism” (III) At this point, it is well worth considering what was the rationale for such a cautious and withdrawn stance of Theoderic, who would resist all the efforts aiming to make him become involved in the squabbling between the two sides. Apparently, they were “parties” supporting Symmachus and Laurence, but in actual fact, as the documents on the alienation of property seem to suggest, grouped around Symmachus and senator Festus (apparently, the figure behind Laurence). It would be difficult to find any reasonable answer without taking a closer look at the political activity of Theoderic in the years 500–507. His policy of tolerance as well as his respect for the autonomy of the Church cannot be taken, in my opinion, at face value. Until as late as 504, Theoderic’s “marriage policy” had worked very well and the king faced no threat from any of his neighbours. The alliance among the several Arian kingdoms warranted that Clovis would not bring any harm to Theoderic’s authority, even if the king of the Franks became baptized in the Catholic Church. Besides being Theoderic’s brother-in-law, Clovis found himself, so to speak, entrapped in a rather precarious situation. Nonetheless, their relations continued to be peaceful. On the other hand, the situation in the East changed in 504, when Theoderic had to send his troops into Illyria to repel an incursion of the Gepids,472 who had reached as far as Sirmium in Pannonia. In Jordanes’ words: “Now he sent his Count Pitza, chosen from among the chief men of his kingdom, to hold the city of Sirmium. He got possession of it by driving out its king Thrasaric, son of Thraustila, and keeping his mother captive. Thence he came with two thousand infantry and five hundred horsemen to aid Mundo against Sabinian, Master of the Soldiery of Illyricum, who at that time had made ready to fight with Mundo near the city named Margoplanum, which lies between the Danube and Margus rivers, and destroyed the Army of Illyricum. For this Mundo, who traced his descent from the Attilani of old, had put to flight the tribe of the Gepidae and was roaming beyond the Danube in waste places where no man tilled the soil. He had gathered around him many outlaws and ruffians and robbers from all sides and had seized a tower called Herta, situated on the bank of the Danube. There he plundered his neighbors in wild license and made himself king over his vagabonds. Now Pitza came upon him when he was nearly reduced to desperation and was already thinking of surrender. So he rescued him from the hands of Sabinian and made him a grateful subject of his king Theodoric.”473

472 Cf. W. Goffart, 1972b, 176–177. 473 Jordanes, Getica 300–301: Pitzamum quoque suum comitem et inter primos electum ad obtinendam Sirmiensem dirigit civitatem. quam ille expulso rege eius Trasarico, filio Trapstilae, retenta eius matre obtinuit. inde contra Savinianum Illyricum mag. mil., qui tunc cum Mundone paraverat conflictum, ad civitatem cognomine Margo planum,

111

Pitza was a commander in, to use the modern phrase, the general staff of Theoderic,474 and he was in charge of repelling the Gepid attack. His involvement in an armed confrontation with Sabinian was an unnecessary affront to the emperor, but the commander was eager to provide some fraternal assistance to Mundonus, a descendant of the Huns living off pillage and plunder, at the risk of being captured by the Imperial forces. It appears that this confrontation between Pitza and Sabinian would have taken place in 506/507.475 Earlier, in 505, the Alemanni invaded the kingdom of the Franks476 and Clovis pledged to his wife Clothilda that, if he should win, he would convert to Christianity.477 Theoderic addressed a letter to him, referring to their kinship and to the romanitas by adoption, which both of them attached much importance to. He requested Clovis to restrain from persecuting the defeated Alemanni and from attacking them beyond the Danube, because it would have already taken place on Theoderic’s territory. However, he proposed a peaceful partition of the rest of the Alemanni lands and stated he preferred such wars that reached their conclusion by means of moderation.478 The letter was dispatched after the conflict between the Franks and the Alemanni, i.e., in 506, at the earliest. By the time, Theoderic’s troops had already been in Illyria. The Arian alliance formed by Theoderic might have been alerted by another event that took place in 506 as well. The Catholic bishops held a great synod at Agde in Gaul for the lands under Visigoth rule. Under the increasing Catholic pressure, king Alaric II recalled Caesarius of Arles from exile and agreed to a synod in Gaul.479 It may have signified that he was about to seek, as though just in case, some allies among the Catholics.

474 475 476 477 478 479

112

quae inter Danubium Margumque fluminibus adiacebat, cum duobus milibus ergo peditum, equitibus quingentis in Mundonis solacia veniens Illyricianum exercitum demolivit. [301] […] hunc ergo pene desperatum et iam de traditione sua deliberantem Petza subveniens e manibus Saviniani eripuit, suoque regi Theodorico cum gratiarum actione fecit subiectum (trans. Ch. C. Mierow). Cf. PLRE II, 886. Cf. PLRE II, 967; however, the year 508 would not seem very likely. Cf. E. Stein, 1949, 135–155; H. Wolfram, 1988, 306–315. Ps-Fredegarius, Chronicon III, 21, MGH SRMer II, 101: Cumque bellum contra Alamannus Glodoveus rex moverit, suadente regina, vovit, si victuriam obtenebat, effecerit christianus. Theodericus, Luduin Regi Francorum, [in:] Cassiodorus, Variae II, 41; MGH AA, XII, 73: illa mihi feliciter bella provenerunt, quae moderato fine peracta sunt. Agatha (506), CCL 148, 189–228. Cf. R. W. Mathisen, 1997, 682.

This manoeuvring would not manage to stop the Franks from invading, which they did on the pretext of liberating Toulouse.480 Procopius of Caesarea reports that the defeat of Alaric II enabled the Franks to capture the treasure of Solomon, housed at Carcassonne. Previously brought to Rome from Jerusalem as part of Titus’ spoils of war, it would be subsequently seized by Alaric I during the sacco di Roma of 410.481 Alaric II died in mid-507 at the battle of Vouillé,482 near Poitiers. Forced to remain in Italy and wary of the emperor’s response to his military endeavours in Illyria, Theoderic failed to send the anticipated reinforcements to his son-in-law. Sabinus held the consulship in 505, after which he would be appointed as magister militum and given the command in Illyria. His defeat in the battle against Pitza’s army would have likely taken place in 506, as already in the following year Theoderic would be reasonably concerned about the emperor’s possible retaliation. Finally, Theoderic avenged Alaric in 508. In his Chronicle, Cassiodorus records the information that precisely in that year, during the joint consulship of Venantius and Celerus, Theoderic sent his troops against the Franks, conquered Gaul, and annexed it to his dominium, thus becoming the king of the Visigoths as well.483 It is probably this particular campaign that Jordanes (much indebted to Cassiodorus’ work) makes reference to, right after his account of Pitza’s Illyrian expedition: “He was equally victorious in Gaul through his comrade Ibba, who had slain over thirty thousand Franks in battle.”484 Considering our argumentation, the above point would help to account for the fact that Theoderic and Symmachus had agreed on the alienation of church property in 507, which would effectively put an end to the schism. The termination of the several-year-long schism or some other, hitherto unexplained, reasons encouraged Ennodius to praise the achievements of Theoderic in a special work known as Panegyric.485 The author describes the king’s actions in the field of the church affairs as follows:

480 Cf. H. Wolfram, 1993, 8–10. 481 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Gothico I, 12; Gregorius Turonensis, Historia Francorum II, 37; M. Rouche, 1996, 537. 482 Cf. B. Saitta, 1988, 737–750; P. C. Diaz, R. Valverde, 2007, 360; M. Wilczyński, 2011, 222. 483 Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 508, MGH AA XI, 160: His conss. contra Francos a domno nostro destinatur exercitus, qui Gallias Francorum depraedatione confusas victis hostibus ac fugatis suo adquisivit imperio. Cf. A. Schwarcz, 1993, 787–798. 484 Jordanes, Getica 302. Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 508, MGH AA XI, 160. 485 Cf. C. Rohr, 1999, 267–275; C. Rohr, 1998, 29–48.

113

“You prove to be a prince for your strength, caution, and auspiciousness, and a priest for your piety.486 Lo and behold! Our ancestors had called the rulers divos and pontifices in vain. Significantly, it is the most sacred thing to take appropriate actions, not to possess a venerable title. Rather let my king be Aleman, and let the other one be called so; may he lead his life as a godly man guided by his conscience, with no need for vainglorious titles out of inflated boastfulness, in whom praises from the mighty clash with the truth.”487

According to one ancient adage, it was “most sacred to remember who you owe your debt to.”488 But in Ennodius’ words, actions are even more sacred. In the excerpt cited above, the author seems to take the liberty of making a jocular pun on one of the emperor’s titles. Anastasius received his Alemannicus title without any specific personal achievement to deserve it, whereas Theoderic would have actually given his support to the Alemanni after they had been defeated by the Franks in 505. Still, it offered no grounds for referring to him as “priest,” unlike his endeavours to end the schism. Another contemporary document is one of Theoderic’s letters to the emperor, the first one in Cassiodorus’ compilation. The king puts much emphasis on the need for peace and good relations with the emperor. Notably, he spares no compliments such as “You are the most splendid jewel of all the kingdoms.”489 Moreover, he wants to emulate the emperor as well as to express his love for the Senate. This inordinate courtesy is certainly indicative of the king’s awareness of the emperor’s less friendly feelings towards him (“How can Your Imperial Majesty separate from this venerable peace, which is not estranged from your conduct”490).

486 For discussions of this passage, see S. Rota, 1998, 139–146. Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005b, 101. 487 Ennodius, Panegyricus XVII, 80–81, MGH AA VII, 213: Exhibes robore vigilantia prosperitate principem, mansuetudine sacerdotem. [81] Quid! frustra maiores nostri divos et pontifices vocarunt, quibus sceptra conlata sunt! Singulare est actibus implere sanctissimum et veneranda nomina non habere. Rex meus sit iure Alamannicus, dicatur alienus; ut divus vitam agat ex fructu conscientiae nec requirat pomposae vocabula nuda iactantiae, in cuius moribus veritati militant blandimenta maiorum. In the following recent edition, the relevant passage is exactly the same, cf. Ennodio Magno Felice, Panegirico del clementissimo re Teoderico, a cura di Simona Rota, 220, cf. commentary 410–411. Cf. also G. B. Picotti, 1956, 184 (with a peculiar translation of this excerpt); C. Rohr, 1999, 283. 488 Publius, Publilii Syri sententiae 588. 489 Theodericus, Epistola ad Imperatorem Anastasium, [in:] Cassiodorus, Variae I, 1, 2: vos enim estis regnorum omnium pulcherrimum decus. 490 Cassiodorus, Variae I, 1, 3: quomodo potestis ab Augusta pace dividere, quem non optatis a vestris moribus discrepare?

114

He considers his authority over the Romans as both a privilege and God’s will,491 perceiving the source of the conflict in a misunderstanding caused by unpredictable circumstances. Therefore, to explain the matters accordingly, two emissaries were sent to Constantinople. In reality, however, depicting the campaign in Illyria and the crushing defeat of Sabinian’s troops as a minor disagreement reflected “diplomatic” lies rather than the declared pacifist intentions of the king, who, as Teresa Sardella argues,492 would not have shown any willingness to risk a conflict with the emperor. Besides, the sources report that the emperor dispatched 100 war ships with 8,000 soldiers to Italy in 508493 and appointed Clovis honorary consul494 just to spite Theoderic. The emperor should have recalled that he himself had owed the beginnings of his court career to Zeno as consul in 484 (considering the fact that Theoderic was an ordinary, not merely honorary, consul).

8. Theoderic and the “Acacian” (II) and “Laurentian” (IV) schisms At this point, the problems of the two schisms, or rather their political aftermath, would come to converge in Theoderic’s politics. He realized that his support of Symmachus would be seen as an act hostile to the emperor, while supporting Laurence should bring more clout to the pro-Byzantine circles and might lead to an alliance with Constantinople, whereas the king would rather tend to maintain the status quo, as noted before. I have already remarked that Pitza’s campaign led to the deterioration of the relations between Ravenna and Constantinople. But there was one more circumstance that may have angered the emperor, something closely connected with the “Laurentian schism.” Perhaps dating back to a period antecedent to the letter of March 11, 507, i.e., before the king recognized the legitimacy of Symmachus, or a little later on, but when the king’s support for Symmachus was apparently only a matter of time, there is also another letter by Symmachus, addressed to the emperor Anastasius, which is definitely far from courteous or diplomatic (mentioned earlier in the present chapter).495 To put it briefly, the pope reproached the emperor 491 Cf. P. Heather, 2005, 230; T. S. Burns, 1982, 106. 492 Cf. T. Serdella, Società, Chiesa e Stato nell’età di Teodorico, 37; she puts the date of the letter and the delegation to 506. 493 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronica, MGH AA XI, 97. 494 Cf. Gregorius Turonensis, Historia Francorum II, 38. 495 Symmachus, Apologeticus Symmachi episcopi Romani adversus Anastasium imperatorem, Epistola 10, Thiel 700–708; Thiel dates it to after 506. Cf. T. Serdella, Società,

115

for supporting heresy, that is, Acacius, as well as putting Peter of Alexandria above Peter the Apostle and setting himself above the pontifical authority, oblivious to the fact that he was just a ruler of the rerum humanarum.496 I do not think the emperor put the blame for that letter on Theoderic, but it must have been one of the contested points, since Symmachus enjoyed the support of the king. Is it correct then to assume that Theoderic would have resolved the problem of the “Laurentian schism” in this way, against the emperor’s will? Or, possibly, could he have decided to settle for Symmachus, rejecting Laurence as a candidate favoured by the pro-Byzantine, to avoid being encircled on all sides? As noted before, his Arian coalition built on the foundations of his marriage policy had been coming apart, Clovis was becoming stronger than ever before, the power of the Visigoths declined and they lost their political clout (even though Theoderic would come to be their king), the relations with the Vandal state deteriorated, while the unfortunate Illyrian campaign of Pitza had a negative impact on the relations with the emperor. With very few options left, he proceeded to secure the support of the pope, who, as he had reasons to believe, would not join forces with the emperor. It would soon turn out, however, that obtaining the emperor’s support was a matter of political expediency, compelling him to make a request for resuming the friendly relations, which he did in the above-mentioned letter. His crucial asset was the extent of his power: he united the Visigoth and Ostrogoth kingdoms under his rule, maintained peaceful relations with the Burgundians, and had a good rapport with the pope. In this particular context, we could ask about the sincerity of his assertion to respect the synod’s decision on Symmachus, whatever it should be. The synod of 502 took place in several stages (sessions), with Symmachus gaining the upper hand. Yet the king showed no support for the pope and consented to Laurence’s departure for Rome and the ensuing five years of factional squabbling. It allowed him to keep the Church in a state of weakness, which appeared to suit the Arian ruler and would set a “bad example” for others, notably discouraging Clovis from becoming baptized in the Catholic Church (assuming that the king of the Franks would not have been baptized by then). However, it is more likely Clovis would have already been baptized by 507 and, in addition, had been in league with the emperor.497 In this situation, it was politically more expedient to weaken the proByzantine faction at any cost. Chiesa e Stato nell’età di Teodorico, 117 ff. The author refers to all the possible dates of this letter mentioned elsewhere. 496 Jaffé 761; according to his estimate, the years 506–512. 497 Cf. L. Pietri, J. Fontaine, 1998, 331–342.

116

Could the situation have been linked with the “Acacian schism” in any way? It appears that the loss of support in 502 may have been caused by some circumstances of the internal politics as well as the pressure from the elite of Rome, showing their discontent with Symmachus’ actions. The recognition of Symmachus in 507 would seem to fit in with the idea of fostering a discord between the emperor and the pope. There is a view that the “Laurentian schism” would continue until Symmachus’ death, as based on a single statement from the Fragmentum Laurentianum.498 Salvatore Vacca, who is in favour of this opinion,499 also refers to a relevant sentence from Cassiodorus’ Chronicle for the year 514 (exactly when the author of this work held his consulship), namely that the much-desired accord would have prevailed then.500

9.  Relations with the bishops Augusto Vasina has noted that all of the king’s letters addressed to the bishops, dealing with various questions, as preserved in Cassiodorus’ compilation, date back to the years 507–511.501 This remark should not be overrated after all, considering the structure of the Variae: the first four books contain writings dated to the years 507–511, while Book 5 is composed of the epistles from the final three years of Theoderic’s reign, i.e., 523–526 (with several letters of earlier date); further on, there are only miscellaneous formulae (and no letters), followed by various letters of the subsequent rulers. With this specific arrangement of the material, it is no wonder that the letters addressed to the bishops should all have originated in the first period. Significantly, the years 523–526 marked the time of a more or less overt conflict with the Church, as will be shown later on. The letters under consideration are concerned with many different topics. The first document is a letter to Bishop Eustorgius of Milan, dealing with one of the bishops of Valle d’Aosta, falsely accused of high treason. The king realized, or was informed somehow, that the accusation had been a matter of someone’s malicious envy and was simply untrue.502 He wrote a letter to Bishop Gudila

498 Fragmentum Laurentianum: Pro quibus rebus usque ad finem vitae eius ecclesia Romana in schismate perduravit. 499 Cf. S. Vacca, 1993, 40. 500 Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 514, MGH AA XI, 160: Me etiam consule in vestrorum laude temporum adunato clero vel populo Romanae ecclesiae rediit optata concordia. 501 Cf. A. Vasina, 1995, 399–410. 502 Cassiodorus, Variae I, 9: quicquid autem ex invidia dicitur, veritas non putatur.

117

(Arian or Catholic, it is hard to tell), asking him to resolve a dispute between some curial officials at Sarsina, in Emilia Romagna.503 It seems that the bishop must have been an Arian, as no Gudila can be found among the bishops of that municipality.504 Also, he reproached Bishop Januarius of Salona for failing to pay for 60 barrels of oil for church lamps, purchased from a man named John;505 sent a complaint to Aurigenus for the behaviour of his servants (slaves?) towards the wife of a man named Julian;506 urged Peter, possibly Bishop of Ravenna, to finalize the inheritance case filed by a citizen Germanus.507 Moreover, he ordered Bishop Emilianus to complete the construction of an aqueduct as soon as possible, likening his labour to the miracle of Moses bringing water out of a rock; by tertium comparationis, the author of the letter refers to the stones of the aqueduct.508 He also urged Bishop Anthony of Pula (in Istria, present-day Croatia) to intercede for a man named Stephen, a church estate holder, who was persecuted by certain clerics subordinate to Anthony. Theoderic expressed his abhorrence of such conduct, so very different from his preferred civilitas.509 The legal aspect of the term civilitas will be discussed in greater detail in the chapter concerned with the Edict of Theoderic; at this point, let us just take note of the more immediate, and primary, civilization aspect of the issue, which takes precedence over the legal one. The present discussion has been based in part on the arguments of Elena Malaspina.510 Ennodius extols Theoderic’s civilitas, the essential feature instrumental in determining the ruler’s independence from the emperor511 and guiding him to show his respect for the law, or, strictly speaking, putting the law above the violence

503 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae II, 18. 504 Cf. C. Dolcini, 1991, 612. 505 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae III, 7; B. Saitta, 1993, 80. 506 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae III, 14. 507 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae III, 37. 508 Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 31: tu autem si fontes irriguos saxorum constructione deducis, hoc labore tuo praestas populis, quod ille miraculis; Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 502, MGH AA XI, 160; B. Saitta, 1993, 78. 509 Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 44: […] despecto civilitatis ordine fuisse pervasam. Cf. B. Saitta, 1990, 393; Ch. 9 of the present book: “Religious aspects in the Edict of Theoderic.” 510 Cf. E. Malaspina, 2003–2005b, 32–35. See also B. Saitta, 1993, referenced in the present book on more than one occasion. 511 Cf. Ennodius, Panegyricus III, 11.

118

of war.512 This situation would prove to be so conducive to the economic and civic growth of the cities that, as the author of the panegyric puts it, “I can see a complete building before I could have even noticed the appearance of such a project.”513 By the same token, Cassiodorus exhorts the commanders, as if on behalf of the king, to treat the Romans civiliter, namely with regard for all due moderation, separating the hard rules of war from the civilized co-existence in times of peace,514 describing Theoderic as someone driven by the same force of civilitas and focused on maintaining the law and order in Rome.515 Commendations for this allegedly extraordinary construction boom seem to be somewhat overrated, nonetheless, or they may in fact have referred, at the most, to a range of his ambitious projects and grand plans, rather than to the actually completed buildings. Analyses of the archaeological remains and confronting the findings with the information contained in the Variae tend to demonstrate that a substantial portion of the projects had not been carried out at all. Perhaps, as Paula Quaranta conjectures, it may have been due to the king’s absence in Rome.516 The king addressed a figure named Geberich in response to a complaint filed by Bishop Constantius, who had been expropriated from a certain amount of land, precisely one iugum, i.e., the land that could be ploughed by a pair of oxen in one day.517 According to the ruler’s order, it should be restored to the Church in exactly the same amount and the guilty should be punished.518 Theoderic had given an impulse to and supported a number of building and construction projects. There is also some evidence that would testify to his particular generosity towards the Arians, which should not come as a surprise, after all. For example, the Arian Bishop Unscila, possibly serving as chaplain of the palace chapel at Ravenna, was relieved of paying extraordinary taxes, but he still

512 Cf. Ennodius, Panegyricus XX, 87. For a discussion of the well-established legend of Theoderic as a great builder, see C. La Rocca, 1993, 485–488. 513 Ennodius, Panegyricus XI, 56: Video ante perfecta aedilicia, quam me contigisset disposita; for an eloquent commentary that admits such a rendering of this text, see Magno Felice Ennodio, Panegirico del clementissimo re Teoderico (opusc. 1), 366–367, cited herein; cf. M. Reydellet, 1995, 287–288. 514 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae III, 38; IV, 17. 515 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae I, 27. 516 Cf. P. Quaranta, 2008, 80. 517 Cf. Du Cange et al., “Jugum terrae.” 518 Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 20: supra memorata ecclesia sine aliqua imminutione percipiat, manente poena etiam pervasori, qui et veterum dona et ecclesiae probatur violasse compendia.

119

had to pay his regular taxes.519 A man named Butila, a priest (then perhaps a bishop) from Trento, received a certain estate from the king, which had been, very evidently, confiscated from someone. The king promised, however, that the previous proprietors could subtract the value of that estate from their taxes.520 In the ruler’s view, the expropriation of the land did not cause any extra losses, and it was in fact only a substitution of obligations due, that is, taxes for land. The case in point is the diocese of Milan, where the tax exemption concerned purchases of the goods dispensed to the poor.521 The same letter refers to a similar tax relief of the diocese of Ravenna. In another letter, the king told Bishop Peter to restore the property seized by a certain clergyman. It was ordered in fulfilment of the bishop’s duty.522 In 508, Theoderic entrusted Bishop Severus of Vence with the task of dispensing compensation payments to those who had suffered losses during the march of his troops into Provence. The king assigned a sum of 1,500 solidi to cover the costs of the compensation and instructed that the money must be paid out in proportion to the losses sustained, as he wished to prevent inappropriate dispensation of the indemnity payments that should be distributed in a reasonable manner.523 In 514 (or 513), Caesarius, Bishop of Arles, was arrested on charges of treason524 and brought before Theoderic to stand trial.525 The ruler annexed the kingdom of

519 Cassiodorus, Variae I, 26, 3: Ea vero quae a tempore beneficii ad ecclesiam nostram ab aliquibus est translata professio, commune cum universis possessoribus onus solutionis agnoscat et illius subiaceat functioni, cuius nacta est iura dominii. Alioquin grata nobis augmenta eius esse non possunt, qui fisci damno proficit. sufficiat possessori compendium pensionis: tributa sunt purpurae, non lacernae, lucrum cum invidia periculum est: quanto melius omnia moderata gerere, quae nullus audeat accusare! Cf. B. Saitta, 1993, 76, n. 197; P. Amory, 1997, 429–430; R. W. Mathisen, 1997, 689. 520 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae II, 17. Cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 2006, 37–39. 521 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae II, 30; B. Saitta, 1993, 78. 522 Cassiodorus, Variae III, 37, 1: Si in alienis causis beatitudinem tuam convenit adhiberi, ut per vos iurgantium strepitus conquiescat, quanto magis ad vos remitti debet quod vos spectat auctores? Cf. B. Saitta, 1993, 79. 523 Cassiodorus, Variae II, 8: nolumus enim sub confusione largiri, quod decet sub ratione distribui; Cf. B. Saitta, 2000, 411; B. Saitta, 1993, 81. 524 Cf. Vita Caesarii I, 36, MGH SRMer. III, 470–471. The Life of Caesarius is silent on the actual cause of the accusation. According to W. Klingshirn, the clergy may have accused Caesarius of having sold some church property; cf. W. Klingshirn, 1994, 124; A. Schwarcz, 1993, 787–798. 525 Cf. A. M. Piredda, 2000, 467; A. Żurek, 2002, 24. On Caesarius, cf. J. Pochwat, 2011, 7–32.

120

the Visigoths to his state, thus becoming the king of these two dominions. He had reportedly greeted the bishop cordially and released him, after which Caesarius left for Rome to meet with Symmachus. He would become the primate of all Gaul, receiving a pallium and the pope’s affirmation of the privilege of wearing a dalmatic during holy service by the deacons in his Church, as it was the case in Rome.526 The Life of Caesarius is a hagiographic work, where some exaggerated adulation of the protagonist, a figure actively involved in eradicating the vestiges of paganism in Gaul,527 is not something out of place. But the hagiographic narrative does not have to be taken at face value: the king was very moved at the sight of him, and filled with fear of God, even taking the crown off his head; he inquired about Caesarius’ health and the hardships of the bishop’s journey, afterwards bidding him farewell with all due respects; Caesarius had reputedly even agreed that Theoderic call himself “his son.”528 Very certainly, Theoderic had been aware of the accusations against the bishop, if only from Ennodius’ account.529 It is difficult to say if it was true or not, but the fact is that Theoderic revoked the charges and Caesarius was free to travel to Rome.530 However, it seems to me that it would be an exaggeration to conclude that Theoderic had played a pivotal role in the pope’s decision to appoint Caesarius as papal vicar for Gaul, just as to assert that Theoderic adhered to the Nicene Creed, in contradiction with his declared Arian faith, simply because he had maintained good relations with the Catholic hierarchy.531 It is not very hard to see the reasons for Theoderic’s lenient conduct. In the initially overwhelmingly Arian Kingdom of the Visigoths, the Catholic influence began to gain in prominence from ca. 505. Alaric II permitted the representatives of several church provinces to take part in a major synod at Agde in 506,532 and the percentage of Catholics, especially among urban populations, was quite considerable. In addition, the pressure exerted by the neighbouring Catholic Franks was becoming too strong to be ignored. In 512, Amalaric was still in power, but he must have harboured no illusions about the Franks’ actual intent towards those territories. As we know, they would not hesitate to take action as soon as they could and conquered them after Theoderic’s death. Therefore, it would have been politically inappropriate to persecute the Gallic bishop enjoying the greatest authority 526 Cf. Vita Caesarii 38–42, MGH SRMer. III, 471–473. 527 Cf. M. Montesano, 2000, 365–369. 528 Vita Caesarii I, 36–38. 529 Cf. Ennodius, Epistolae 9, 33, MGH AA, VII, 321. 530 Cf. L. Pietri, J. Fontaine, 1998, 360–373. 531 See P. Heather, 2005, 230–231. 532 Cf. Agatha (506), CCL 148, 189–228.

121

as well as Pope Symmachus’ support, especially as not very long before Theoderic had recognized the latter as a legitimate bishop, thus ultimately terminating the “Laurentian schism” in 507. This attitude towards the bishops would attest to his ability to appreciate their role and social standing. Gianluca Pilara notes that their status was particularly high in northern and southern Italy, i.e., in the regions far from Rome and consequently more compelled to rely on themselves. In his support for the bishops, Theoderic could hope for winning favour with the people and the Catholic clergy.533 Perhaps so, but it seems that some of his interventions intended to admonish the bishops, as shown in the present chapter, would point to Theoderic’s wish to earn general esteem thanks to his fair and just treatment of everybody, irrespective of confession or status, avoiding any favouritism beneficial to the bishops. This and some other examples would testify to a certain measure of independence that the bishops may have possessed in their relations with local authorities. Accusing a bishop of any wrongdoing or admonishing them in any matter would have been, in effect, beyond the official capacity of local authorities; even problems of lesser importance, such as debts to be settled, reached the king’s chancery. Thus, his interventions in serious cases are all the more obvious.

10.  Theoderic’s encounter with Hilarius Let us now turn our attention to Theoderic’s half-legendary meeting with a monk named Hilarius, also known and venerated as San Ellero.534 The details of this encounter come from an anecdote, which may have possibly preserved some factual historical information. The source of the anecdote is the Life of Hilarius,535 dated to the 8th century.536 The event took place in connection with the construction of a palace at Galeata, on the route from Ravenna to Arezzo. Theoderic would have reportedly mobilized all the local population to take part in construction works. The monks from Hilarius’ monastery ignored the king’s order, and Theoderic sent a detachment of 40 soldiers to bring them before him. Surprisingly, however, the soldiers lost their way and could not even find their way back for as long as two days. Theoderic was upset and decided to ride to the monastery himself. When he was already a stone’s throw from the monks’ dwelling-place, an angel’s apparition caused his horse to shy abruptly and the king fell off horseback. On the ground, 533 G. Pilara, 2005, 439–440. 534 For an analysis of the sources, cf. P. Bolzani, 1994, 9–24. 535 Cf. Vita Hilari ab. Galeatensis, ASanc XVI, Maius III, 471–474. 536 P. Bolzani, 1994, 22, n. 31; De Maria S., 2004, 21–48.

122

Theoderic and his horse could not even make a move until Hilarius came and broke the spell, setting them free. The king saw the miraculous nature of the whole incident, apologized, and then would make generous donations to the monastery.537 The museum at Galeata houses two bas-reliefs relating to the event (one with a depiction of Hilarius, the other with Theoderic falling off his horse). The reverses feature a brief etched description of the scene. These two bas-reliefs are dated to the 12th century. The narrative seems to be true on two points only: Theoderic showed much concern for building activity (from palaces to aqueducts) and the existence of the ruins, presumably some remnants of Theoderic’s hunting-lodge, not far from the monastery whose legendary founder was Hilarius.

537 Cf. Vita Hilari ab. Galeatensis, cap. II, ASanc XVI, Maius III, 473–474.

123

Chapter VI Liber Pontificalis 54 on Hormisdas (20 VII 514–6 VIII 523)538 “1. Hormisdas born in Campania, son of Justus, from the city of Frusino, held the see 9 years 17 days539. [He was bishop in the time of king Theodoric and the emperor Anastasius from the consulship of Senator to that of Symmachus and Boethius. He settled the clergy, and taught them psalms. He built a basilica in the territory of Albanum on the property Mefontis].”540

This fairly accurate and very concise account is repeated in all the versions of the second recension of the Liber Pontificalis and are rather uncontroversial. It is also curious that Hormisdas is said to have “settled” the clergy and to have built only one church (not in Rome). This “settling” may have possibly alluded to the internally divided clergy during Symmachus’ pontificate. Suffice it to say, Hormisdas had been a deacon at that time; he would be subsequently ordained a presbyter by Symmachus, and later on, possibly in accordance with the decisions of the synod in 499, he would be named by the pope as his successor.

1.  Hormisdas’ attempt to seek reconciliation with the East The further part of the Hormisdas biographies exists in several different versions, with some significant variations in the relevant matters. According to the first recension, the excerpt in question reads as follows: “2. By authority of his bishopric and by decree of a synod541 and in accordance with the clemency of the apostolic see he sent to Greece and reconciled the Greeks who had been in bondage of the anathema, because of Peter of Alexandria and Acacius of Constantinople. This pope sent to king Theodoric at Ravenna and by advice of the king he dispatched Ennodius, bishop of Ticinum, and Fortunatus, bishop of Cathena, and Evantius, a priest of the City, and Vitalis, a deacon of the City. They went to Anastasius

538 Cf. Jaffé 769–871. 539 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 515; T. Sardella, “Ormisda.” 540 LP 54, 1: Hormisda, natione Campanus, ex patre Iusto, de civitate Frisinone, sedit ann. VIIII dies XVII. Fuit autem temporibus regis Theodorici et Anastasii Aug., a consulatu Senatoris usque ad consulatum Symmachi et Boethi. Hic conposuit clerum et psalmis erudivit. Hic fecit basilicam in territorio Albanense, in possessionem Mefontis (trans. R. Davis). 541 The Liber Pontificalis is the only source that makes a mention of this synod.

125

Augustus and proposed that the Greeks should do penance according to the code [prepared by the Pope - MO]542 and be reinstated but they effected nothing.”543

While in the second recension: “[2. Then, pursuant to the decree of a synod, he sent to Greece a display of the apostolic see’s humanity, since the Greeks were held under the bond of an anathema because of Peter bishop of Alexandria and Acacius bishop of Constantinople, John being now bishop of Constantinople. On the advice of king Theodoric he dispatched Ennodius bishop of Ticinium, Fortunatus bishop of Catina, Venantius priest of the city of Rome, Vitalis deacon of the apostolic see, and Hilarus notary of the same see. They reached the emperor Anastasius but achieved nothing].”544

The statement that he “reconciled the Greeks” is evidently exaggerated, considering that nihil egerunt. As Louis Marie Duchesne suggests, the author wanted to introduce an account of Hormisdas’ activity, which he proceeds to discuss starting from the next sentence,545 referring to those “in bondage of the anathema.” It is possible that the author of the above-mentioned words intended to communicate that the pope had prepared the creed in written form for them to sign, after which it would be made public. Another disputable point are the members of the delegation as listed in the Liber Pontificalis: even though Evantius and Venantius must be certainly one and the same person, Hilarius cannot be found in the first version. In the context of the present discussion, the most important thing is the pope’s visit to Ravenna with the aim of consulting Theoderic on the matter of the delegation to be sent, which is however omitted from the second recension. It is characteristic of the Liber Pontificalis to speak of a specific event 542 Cf. J. Śrutwa, 1999, 173–179. 543 LP 54, 2: Huius episcopatum auctoritate ex constituto synodo misit in Grecia secundum humanitatem sedis apostolicae et reconciliavit Grecos, qui obligati erant sub anathemate propter Petro Alexandrino et Acacio Constantinopolitano. Hic papa perrexit ad regem Theodericum Ravennam et ex consilio regis direxit Ennodio episcopo Ticinense et Fortunato episcopo Cathenense et Evantium presbiterum urbis et Vitalem diaconum urbis: euntes ad Anastasio Aug., ut sub libelli satisfactione revocarentur, nihil egerunt (trans. L. R. Loomis). 544 [LP 54, 2: Eodem tempore ex constitutum synodi misit in Grecias humanitatem ostendens sedis apostolicae, quia Greci obligati erant sub vinculo anathematis propter Petrum Alexandrinum et Acacium Constantinopolitanum episcopum sub Iohanne episcopo Constantinopolitano. Cum consilio regis Theodorici, direxit Ennodium episcopum Ticinensem, et Fortunatum, episcopum Catinensem, et Venantium, presbiterum urbis Romae, et Vitalem, diaconum sedis apostolicae, et Hilarum, notarium sedis supra scriptae. Euntes ad Anastasium Augustum nihil egerunt] (trans. R. Davis). 545 Cf. L. M. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis, vol. 1, 272.

126

as having taken place eodem tempore, which is imprecise, but it is rather certain that the mention refers to the synod at Heraclea in 515, which the emperor encouraged all those concerned to take part in.546 The year 515 also saw the outbreak of another rebellion under Vitalian547 (the commander had already made attempts to threaten the emperor’s authority in 513 and 514548), of Scythian or Hunnic origin. Vitalian struggled for power,549 at the same time advocating the anti-Monophysitic views.550 If his sole preoccupation had been a reconciliation with Rome, another revolt would have probably never happened at all, as the pope had already been invited to come to a synod in the letters of December 514 and January 515.551 In his Church History, Evagrius recounts that the people of the Eastern Roman Empire were not in favour of Monophysitism, as the emperor’s attempt to alter the invocation “O Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal” by adding the words “who hast been crucified for us” would result in street riots and Anastasius was compelled to withdraw very soon.552 In effect, Vitalian could have hoped for some support as regards his religious agenda directed against the emperor, without much chance for garnering support for his political cause.553 The emperor invited the pope to come to the synod, despite the fact that he was himself a firm opponent of Chalcedon, actively propagating the Henotikon as much as he could.554 Perhaps, he had done so in the hope that this gesture towards the pro-Chalcedon party and those in favour of a reconciliation with Rome should have helped him to secure an advantage over Vitalian, or at least would have stripped the usurper of the opportunity to make an issue of the emperor’s unorthodox position. It would soon turn out that the crux of the matter was political power, not religious orthodoxy.555 I have noted that two letters concerning a synod had been addressed to Pope Hormisdas and, as may be supposed, the situation signalled the necessity to turn 546 Cf. I. Speigel, 1980, 48–61; E. Stein, 1949, 181–182; A. Schwarcz, 2004, 49–50. 547 Cf. P. Amory, 1997, 435. On the correspondence of Theoderic and Vitalian, see H. Wolfram, 2001, 404; R. C. Blockley, 1992, 45–48. 548 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6005; VICTOR TUNNUNENSIS, Chronica, MGH AA XI, 194, dates the beginning of Vitalian’s revolt to 510. Cf. C. Capizzi, 1969, 123–129. 549 Cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 43. 550 Cf. M. B. Leszka, M. J. Leszka, 2011, 84. 551 Cf. Coll. Avell. 109 and 107. The letters appear in the order as written, not delivered. 552 Cf. Evagrius Scholasticus, HE III, 44. 553 Cf. M. B. Leszka, M. J. Leszka, 2011, 85. 554 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6006. 555 For details on the convocation of the synod, see J. Wojda, 2006, 68–75.

127

to Theoderic for advice. One of those letters was an official invitation dated December 28, 514, and delivered May 14, 515,556 while the other one appears to have been a private letter (sent unofficially), which was dated January  12, 515, and delivered on March 28, 515.557 The emperor’s official letter reads as follows: “The divine matters should be held above anything else, as we are confident that the preservation and growth of the state [res publica] should be safeguarded, with due regard for the clemency of the Almighty God. And since there have arisen, as it appears, certain controversies as to the orthodoxy of the faith in Scythia, I have graciously decided in particular that a venerable synod be convoked at Heraclea, the city in the province of Europe, where, thanks to the accord in the beliefs and the examination of all the truth, our true faith shall be displayed more brightly to the whole world so that there will be no doubt and difference of opinion in the future. Therefore, I ask Your Holiness to come to the aforementioned city of Heraclea, with the reverend bishops You have chosen and recognized as worthy of leading the Churches entrusted to Your priestly solicitude and well acquainted with the orthodox religion.”558

This letter, as noted above, reached the recipient on 14 May, while the council was scheduled to begin very soon, on 1 July. The dispatch of the notification was precipitated by the outbreak of Vitalian’s revolt, hence the emperor Anastasius was not very enthusiastic about it.559 It is very likely that the emperor wished to 556 Cf. Coll. Avell. 109. 557 Cf. Coll. Avell. 107. 558 Anastasius Augustus, Hormisdae papae: Omnibus negotiis divinae res praeponendae sunt; Deo etenim omnipotente propitio rem publicam et conservandam et meliorandam esse confidimus. Quia igitur dubitationes quaedam de orthodoxa religione in Scythiae partibus videntur esse commotae, id specialiter clementiae nostrae placuit, ut venerabilis synodus in Heracleitana civitate provinciae Europae celebretur, quatenus concordantibus animis et omni veritate discussa vera fides nostra orbi terrarum omni manifestius innotescat, ut deinceps nulla possit esse dubitatio vel discordia. Quapropter sanctitas tua cum quibus sibi placuerit reverendissimis episcopis, quos de ecclesiis sub sui sacerdotii cura constitutis idoneos et instructos erga orthodoxam religionem esse probaverit, ad praedictam Heracleitanam civitatem intra diem Kalendarum Iuliarum venire dignetur. Data V. Kal. Ian. Constantinopoli. Senatore v.c. cons. Accepta prid. Idus Maias Florentio v.c. cons. (Coll. Avell. 109). The text according to: Latin imperial laws and letters (A.D. 306–565) not included in the Codes and Novels of Theodosius and Iustinianus, compiled by Ingo G. Maier, Internet Publication Vermont 3133 Melbourne (Australia), Third edition – 7 October 2010, 126. 559 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6006, PG 108, 373–376; The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, translated and introduction and commentary by C. Mango and R. Scott, Oxford 1997, 242–243.

128

disseminate the news, so that everybody would be informed of the convocation as well as of the invitation sent to the pope, even if the pope might have already been notified before. However, he also took care that Hormisdas would have received an explicatory letter beforehand, advising the pope against coming to the synod.560 Eventually, the first letter delivered to the pope would be the later one: “We do not think that Your Holiness is not aware that even in the Scriptures it is said providentially that it is appropriate to speak or keep silence, depending on circumstances. We have therefore decided that it is suitable to communicate to You what has been happening among us under the guise of religion. Until now, the recalcitrance of Your predecessors in the bishopric You presently hold has made it difficult for us to send letters. But now the favourable opinion about You has made us realize the goodness of [Your] fatherly kindness, so that we intend to require the fulfilment of what our God and Saviour had taught the holy apostles, especially St Peter, in His Divine Word, whom He had established as the foundation of His Church. In the spirit of this stance, we request Your Apostolic Holiness to act as a mediator in the matter of what has happened in Scythia, concerning which we intend to convoke a synod, in order to restore the unity of the holy Church after we have overcome the controversies. Our wishes shall be entirely satisfied, if You remember us in Your speeches and writings.”561

As can be seen, the letter contains some more detailed information and it appears to have been sent by unofficial channels. The emperor asked the recipient to act as an arbitrator in order to settle the conflict that had originated in Scythia. He did not explain the nature of the controversy, only saying that he had decided to 560 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6006. 561 Anastasius Augustus, Hormisdae archiepiscopo et patriarchae: Beatitudini vestrae non putamus ignotum, quod pro temporis qualitate loquendum atque tacendum etiam divinae scripturae provida est ammonitione dispositum. Exactum proinde silentii tempus incitamenta nobis loquendi concessit atque ideo oportunum esse perspeximus, quae apud nos sub religionis specie commoventur, auditui vestro committere. Ante hoc siquidem duritia eorum, quibus episcopatus, quem nunc geritis, erat sollicitudo commissa, temperare nos a transmittendis faciebat epistolis; nunc autem currens de vobis suavis opinio ad memoriam nostram bonitatem paternae affectionis adduxit, ut illa requiramus, quae Deus et Salvator noster sanctos apostolos divino sermone docuit ac maxime beatum Petrum, in quo fortitudinem ecclesiae suae constituit. His igitur praefatis initiis hortamur, ut ad ea, quae de Scythiae partibus mota sunt, unde et concilium fieri convenire perspeximus, mediatorem se apostolatus vester faciat, ut contentionibus amputatis unitas sanctae restituatur ecclesiae. Nobis autem omnia optata praestantur, si orationibus vestris et frequenti paginarum allocutione nostri memores fueritis. Data pridie Idus Ian. Constantinopoli et accepta Anthemio et Florentio vv. cc. conss. V. Kal. April. per Patricium. , (Coll. Avell. 107). The text according to: Latin imperial laws and letters (A.D. 306–565), 126.

129

convoke a council for that reason. In this letter, he did not invite the pope to take part in the synod, contenting himself with asking for the pope’s support in speech and writing (with not even as much as a mention of sending the legates). Apart from the letter, another messenger brought some additional, complementary, message. It is conceivable, and very likely, that this envoy would have delivered the information to the effect that the pope should not attach much importance to the soon-to-come invitation letter.

2.  Theoderic and the “Acacian schism” (III) In this specific context, the Liber Pontificalis makes its first mention of Theoderic’s direct involvement in the relations between the pope and the emperor, which would extend beyond the previously mentioned behind-the-scenes dealings. Hormisdas must have harboured no delusions about the honesty of the emperor’s assurances as regards his concern for the unity of the Church. Aware of the fact that the emperor had summoned a synod that he did not care about at all because of his preoccupation with Vitalian’s revolt, the pope decided to consult Theoderic in correspondence as well as in person. What was at stake extended beyond a strictly religious issue, i.e., the possibility of ending the schism and the appropriateness of his personal attendance at the synod. In his book, Jacek Wojda ventures to discuss the earnestly devout “ideology” of the pope’s presence in the City and his non-attendance at the synods held in the East.562 Unfortunately, it seems that this may not have been the point at all. Ignoring the synodal assemblies and concentrating on prayer and correspondence, no matter how frequent, would have provided the emperor with the grounds to claim that the pope neglected the question of the Church unity, with the effect that the persecuted pro-Chalcedon party would have felt abandoned and alienated. His personal presence at Heraclea became impossible due to the de facto annulment of the invitation in the letter of 12 January.563 It may be assumed that all he could do at the time was to send out his emissaries who would be well acquainted with the precariousness of the entire situation in which religious argumentation would be strictly related to the political choice of his position on the power struggle between Anastasius and Vitalian. The Liber Pontificalis is the sole source on the synod held in Rome to address this question and work out such a political position. What is more important, 562 Cf. J. Wojda, 2006, 71–74. 563 Jacek Wojda argues that the pope could not have gone to Heraclea only because there had been “no such precedent,” failing to take into consideration the fact of the annulment of the invitation by the emperor; cf. J. Wojda, 2006, 74. 

130

however, is the endorsement of the delegation and the specific instruction for the envoys by both the pope and the king.564 Those emissaries were formally sent to the emperor in Constantinople, not to the synod of bishops at Heraclea. The instruction merged political and religious aspects and was apparently endorsed by both Hormisdas and Theoderic. Perhaps most significantly, the emissaries were ordered to avoid coming into any closer contact with anybody as well as taking part in feasts or accepting gifts (even victuals). They were to wait for their audience within the quarters assigned by the emperor, keeping all the entrusted letters safely with them. They were allowed to contact any Catholics who might wish to meet with them only after the audience and with due caution (eos sub omni cautela suscipite). Approaching the emperor, they were to greet him courteously and hand the letters to him. They were not allowed to discuss the contents of the letters, waiting until the emperor finished reading them. Afterwards, they should tell Anastasius that they also carried letters to Vitalian, but those addressed to the emperor had to be delivered first. The instruction also provided that if the emperor wished to read the letters addressed to Vitalian, the envoys were to respond as follows: “This is not how we have been instructed by your father, the pope, and we may not do anything without his consent. But in order that you could come to know the simplicity of these letters, that there is nothing in them but the incentives to godliness directed to you, so that you predispose your mind for the unity of the Church, send a man to come with us, who will be present at the reading of the letters we have brought.”565

If they heard the emperor’s insistence that the contents of the letters might be perhaps different, they were told not to yield them, assuring that the contents referred to the Church unity and the removal of heretics. Should the emperor say that he had invited the pope to come to the synod to settle all the disputable points, they were instructed to say it was right but for the good of the unity of the Church the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon must be respected, just as Marcian and Leo had preserved them, as well as [Pope] Leo’s letters Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus. If the emperor said he complied with them, the envoys 564 Cf. Hormisdas, Indiculus qui datus est Ennodio et Fortunato episcopis, Venantio presbytero, Vitali diacono, et Hilaro notario, legatis apostolicae sedis Constantinopolim, ab Hormisda papa, PL 63, 374–379; Thiel 748–755. 565 Hormisdas, Indiculus… 3, Thiel 749: Non hoc nobis pater vester sanctus papa praecepit: nec sine iussione illius aliquid possumus facere. Tamen ut sciatis simplicitatem litterarum, quia nihil aliud habent nisi preces ad pietatem vestram directas, ut accommodetis animum vestrum pro unitate Ecclesiae: iungite nobiscum personam, qua praesente traditae a nobis litterae relegantur.

131

were to show their joy and kiss the emperor’s chest. Next, they were to persuade the emperor to address the bishops in writing, expressing his will to remain in communion with Rome. Besides affirming Chalcedon and Leo’s letters, he should also sever all ties with Timothy Ailouros, Peter of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch, and Acacius, while the cases of those who had been exiled on religious grounds ought to be submitted to the Holy See for closer enquiry.566 It does not seem very likely that the envoys had taken part in the synod at Heraclea, where 200 bishops from Illyria and Greece would have reportedly attended.567 Although this number is not very well attested in the sources, the assembly had indeed taken place and the bishops expressed their will to remain in unity with Rome, breaking off communion with Timothy of Constantinople. At the capital, the emissaries succeeded in winning several bishops for the cause of the Church unity.568 What could have been the king’s contribution? I would be inclined to agree, though cautiously, with a view that Theoderic may have stood behind the uncompromising nature of the instruction, because of which the delegation was bound to meet with failure as regards reaching a consensus with the emperor. Anastasius must have perceived the stated conditions as very much humiliating, hence the words “they achieved nothing” in the Liber Pontificalis.569 I have already noted that the “Acacian schism” appeared to be auspicious from Theoderic’s perspective. The state of discord and disunity among the Catholics was something that the Arian Goths could potentially benefit from. Perhaps the king managed to persuade Hormisdas to draw up such a formulation of the conditions for a restoration of unity that the emperor would not possibly accept? Theophanes reports that Hormisdas, allegedly even coerced by Theoderic, on whose orders Vitalian had undertaken his action, responded to the emperor’s invitation by sending out his emissaries.570 Although the emperor had indeed dispatched his legates with a letter to the pope, where he stated he would

566 Hormisdas, Indiculus… 8, Capitula singulorum causarum III, Thiel 753: In exsilium deportatos pro causa ecclesiastica ad audientiam sedis apostolicae revocandos, ut iudicium et vera examinatio de his possit haberi: ita ut causa eorum inquisitione integre reservetur. 567 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6006, PG 108, 376–377; The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 243. 568 Cf. J. Wojda, 2006, 78–80. 569 LP 54, 2: nihil egerunt. 570 Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6006, PG 108, 373–376; The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 243.

132

recognize the Council of Chalcedon, but refused to condemn Acacius. Significantly, he continued to endorse the propositions expressed in the Henotikon.571 Theoderic had reasons to be apprehensive, as his Arian alliance built on the foundations of his matrimonial policy was falling apart. As Jordanes reports, the king gave one of his daughters in marriage to Alaric, king of the Visigoths, the other one to Sigismund, king of the Burgundians, his sister Amalafrida to the king of the Vandals. Several years later, he married Amalaberga, Amalafrida’s daughter from her first marriage, to Herminefred, king of the Thuringians.572 However, the Burgundians would show their interest in the Catholic faith; king Gundobad considered the question and proceeded to discuss it with Bishop Avitus of  Vienne,573 his son Sigismund would convert to Catholicism and when he became king in 516, he cut the ties between his kingdom and the Arian faith.574 To add insult to injury, Vandal king Thrasamund failed to dispatch military assistance to Theoderic in 508 and, later on, he would show signs of taking an active interest in theology. In 515, he recalled Bishop Fulgentius of Ruspe, one of the most renowned theologians of the period, to hear his explications on the issues of the theology of the Trinity, thus touching the very nucleus of the Arian doctrine.575 As we know, Arianism constituted a vital element of the Gothic alliance formed in opposition to the Roman rule. The members of the delegation appointed by Hormisdas and  Theoderic are noteworthy as well.576 The chief legate was Ennodius, Bishop of Pavia,577 whom I have already mentioned as the author of the Panegyric in honour of Theoderic. The other emissaries were Fortunatus of Catania, who would appear to be an otherwise unknown figure, Venantius, a presbyter from Rome, deacon Vitalis, and  notary 571 Cf. Anastasius, Anastasii imperatoris ad Hormisdam papam per legatos apostolicae missa, PL 63, 381–383; Thiel 761–764. 572 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 298–299; Excerpta Valesiana 12.68–69. 573 Avitus Viennensis, Contra arianos 30 [Avitus episcopus domno Gundobado regi], MGH AA, VI/2, 12: Tantum Christo propitio per diversas sollicitudines mentem vestram veritas indagata perdocuit, ut nihil prorsus sit, quod de totius divinae legis definitione vos lateat. Cf. E. Caspar, 1933, 21–25; D. Claude, 1978b, 27; R. W. Mathisen, 1997, 688–689. 574 Cf. M. Montesano, 2000, 360. 575 Cf. M. G. Bianco, 2003–2005, 178–186; J. Moorhead, 1984a, 110–111; R. W. Mathisen, 1997, 687. 576 According to Theophanes, the emissaries were bishop Ennodius and deacon Vitalis. Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6006, PG 108, 376–377; The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 243. 577 Cf. L. Navarra, 1974, 315–342.

133

Hilarius. As the prosopographies do not add anything more or repeat the information that can be found in the other previously cited sources,578 it may be said that Ennodius appears to have acted as the head of the delegation, while the motives for the choice of the other members remain unclear.579 The author of the Liber Pontificalis is incorrect in saying that John was the Patriarch of Constantinople at that time. The latter would ascend to the See of Constantinople only in April 518, a few months before Anastasius’ death. “3. Likewise a second time Hormisdas sent Ennodius and Peregrinus, the bishops, and Pollio, a subdeacon of the city, and they carried with them secret letters and arguments for the faith, 19 in number, and the code of penance, by means of which the Greeks might be restored; and if the Greeks refused to receive the arguments of the letters, the bishops were to distribute them among the cities. And Anastasius Augustus refused to accept their offer, because he believed in the heresy of Euthices580. Therefore he tried to corrupt the bishops with a bribe but they despised the prince and would not take the money.”581 “3. cont. The emperor, hot with anger, sent them forth by a dangerous place and embarked them on a ship in peril of death with a captains and prefects, Heliodorus and Demetrius. And the emperor gave command that they should not enter any city.”582 “4. Nevertheless the legates of the apostolic see secretly dispatched the above mentioned 19 letters on the faith through all the cities by the hands of orthodox monks. But these letters were received by bishops of the cities who agreed with Anastasius

578 Cf. PCBE II: Fortunatus of Catania (863–865), presbyter Venantius (2251–2253), deacon Vitalis (2328–2329), notary Hilarius (995–997). These are not so much biographies as an account of this mission repeated several times. 579 Cf. S. Koczwara, 2000, 92–99. 580 Euthices was a Constantinopolitan monk who preached the doctrine of one nature in Christ, which was contrary to the teachings of the Council of Ephesus on the two natures. The resulting controversy led to the convocation of several synods: Constantinopolis (448), SCL 6, 62–105 and Constantinopolis (449), SCL 6, 105–143, the “Robber Council” at Ephesus (449), SCL 6, 144–172, and, finally, the Concilium Chalcedonense (451), DSP 1, 197–257. 581 LP 54, 3: Idem secundo misit Hormisda Ennodium et Peregrinum episcopos et Pollione subdiacono urbis et portaverunt epistulas fidei et contestationes secretas numero XVIIII et libellum per quem redirent; quod si noluissent espistulae suscipere contestationes, per civitates spargerent. In quo noluit sentire Anastasius Aug., eo quod erat in herese Euthici consentiens. Volens itaque eos per remunerationem corrumpere. Illi autem contempto principe nullatenus consenserunt accipere pecunias (trans. L. R. Loomis). 582 LP 54, 3 cont.: Furore accensus imperator eiecit eos per locum periculosum et inposuit eos in nave sub periculo mortis cum magistrianum et praefectianum Heliodorum et Demetrium et hoc dedit in mandatis imperator ut nullam civitatem ingrederentur (trans. L. R. Loomis).

134

Augustus, the heretic, and in fear they forwarded them all to Constantinople to the hands of Anastasius. Full of rage, Anastasius wrote against Pope Hormisdas and among other impious things said this: ‘We wish to command you not to lay commands upon us.’”583

Indeed, it may seem that the author had endeavoured to portray the emperor’s conduct in an extremely unfavourable light. Considering the fact that Hormisdas had consulted Theoderic before and after, as the Liber Pontificalis notes, they should have most likely acted in agreement in the matter of the second delegation, in April 517, as well.584 In particular, the confidential decisions seem to have been the outcome of their collaboration, as they may have been concerned with political, rather than religious, issues. The emperor received the delegation, aware of the problem with Vitalian’s protracted revolt. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached and the emperor broke off the talks, dismissing the emissaries. It may have been a certain advantage to Theoderic. Another mention of Theoderic in the Liber Pontificalis would be in connection with the death of Anastasius and the succession of Justin: “5. At that time by the will of God Anastasius was struck by the divine thunderbolt and died. So Justin, the orthodox, succeeded to the empire and he sent to the apostolic see, to Pope Hormisdas, Gratus, a man of illustrious name, and asked that legates might by commissioned by the apostolic see. Then, by advice of King Theoderic, Hormisdas sent Germanus, bishop of Capua, and John, the bishop, and Blandus, a priest, and Felix, a deacon of the apostolic see, and Dioscorus a deacon, [and Peter, a notary] and he fortified them on every point of faith and gave them the code of penance, by means of which the Greeks might return to communion with the apostolic see.”585

583 LP 54, 4: Illi vero secretius sura scriptas epistolas fidei XVIIII per manus monachorum catholicorum posuerunt epistolas per omnes civitates. Quae tamen epistolae susceptae ab episcopis civitatum consentientes Anastasio Aug., heretico timore omnes eas Constantinopolim direxerunt in manus Anastasii. Furia ductus Anastasius papae Hormisdae inter alia sacra haec scripsit dicens: “Nos iubere uolumus, non nobis iuberi” (trans. L. R. Loomis). 584 Cf. the papal letters of 3 April 517: Hormisdas, Anastasio Augusto, Coll. Avell. 126, 540–544; Hormisdas, Timotheo Episcopo Constantinopolitano, Coll. Avell. 128, 545–546; Hormisdas, Universis episcopis in Orientis partibus constitutis, Coll. Avell. 129, 547–549; Hormisdas, Episcopis orthodoxis, Coll. Avell. 130, 549–552; J. Wojda, 2006, 81. 585 LP 54, 5: Percussus divino ictu Anastasius interiit. Sumpsit itaque imperio Iustinus orthodoxus; et mittens ad sedem apostolicam ad papa Hormisda Gratum et inlustrem nomine et hoc speravit, ut ligati dirigerentur ad sedem apostolicam, tamen cum consilio

135

It is interesting to note a variation in the second edition, where “the king’s counsel” would prove helpful in sending out a delegation of Germanus and others, which would mean that the pope had asked for the said counsel,586 whereas here it should pertain to the emperor’s hopes. The sentence speaks of Theoderic’s co-operation with Pope Hormisdas in the field of diplomatic and religious relations with the East beginning from the early period of Justin’s reign. It is significant in particular because of the fact that the extant text of the Liber Pontificalis had been written after Theoderic’s death, and following the final years of his rule, which, as will be shown in the chapter on Pope John, were marked by a fairly hostile anti-Catholic bias. Evidently, however, the king’s contribution to the overcoming of the “Acacian schism” was so great that it could not have been easily ignored. In his letter of August 1, 518, the emperor Justin kindly informed Hormisdas of his accession to the throne and asked the pontiff for prayer.587 It could be seen as simply words of diplomatic courtesy, if not for the fact that very shortly before, just five days after his accession, i.e., on July 15, 518, the emperor ordered a special church service, during which the Council of Chalcedon was solemnly affirmed, and the name of Leo, as well as the names of Euphemius and Macedonius, the two bishops previously condemned to exile by the Monophysites, were restored in the diptychs. No synodal document to that effect has survived, but there is a relevant account in one of Severus’ letters.588 The pope responded promptly to the emperor’s letter, expressing his wish to reinstate the Church unity.589 It is notable that in this strictly internal affair of the Church the Patriarch of Constantinople would follow the emperor’s orders. For instance, Bishop John, who was elected as Patriarch of Constantinople after Timothy’s death, had been coerced by the regis Theodorici. Et direxit a Germanum episcopum Capuano et Iohanne episcopo et Blando presbitero et Felicem diaconum sedis apostolicae et Dioscorum diacones sedis suscepit, [et Petrum notarium]. Quos munitus ex omni parte fidei una cum libello, quomodo redirent Greci ad communione sedis apostolice (trans. L. R. Loomis). 586 [LP 54, 5: […] sperans a sedem apostolicam ut reintegraretur pax ecclesiarum. Tunc Hormisda episcopus cum consilio regis Theodorici direxit a sedem apostolicam Germanum […]]. 587 Cf. Iustinus Augustus, Epistola ad Hormisdam, PL 63, 426. 588 Cf. V. Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol. I: les actes des patriarches, fasc. I (381 a 714), Istambul: Socii Assumptionistae Chalcedonenses 1932, no. 207; cf. J. Wojda, 2006, 84. 589 Cf. Hormisdas, Epistola ad Iustinum Imperatorem, PL 63, 427. Carmelo Capizzi credits Pope Hormisdas, rather than emperor Justin, with the eventual termination of the schism; cf. C. Capizzi, 2000, 109.

136

emperor Anastasius to renounce the Council of Chalcedon even before taking up his office on April 17, 518.590 The new figure on the imperial throne had also contributed to a redefinition of the Patriarch’s, in view of which three letters were sent to the pope, all of them dated 7 September 518: from the emperor,591 from the patriarch,592 and from the increasingly more powerful figure, future emperor Justinian.593 The patriarch’s letter contained assurances of the orthodox integrity, recognition of the four ecumenical councils as legitimate: Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451), as well as the information on the restoration in the diptychs of those formerly condemned (Leo and Hormisdas, among others) and the patriarch’s request for papal legates to be sent in order to seal a reconciliation formally. The other two letters also communicated assurances of a much-desired concord as well as the encouragement to dispatch a delegation. The above-named emissary, Gratus, reached Rome on 20 December, after a journey of about 100 days. It was a comparatively lengthy travel time, even for ancient standards, possibly indicating that Gratus might have stopped by somewhere en route. Perhaps, it would have been possible for him to reach Ravenna within a period of two months, September and October (assuming that he would have taken a journey by sea, setting out at least from Dyrrachium),594 bypassing the south of Italy, and then reaching Rome by land in December. I have already referred to the rather unusual slowness with which Anastasius’ official letter to Hormisdas with the purported invitation to the synod of Heraclea: the letter addressed on December 28, 514, reached the destination on May 14, 515, while the other one, dated January 12, 515, arrived prior to the earlier one, 590 Cf. Victor Tunnunensis, Chronica, A.D. 517, MGH AA XI, 196: Anastasius ante ordinationem suam ut synodum Calchedonensem praedamnaret coegit; V. Grumel, Les regestes, no. 206. 591 Cf. Iustinus Augustus, Epistola ad Hormisdam, PL 63, 427–428. 592 Cf. Iohannes ep. Constantinopolitanus, Exemplum relationis Johannis apiscopi Constantinopolitani per Gratum missae ad Hormisdam papam, Thiel 832–833, Coll. Avell. 146; V. Grumel, Les regestes, no. 210. 593 Cf. Iustinianus, Iustiniani comitis ad Hormisdam papam, missa per eumdem Gratum imperatoris legatum, Thiel 833–834; Coll. Avell. 147; E. Stein, 1949, 226–227. 594 The Mediterranean Sea was navigable until 11 November, when the navigation season ended and the harbours would be closed until the end of March (or, for the acrossthe-sea navigation, until as late as 25 May; cf. D. Gorce, 1925, 97–99; R. Chevallier, 1988, 119; A. L. Udovitch, 1981, 503–546; J. Jundziłł, 1999, 16–17, 102. Marek Jankowiak notes that one of the shortest journeys from Rome to Constantinople had reportedly taken about 70 days (7th c.); cf. M. Jankowiak, 2011, 50 (n. 150).

137

reaching the recipient on 28 March (apparently, just as the emperor wished). In this case, the question would be if Justin had ordered his respectable envoy Gratus to take his time during the journey. As the emperor’s letter to the pope communicates, he was a vir clarissimus, comes sacri consistorii and the magister scrinii memoriae, as well as the emperor’s man of confidence, which would have definitely put him above a simple messenger carrying the emperor’s letters.595 A figure like this would be normally entrusted with more than just delivering letters and immediately returning home with a reply. It is reported that the envoy returned to Constantinople with the answers on March 28, 519.596

3.  Negotiations on the consulship for 519(?) It seems that Gratus would have made efforts to come to Rome in time to be present there in late December and early January without making anybody suspicious. Could it be that he had aimed to attend to the question of the consulship in 519? If so, it would have been reasonable for him to meet with Theoderic en route, which would also account for the delay in his journey597. It should also explain what the emperor really meant by referring to the king’s “counsel.” I would surmise that the emperor attempted to carry through a skilful political manoeuvre. On January 1, 519, Eutharic, Theoderic’s son-in-law, assumed the consulship in accordance with the king’s will.598 He was a Visigoth related by marriage to the Amali.599 According to Jordanes, after Alaric’s death Theoderic would take custody of his son Amalaric: “While his grandfather Theodoric cared for and protected him – for he had lost both parents in the years of childhood – he found that Eutharic, the son of Veteric, grandchild of Beremud and Thorismud, and a descendant of the race of the Amali, was living in Spain, a young man strong in wisdom and valor and health of body. Theodoric sent for him and gave him his daughter Amalasuentha in marriage.”600

595 Cf. PLRE II, 519. 596 Cf. Coll. Avell. 159. 597 Cf. P. Heather, 2013, 107. 598 Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 519, MGH AA XI, 161; Flavius Eutharicus Cilliga, PLRE II, 438. 599 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 81. 600 Jordanes, Getica 298: comperit Eutharicum Veterici filium Beretmodi et Thorismodi nepotem, Amalorum de stirpe descendentem, in Spania degi, iuvenili aetate prudentia et virtute corporisque integritate pollentem. ad se eum facit venire eique Amalasuentham filiam suam in matrimonio iungit (trans. Ch. C. Mierow).

138

They married in  515.601 Indeed, the king may have believed he would be succeeded by his son-in-law, but the latter predeceased the king (he died most likely ca. 526,602 i.e., the year of Theoderic’s death), whereas the son of the couple was about 10 years old at the time.603 There may be some truth in the conjecture that Theoderic aimed to restore the former Western Roman Empire under his successor’s rule, but his son-in-law’s untimely death would thwart all those designs.604 Appointing him as consul, jointly with the emperor, might have served as an important step on the path towards that goal. Athalaric, the son of Amalasuntha and Eutharic, upon accession to power after Theoderic’s death in 526, (in actual fact, his mother acted as regent), gratefully recalled that consular appointment, as well as his father’s designation as the emperor’s filius per arma, in his ingratiating letter to the emperor Justin.605 In The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, John R. Martindale wondered that in this letter Cassiodorus would refer to Eutharic as the emperor’s peer (aequaevus), even though Jordanes reported that in 515 Eutharic was young and handsome, while Justin was 55 years of age.606 In effect, the phrase would pertain to the simultaneous year of their respective consulships, rather than the actual years of age, as Justin appointed himself consul in the East, making Eutharic become “equal” to him in regard to the same year of their consulships, assuming that there was no coincidence in it.607 As for the reason of Gratus’ prolonged journey to Rome in this particular context, the following hypothesis would be well worth considering: Justin wished to inaugurate his reign by taking very deliberate and determined steps. Appointing himself as consul in the next year after his accession to the throne

601 Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 515, MGH AA XI, 160. 602 The precise date of Eutharic’s death is unknown. L. Schmidt pointed to 522 or 523 as the probable years of his death; cf. L. Schmidt, 1933, 353–354; P. Heather, 1995, 168. 603 Cf. Jordanes, Getica 304. 604 Cf. P. Heather, 2005, 238–242. 605 Cassiodorus, Variae VIII, 1, 3, MGH AA, XII, 231: vos genitorem meum in Italia palmatae claritate decorastis. Desiderio quoque concordiae factus est per arma filius, qui annis vobis paene videbatur aequaevus. There is no doubt that Cassiodorus had written the letter on behalf of Amalasuntha, who acted as regent for her ten-yearold son (Jordanes, Getica 304), but it would not change the fact that the document was issued in Athalaricus’ name; cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1994, 113–123; H. Wolfram, 1997, 200; D. Claude, 1993, 29; V. A. Sirago, 1998. 606 Cf. PLRE II, 438; Jordanes, Getica 298. For Jordanes’ reliance on Cassiodorus’ account, cf. A. Amici, 2002, 3–48. 607 Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 519, MGH AA XI, 161.

139

should have clearly made a difference. The point was who could become his partner in consulship and who would be worthy of becoming one. It seems that the following pattern may have been applied: if any Augustus were to become a consul for the first time as emperor (he could have already been one beforehand), he would tend to seek a worthy and equal counterpart in the West. In 380, Theodosius had Gratian as co-consul; when Arcadius became emperor in the East in 395, the Western colleague for his first consulship in the imperial purple in 396 was Honorius, for whom it was his first imperial consulship as well. In 409, Theodosius II had Honorius as his co-consul, whereas the emperor Leo and the ruler of the Western Roman Empire Majorian would become co-consuls in 458. A little later on, in 476, Zeno could not find anybody worthy enough, because at the time Romulus Augustulus was a nominal ruler in the West. Likewise, Justinian found no worthy colleague in the first year of his reign (i.e., in 528). In consequence, there were no consular appointments in the West for those [two] years. It may be surmised that in such circumstances consular appointments would be decided by supreme authorities. Therefore, in all probability, Gratus met with Theoderic in order to discuss possible candidates for the consulship in the West. It is not known if Theoderic would have been taken into consideration as well. Ultimately, his son-in-law became consul. In other cases, when the issue was not an emperor’s first consulship, such consultations would be normally not necessary at all. As no such practice existed, the appointments of Western consuls would be usually made known in the Eastern Roman Empire sometime later, and the West followed a similar pattern. Quite frequently, the Western consuls’ names were not made public in the East, and vice versa. Jan Prostko-Prostyński quotes the names of only 18 consuls in the West from the time of Theoderic’s reign, i.e., 35 years, whose names were made public in the Eastern Roman Empire.608 This time, however, the situation was different and it seems reasonable to suppose that the Eastern Roman Empire was very much concerned with who would be appointed consul in the West. In the aforementioned letter of Athalaric, the author is thankful to the emperor for having adopted Eutharic per arma and for conferring on him the splendour of the consul’s tunica palmata.609 It may have taken place in late December 518, as it is under the year 518 that Cassiodorus reports in his Chronicle that Eutharic was

608 Cf. J. Prostko-Prostyński, 1994, 200. 609 Tunica palmata – the tunic type worn by consuls during triumph celebrations; the name derives from its palm-leaf ornamentation.

140

acclaimed by the people and the Senate,610 which was a regular practice, regardless of the behind-the-scenes talks and king’s appointments.611 Appointing Eutharic as consul is sometimes portrayed as something very special. As Massimiliano Vitiello remarks, it was contrary to the obligations made during Theoderic’s “grand” visit to Rome. On that occasion, standing by the figure of Victory with a palm “promising that with God’s help he would keep inviolate whatever the former Roman emperors had decreed.”612 It does not seem that one would have to contradict the other; Theoderic had already been a consul a long time beforehand, and later on not only Roman-born candidates could become consuls. Apparently, the highest-ranking offices were “reserved” for members of the senatorial class (who were “entitled” to hold them, so to speak), but the consulship was not one of those. Eutharic represented the real and legitimate authority on account of his prospective succession to Theoderic, king of Italy and regent of the Visigoth kingdom. Significantly, the emperor endowed him with splendours to buttress his position. Eutharic clearly wished to distinguish himself with the magnificence and brilliance of the celebrations that he had organized in Rome for the inauguration of his term in office. Cassiodorus recounts with much admiration that many wonders could be seen there, animals were brought from Africa to celebrate the games, and such a great deal of various goods would be given away to the Romans and Goths that Eutharic’s inauguration surpassed all the previous consulship celebrations.613 At the same time, the letters delivered by Gratus had to be answered. The matter was of concern to the pope and the king alike. I have noted that Patriarch John’s letter mentioned four ecumenical councils, but the pope’s reply made reference

610 Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 518, MGH AA XI, 160. 611 For an example of such appointment, see Cassiodorus, Variae II, 2. 612 Excerpta Valesiana 12.66: quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt, inviolabiliter servaturum promittit. Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 71. 613 Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 519, MGH AA XI, 161: Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula, editionibus singulis stupente etiam Symmacho Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas. Dignitates cessit in curiam. Muneribus amphitheatralibus diversi generis feras, quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit, cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub devotione transmisit. Cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat, ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. Ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est, ut solus potuerit superare quem Romae celebraverat consulatum.

141

to just one, the Council of Chalcedon.614 It is no coincidence at all. Rome had not acknowledged the weight of the episcopal assembly convoked by Theodosius the Great in Constantinople in 381 with the purpose of pronouncing the primacy of the see of Constantinople over all the other bishoprics in the East.615 It is not mentioned in any of the relevant documents. A case in point may be Pope Felix’s postsynodal letter to the presbyters and archimandrites of Constantinople from 485, i.e., the early stage of the “Acacian schism.”616 As a result, Rome would continue to regard Heraclea, not Constantinople, as the seat of a bishopric, still acknowledging Alexandria as the supreme metropolitan see in the East. The emperor and the patriarch were very much concerned with obtaining such recognition on account of the absence of the apostolic origin of their see (it had not yet existed in the apostolic times).617 For this reason, they made efforts to join the “exclusive club” of the great synodal cities such as Nicaea and Ephesus. Still, Rome refused to accommodate their claims. Gratus returned to Constantinople with three letters, addressed to the emperor, empress, and the bishop, while the invited legates would set out on their journey soon thereafter. In the light of the second edition of the Liber Pontificalis, it becomes evident that the question of this papal delegation was consulted with the king. The first edition offers a somewhat different account, but it would have been very likely as well; besides, Gratus’ consultation with Theoderic would not preclude the possibility of the talks between the pope and the king. Was it all a matter of courtesy only, or might the king have been concerned with some particular goal to attain? Would he perhaps have been apprehensive of the tightening of the relations between Rome and Constantinople and all the potential risks involved? It simply remains a question of speculation. However, since the consultation had indeed taken place and the author of the Liber Pontificalis repeats the same information with some emphasis further on,618 there are sufficient grounds to assume that the members of the delegation would have been agreed on by the king and the pope. The emissaries were as follows: Bishop Germanus of Capua, 614 Cf. Hormisdas, Hormisdae papae ad Johannem Constantinopolitanum episcopum, Thiel 845–846; Coll. Avell. 145. 615 Cf. Constantinopolis (381), c. 3, DSP 1, 73. 616 Cf. Felix III, Epistola 11, 4; Synodus Romana ad presbyteros et archimandritas, SCL 6, 289. 617 In the 5th century, there was no tradition on the founding of the Church at Byzantium by St Andrew; cf. M. Starowieyski (ed.), Apokryfy Nowego Testamentu II/1: Apostołowie, Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 2007, 176; F. Dvornik, 1958. 618 Cf. LP 54, 8.

142

a certain bishop named John, whom the second edition of the LP calls “presbyter,” presbyter Blandus, deacon Felix, as well as a certain notary from Rome and Dioscorus, a deacon from Alexandria, one of the pope’s confidants.619 They must have been entrusted with delivering letters to various prominent figures, above all a libellus with the creed, which they were to present to all the bishops to sign. It is possible that the document in question was the same as the one that the pope had sent to Anastasius. The paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Liber Pontificalis do not mention Theoderic at all, only referring to the very solemn reception of the delegation upon their arrival at Constantinople. The next one seems to be a summary of the events depicted before, just as the first one summarized the time of Anastasius’ reign.620 Notably, the paragraph 8 cannot be found in the first edition’s Epitomes. “[8. Pope Hormisdas betook himself to king Theodoric at Ravenna, and on his advice sent his mandate to Justin; with his seal and signature and the text of the document he reinstated those who condemned Peter and Acacius and all the heretics into unity with the apostolic see].”621

The termination of the schism did not seem to suit Theoderic, in as much as it altered the existing volatile political situation.622 From his perspective, there may have been reasons to be worried that it would come to have a negative impact on the position of the newly reunited Churches of Rome and Constantinople towards the Arians. As a matter of fact, his apprehensions were to become reality. An item of information ostensibly irrelevant to  Theoderic is the following mention referring to Clovis: “10. At that time there came a golden crown set with precious stones, from the king of the Franks [Clovis the Christian for a gift to blessed St Peter the apostle].”623

619 Cf. J. Wojda, 2006, 89. 620 Cf. H. Geertman, 2004, 228. 621 [LP 54, 8: Hic papa Hormisda perrexit ad regem Theodoricum Ravenna et cum eius consilio misit auctoritatem ad Iustinum et cum vinculo cyrographi et textum libelli reintegravit ad unitatem sedis apostolicae damnantes Petrum et Acacium vel omnes hereses] (trans. R. Davis). 622 Cf. G. Pilara, 2005, 442–444. 623 LP 54, 10: Epitome (F): Eodem tempore venit corona aurea cum gemmis preciosissimis donum a rege Francorum. Second recension: Eodem tempore venit regnus cum gemmis praetiosis a rege Francorum Cloduveum christianum, donum beato Petro apostolo (trans. L. R. Loomis).

143

Clovis was certainly Theoderic’s most powerful rival to the ascendancy in major parts of Western Europe. Further on, the paragraph makes a mention of the valuables donated to St Peter’s Basilica by the emperor Justin (called “the orthodox” here), and it may be then assumed that Clovis’ gift had been presented at an earlier date, possibly prior to 518. The Frankish king’s gift is called corona aurea in the Epitome F, whilst the P refers to it as regnum. Most likely, this is a Latin loan translation of the Greek term basilea used in reference to an imperial diadem.624 In turn, Justin’s gifts may be possibly linked to the imperial emissary Symmachus’ visit, as I have noted in a discussion of the relevant fragments of Cassiodorus’ Chronicle.625 This particular piece of information does not fit in with the actual timeline of the events. Clovis died on November 27, 511, i.e., three years before the beginning of Hormisdas’ pontificate. It would follow therefore that the aforesaid gift must have been presented before, although the author of the biographical note on Symmachus had failed to take it into account. However, the biographer of Pope Hormisdas makes use of the fact to emphasize that all the leading rulers of the period had recognized the primacy of the See of Rome. It may be symptomatic that the second editor of the Liber Pontificalis stressed the fact that Clovis was a Christian, but would not mention Theoderic as one, possibly because of his Arian faith. His depiction of the king is rather terse: “[10. cont. At the time then king Theodoric presented to St Peter the apostle 2 silver candlesticks weighing 70 lb.].”626

4.  Theoderic’s policy towards the Jews Donating lavish gifts to the important churches was an aspect of the contemporary “public relations” policy. Even though its role should not be overestimated, it may at least testify to Theoderic’s intention to show that he harboured no ill-will towards the pope. The reason may be perhaps inferred from what the Excerpta Valesiana report on the same period, that is, in the early months of 519, namely the riots involving Jews and Catholics and Theoderic’s intervention in response to those events:

624 Cf. M. Rouche, 1996, 494. 625 Cf. Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 519, MGH AA XI, 161. 626 [LP 54, 10: Eodem tempore Theodoricus rex optulit beato Petro apostolo cereostata argentea II, pens. sing. lib. LXX] (trans. R. Davis).

144

“Then Theoderic made Eutharicus consul and celebrated triumphs at Rome and at Ravenna. This Eutharicus was an excessively rough man, and an enemy to the Catholic faith. After this, while Theoderic was remaining at Verona through fear of the neighbouring peoples, strife arose between the Christians and the Jews of the city of Ravenna; accordingly the Jews, being unwilling to be baptised, often in sport threw the holy water that was offered to them into the water of the river. Because of this the people were fired with anger, and without respect for the king, for Eutharicus, or for Peter, who was bishop at the time, they rose against the synagogues and presently set them on fire. And this same thing happened in a similar affair at Rome.”627

This fragment is fraught with interpretation difficulties and deserving of some more cautious approach. If accusations of Eutharic’s overt hostility to the Catholics had been true, the pope may have felt some resentment towards Theoderic for having appointed his son-in-law as consul. Nonetheless, the king’s position in this conflict appears to have been of greater significance. As evident in the Latin text, there is an uncertainty as to whether Rome and Ravenna should be linked as the places of Theoderic’s triumph. Following Lidia Winniczuk’s rendering, Rome should be linked with Eutharic, Ravenna with Theoderic. Vitiello concludes that it had been Eutharic’s triumph in Rome and Ravenna, which, as he argues, would find confirmation in Cassiodorus’ Chronicle,628 as we have no evidence of the king’s presence in Rome in the year 519. He also cites the view that ascribed this specific interpretation difficulty to an incorrectly used ablativus absolutus.629 It is possible, of course, but the question is that assuming the existence of an error in the use of a particular grammatical form would always be an arbitrary method, charged with the risk of searching for other potential flaws. In other words, each rendering could be seen as a viable one.

627 Excerpta Valesiana 14.80–81: Ergo Theodericus, dato consulatu Eutharico Romae et Ravennam [or, alternatively, Roma et Ravennae] triumphavit qui Eutharicus nimis asper fuit et contra fidem catholicam inimicus. Post haec Theoderico Verona consistente propter metum gentium facta est lis inter Christianos et Iudaeos Ravennates. Quare Iudaei baptizatos nolentes, dum ludunt [or, according to the manuscripts, laudunt or ludent] frequenter oblatam [aquam add. Warmington] in aquam fluminis iactaverunt. Dehinc accensus est populus non observantes [according to Mommsen; but Bracke opts for Morton’s choice: re servantes] neque regi neque Eutharico aut Petro, qui tunc episcopus erat, consurgentes ad synagogas, mox eas incenderunt. Quod et in cena [instead of in cena, Mommsen suggests in Roma in re eadem] similiter contigit (trans. J. C. Rolfe); cf. C. Morton, 1982, 107–136. 628 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 73. 629 Cf. M. McCormick, 1986, 272; M. Vitiello, 2005a, 74.

145

Cassiodorus makes no mention of any triumph in the strict sense of this word, with regard to Theoderic or Eutharic. The author refers to the celebrations in a general sense only.630 Consequently, it would be perhaps more plausible to assume that triumphavit should not be taken literally, but rendered as triumphed in a colloquial meaning of this word, as can be seen in the translation cited above, in the sense that the author’s view was that Theoderic had succeeded in making his son-in-law consul, thus wielding his power over Ravenna as well as, de facto, Rome, with the Senate and the people acting in accordance with his will. In the light of this interpretation, there is no need to alter anything or assume that some error has been made. Before we shall discuss the text in more detail, let us have a look at the next paragraph, as Theoderic’s actual response to the conflict may shed some light on its essential factors: “Presently the Jews hastened to Verona, where the king was, and there the head-chamberlain Trivanes acted on their behalf; he, too, as a heretic favoured the Jews, and cajoled the king into taking action against the Christians. Accordingly Theoderic, on the presumption that they had resorted to arson, presently gave orders that the whole Roman population should furnish money for the rebuilding of the synagogues of Ravenna which had been burned; and that those who did not have anything from which they could give should be whipped through the streets of the city while a herald made proclamation of their offence. This was in substance the order given to Eutharicus, Cilliga, and the Bishop Peter, and thus it was carried out.”631

630 Cassiodorus, Chronica, A.D. 518–519, MGH AA XI, 160–161: Eo anno dn. Eutharicus Cillica mirabili gratia senatus et plebis ad edendum exceptus est feliciter consulatum. (519) dn. Eutharicus Cillica et Iustinus Aug. Eo anno multa vidit Roma miracula, editionibus singulis stupente etiam Symmacho Orientis legato divitias Gothis Romanisque donatas. dignitates cessit in curiam. muneribus amphitheatralibus diversi generis feras, quas praesens aetas pro novitate miraretur, exhibuit. cuius spectaculis voluptates etiam exquisitas Africa sub de votione transmisit. cunctis itaque eximia laude completis tanto amore civibus Romanis insederat, ut eius adhuc praesentiam desiderantibus Ravennam ad gloriosi patris remearet aspectus. ubi iteratis editionibus tanta Gothis Romanisque dona largitus est, ut solus potuerit superare quem Romae celebraverat consulatum. Nonetheless, Vitiello upholds his opinion; cf. M. Vitiello, 2006a, 132. 631 Excerpta Valesiana 14.82: Mox Iudaei currentes Veronam, ubi rex erat, agente Trivane praeposito cubiculi, et ipse haereticus favens Iudaeis, insinuans regi factum adversus christianos. Qui mox iussit propter praesumptionem incendii, ut omnis populus Romanus [et, according to Mommsen’s suggestion] Ravennates [Cecci and Bracke: Ravennatis] synagogas, quas incendio concremaverunt, data pecunia restaurarent; qui vero non habuissent unde dare frustrati per publicum sub voce praeconia ducerentur. Data praecepta ad Eutharicum Cilligam, et Petrum episcopum secundum hunc tenorem [praecepit – Cecci et Bracke] et ita adimpletum (trans. J. C. Rolfe); cf. L’Anonymus

146

The king’s order was fulfilled by both the consul and the bishop. As the Excerpta Valesiana report, it was Theoderic’s last success, which would be only followed by a series of misfortunes. The events under consideration took place during Eutharic’s consulship, i.e., in  519, in the period of the aforementioned thirty years of Theoderic’s reign, which, according to the author of the Excerpta Valesiana were so fortunate,632 although his account is preceded with the explicitly unfavourable information on the king’s alleged illiteracy, going so far as to intimate that he could not sign his name, despite having taken his writing lessons for as long as ten years.633 It is however very likely that someone added the note in question at a later time, drawing on the well-known topos on the emperor Justin, who was depicted in the same way and terms by Procopius of  Caesarea.634 In truth, the king must have received some, at least fairly elementary, education, considering his longstanding contact with Greek literary culture during his presence at the court in Constantinople. At the other extreme, there are opinions of his classical education and his great love of scholarship,635 based only on Ennodius’ Panegyric and the king’s letters compiled in the  Variae, authored by the excellently educated writer Cassiodorus, rather than by Theoderic himself.636 A more balanced view is held by Antonio Caruso: even if Theoderic was not a very well educated person, he could surely appreciate the values of education and culture, as evidenced by his involvement in building the beautiful city of Ravenna and his procurement of eminent scholars such as Cassiodorus.637 According to another opinion, Theoderic’s court was the last mainstay of the Romano-Barbarian cultural synthesis as contrasted with the increasingly rampant decadence.638 It is also worth recalling that the king attached much weight to providing his daughter Amalasuntha with Valesianus II, ch. 79–96, W. Bracke (ed.), texte et commentaire, Bolonia: Pàtron Editore 1992. 632 Excerpta Valesiana 12.59: Ergo praeclarus et bonae voluntatis in omnibus , cuius temporibus felicitas est secuta Italiam per annos triginta ita ut etiam pax pergentibus esset. 633 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 14.79. 634 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, Historia arcana 6; W. Ensslin, 1940, 391–396; M. Wilczyński, 2001a, 417. E. Stein did not agree with W. Ensslin’s argumentation; cf. E. Stein, 1949, 108, 791–792. 635 Cf. P. Heather, 2005, 232–234. 636 Cf. G. Caravita, 1993, 42. The author argues in favour of Theoderic’s good knowledge of Latin and Greek. 637 Cf. A. Caruso, 1998, 32. 638 Cf. D. Cherra, 2008, 30.

147

an excellent education. Lauded by Cassiodorus for her very good knowledge of Greek and Latin, in addition to her native Gothic,639 she would act as regent after her father’s death and was herself intent on ensuring appropriate education for her children.640 There is also a different interpretation of the passage in the Excerpta Valesiana on Theoderic’s alleged illiteracy. As the author recounts, the king would make use of a tin stencil with the letters forming the word legi, perhaps decoratively fashioned.641 Such forms may have possibly served as a sort of facsimile stencils used by authorized secretaries of the king’s chancery, affirming the documents on his behalf. The use of such “utensils” would not have to imply a person’s illiteracy. The Excerpta Valesiana reiterate the mention of the king’s thirty years of good governance, probably drawing from the same source as Jordanes,642 as noted in Chapter 4. Consequently, the spell of “bad rule” would have ensued in about 523. As a result, the author’s words should be construed as favourable, rather than critical, towards the king. Thus, Theoderic’s modus operandi in dealing with the conflict should be reckoned as part of his positive and efficient actions, not among the setbacks of the later years of his reign. It is then difficult to agree with R. Cessi, who argues that the very unfriendly attitude of the author of the Excerpta Valesiana towards Theoderic is evidenced in his negative opinion on Eutharic (80): “This Eutharicus was an excessively rough man, and an enemy to the Catholic faith.”643 Or could it be perhaps just the opposite? As we may recall, tsarist sycophants would argue that the tsar was good, the boyars were wicked … Moreover, assuming that the incident in question is related by the “other” author of the Excerpta Valesiana, hostile to Theoderic,644 Cessi contends that the account is concerned with Ravenna, while Rome is mentioned only in passing, in the last sentence (81), by association with the past events.645 If one considered, however, those events as pertinent to the period of the reign represented as “good,” it could not have been like that at all. Besides, the insertion referring to Rome cannot be found in any of the manuscripts, as it was in fact incorporated 639 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae XI, 1. Cf. M. Vitiello, 2006b, 388–412. 640 Cf. J. Strzelczyk, 1984, 145–146. 641 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 14.79. 642 Cf. Jordanes, Romana 45. 643 Excerpta Valesiana 14.80 (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 644 Some scholars disagree with the “two authors” hypothesis; cf. S. J. B. Barnish, 1983, 572–578 and V. Neri, 1995, 314–317. 645 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana: Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio primum edita, R. Cessi (ed.), CXXI.

148

into the text by Mommsen, who interpreted the “Romans” (14.82) as citizens of Rome, not as Catholics. I will revert to this point further on.646 Let us also notice that it is only after the account of the anti-Jewish disturbances that the  Excerpta make the following mention: “Shortly after that the devil found an opportunity to steal for his own a man who was ruling the state well and without complaint.”647 As can be seen, the riots erupted because the Jews would begin to ridicule those who had decided to become baptized, as they detested the latter. It is not very likely that they would have suddenly lost their self-preservation instinct, making a mockery of all the Christians who baptized their children or catechumens preparing to be baptized. They must have been well acquainted with such practices by that time. It would not be much of a surprise, however, if they had sneered at their compatriots and fellow-believers who, for some opportunistic reasons, decided to become baptized. For instance, let us have a look at this specific situation depicted in the Theodosian Code: “It has been established both by ancient sanctions and by Our own that when We learn that men bound to the Jewish religion wish to become associated in the fellowship of the Church for the purpose of evading prosecution for crimes or on account of different necessities, such acts are practiced not through devotion to the faith, but by the deception of hypocrites. Hence, judges of the provinces in which such crimes are said to have been committed shall know that obedient service must be granted to Our statutes in such a way that they shall allow such persons to return to their own law, if they should perceive that of them do not persist in the constancy of religious confession in the aforesaid warship or have not been imbued with the faith and the mystery of venerable baptism; because more suitable provision is thus made for Christianity.”648

646 According to C. Sotinel, the author of the Excerpta Valesiana is critical towards Theoderic already at this point; cf. C. Sotinel, 1998, 297. 647 Excerpta Valesiana 14.83: Ex eo enim invenit diabolus locum, quem ad modum hominem bene rem pubblicam sine querella gubernantem subriperet (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 648 CTh XVI, 8, 23 (24 septembris 416): Idem aa. annati didascalo et maioribus Iudaeorum. et veteribus et nostris sanctionibus constitutum est, cum propter evitationem criminum et pro diversis necessitatibus iudaicae religionis homines obligatos ecclesiae se consortio sociare voluisse didicerimus, non id devotione fidei, sed obreptione simulandum fieri. unde provinciarum iudices, in quibus talia commissa perhibentur, ita nostris famulatum statutis deferendum esse cognoscant, ut hos, quos neque constantia religiosae confessionis in hoc eodem cultu inhaerere perspexerint neque venerabilis baptismatis fide et mysteriis inbutos esse, ad legem propriam, quia magis christianitati consulitur, liceat remeare. dat. VIII kal. octob. Ravennae Theodosio a. VII et Palladio conss (trans. C. Pharr).

149

It was nothing new. Constantine the Great had already passed laws protecting the Jews who converted to Christianity against being persecuted by their compatriots: “Emperor Constantine Augustus to Evagrius. It is Our will that Jews and their elders and patriarchs shall be informed that if, after the issuance of this law, any of them should dare to attempt to assail with stones or with any other kind of madness - a thing which We have learned is now being done – any person who has fled their feral sect and has resorted to the worship of God, such assailant shall be immediately delivered to the flames and burned, with all his accomplices.”649

The same Augustus to Felix, Praetorian Prefect. “[…] Jews shall not be permitted to disturb any man who has been converted from Judaism to Christianity or to assail him with any outrage. Such contumely shall be punished according to the nature of the act which has been committed.”650

In effect, if a group of Jews happened to harass some newly baptized converts (and, in all likelihood, the latter had been Jewish as well), they would have been punished in accordance with these laws. It should be noted that Theoderic had solemnly pledged to respect the Roman laws.651 As it appears, the Jews under consideration had not been coerced to convert to Christianity, as there is no such information in the extant sources;652 they may have been simply some opportunistic individuals who had made their own choice. I would conjecture that they may have been baptized as Catholics, not Arians, in consideration of the fact that being an Arian in Italy of the period would have meant as much as being a Goth.653 Furthermore, the text seems to imply that the ridicule had been accompanied with some unidentified acts of sacrilege. Namely, the author of the Excerpta Valesiana relates that ludunt frequenter oblatam in aquam fluminis iactaverunt, which Lidia Winniczuk translates as “zaczęli z nich szydzić i wrzucać 649 CTh XVI, 8, 1 (18 octobris 315): Imp. Constantinus a. ad Evagrium. Iudaeis et maioribus eorum et patriarchis volumus intimari, quod, si quis post hanc legem aliquem, qui eorum feralem fugerit sectam et ad dei cultum respexerit, saxis aut alio furoris genere, quod nunc fieri cognovimus, ausus fuerit adtemptare, mox flammis dedendus est et cum omnibus suis participibus concremandus (trans. C. Pharr). 650 CTh XVI, 8, 5 (22 octobris 335): Imp. Constantinus a. ad Felicem pf. p. post alia: eum, qui ex Iudaeo christianus factus est, inquietare Iudaeos non liceat vel aliqua pulsare iniuria: pro qualitate commissi istius modi contumelia punienda (trans. C. Pharr). 651 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 12. 66. 652 Cf. L’Anonymus Valesianus II, ch. 79–96, W. Bracke (ed.), 38–39. 653 Cf. Ch. I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.”

150

święte ofiary do wody w  rzece” [“they began to sneer at them, throwing holy offerings into the water of the river”]. Apparently, this Polish rendering is an over-interpretation in that the Latin passage does not refer to anything “sacred.” Nonetheless, a number of commentators believe that the fragment does make reference to something sacred, or even most sacred, i.e., the Eucharist. It is not very likely, if only for the fact that Jews were strictly not allowed inside Christian churches. Besides, they would have been punished with severity for such acts of desecration. Biaggio Saitta argues that the above-mentioned passage would speak of the Eucharist, but it is also possible, as he notes, that Blumenkranz could be right in his opinion that Jews had thrown some converts into the river.654 In the 14th century, John of Verona explained the sentence as oblatas sive ostias simplices, meaning unconsecrated hosts.655 Leaving desecration of the Eucharist unpunished would have been deemed unforgivable and such a resolution of this Catholic-Jewish conflict would not have been included among his achievements (as it is portrayed in the Excerpta Valesiana).656 Moreover, it would have been in flagrant violation of the precept against making a mockery of Christian rites. According to the law of May 29, 408: “Emperors Honorius and Theodosius Augustuses to Anthemius, Praetorian Prefect. The governors of the provinces shall prohibit the Jews, in a certain ceremony of their festival Haman in commemoration of some former punishment, from setting fire to and burning a simulated appearance of the holy cross, in contempt of the Christian law, and they shall unquestionably lose all privileges that have been permitted them heretofore unless they refrain from unlawful acts.”657

It pertained directly to the Jewish feast of Purim, observed in honour of Esther who, according to the Book of Esther, rescued the people from Haman.658

654 Cf. B. Saitta, 1993, 92 and B. Saitta, 1986, 311; B. B. Blumenkranz, 1960, 140. 655 As cited by B. Blumenkranz, 1960, 155 and B. Blumenkranz, 1963, 61. Cf. C. Cipolla, 1892b, 67. 656 I have already expressed my reservations as to the opinion that this passage is critical of Theoderic. 657 CTh XVI, 8, 18: Impp. Honorius et Theodosius AA. Anthemio praefecto praetorio. Iudaeos quodam festivitatis suae sollemni aman ad poenae quondam recordationem incendere et sanctae crucis adsimulatam speciem in contemptum christianae fidei sacrilega mente exurere provinciarum rectores prohibeant, ne iocis [or locis] suis fidei nostrae signum inmisceant, sed ritus suos citra contemptum christianae legis retineant, amissuri sine dubio permissa hactenus, nisi ab illicitis temperaverint (trans. C. Pharr). 658 Cf. Est 9, 17–28.

151

During the celebration, an image of Haman would be nailed to a cross or a pile.659 It would be fairly easy to imagine that this specific law could have been applied to the Eucharist as well. Since the king made no such demands at all, desecrating the hosts was not an issue. An apparently more plausible explanation can be found in an article by Albert Somekh, citing B. H. Warmington’s commentary, where oblata are understood as ordinary water brought for liturgical purposes or used with the intention of making a jocular imitation of the Christian liturgy in a definitely less weighty matter than the Eucharist (aqua oblata).660 It seems plausible as it is indeed easy to conceive of ridiculing the baptismal rites by making a travesty of it and pouring water into a river, or performing a make-believe consecration of river water, etc. Alberto Somekh admits that Warmington may be right, explaining that the baptismal rites could have been viewed as somewhat similar to the Jewish ritual ablutions. The incriminated Jews would have mockingly poured some baptismal water into the river in order to “purify” it, in a spurious act of “washing the water.”661 The weakness of this argumentation is that no water can be sent to anyone to baptize themselves.662 In any event, it must have been something irritating to the Christians, but not liable to very harsh penalties; perhaps, the thing in question was simply this “innocuous” plain water, as the holy water would have been referred to as aqua benedicta. The term aqua oblata could be also used in its liturgical sense, as the water brought for the purpose of altar service. In this specific context, I have found this expression in a medieval compilation of Marian miracles. It makes a mention of a church with an adjacent vineyard yielding very good red wine, used in liturgy. As the authors note, it would be risky to use white wine because of its resemblance to the holy water (aqua oblata).663 Warmington’s clarification may be therefore justified, but it does not seem to be very necessary. Since the author used a fairly general expression such as oblata, without much regard for being more specific, it is evident that the accuracy of statement had not been the most important thing and he simply intended to communicate that the Christians had overreacted in their response to the travesty of a certain group of Jews and the former had been rightly punished for their actions. Theoderic’s solution must have been regarded and represented in positive terms, as it appeared to follow in the footsteps of the previous emperors, in particular 659 Cf. CTh XVI, 8, 18. 660 Cf. A. Somekh, 1995, 141. 661 Cf. A. Somekh, 1995, 142. 662 See also T. Canella, 2004, 296. 663 J. Aragüés Aldaz, T. Domingo Pérez (ed.), 1993.

152

Theodosius the Great, and their decisions with respect to similar cases. There are several precepts relevant to this situation, of which the following one would cover the whole extent of the problem: “It is Our pleasure that in the future no synagogue at all of the Jews shall be indiscriminately taken away from them or consumed by fire, and that if, after the issuance of this law, there are any synagogues which by recent attempt have been thus seized, vindicated to the churches, or at any rate consecrated to the venerable mysteries, the Jews shall be granted as compensation therefor, places in which they can construct synagogues commensurate, of course, with those that were taken away. 1. If any offertories have been removed, they shall be restored to the aforesaid Jews if they have not yet been dedicated to the sacred mysteries, but if venerable consecration does not permit their return, a price equal to the value thereof shall be paid as compensation for them. 2. In the future no synagogues shall be constructed, and the old ones shall remain in their present condition.”664

Theoderic resorted to this law, making no doubt about who was to pay for the damage. Cessi, in whose opinion the account of Theoderic’s handling of the affair is unfavourable to the ruler, notes that the king’s conduct in relation to the Jews is represented quite differently in the letters compiled as part of the Variae.665 I would say it is described in just the same way, rather than differently. In the letter dated to the years 507–511, i.e., antecedent to the disturbances at Ravenna, Theoderic permitted the Jews of Genoa to rebuild the synagogue, but without alterations and with the same ornamentation of the building.666 He also took this opportunity to confirm their privileges, at the same time reminding them of their obligation to respect the laws in force. In conclusion, the king stated the following meaningful words: “We cannot impose religion, as no one can be forced to believe

664 CTh XVI 8, 25 (15 februarii 423): Placet in posterum nullas omnino synagogas Iudaeorum vel auferri passim vel flammis exuri et si quae sunt post legem recenti molimine vel ereptae synagogae vel ecclesiis vindicatae aut certe venerandis mysteriis consecratae, pro his loca eis, in quibus possint extruere, ad mensuram videlicet sublatarum, praeberi. 1. Sed et donaria si qua sunt sublata, eisdem, si necdum sacris mysteriis sunt dedicata, reddantur, sin redhibitionem consecratio veneranda non sinit, pro his eiusdem quantitatis pretium tribuatur. 2. Synagogae de cetero nullae protinus extruantur, veteres in sua forma permaneant. Dat. XV kal. mart (trans. C. Pharr). Constantinopoli Asclepiodoto et Mariniano conss. Cf. XVI, 8, 9 (29 septembris 393); XVI, 8, 11 (17 iunii 397); XVI 8, 20 (26 iulii 412); XVI, 8, 21 (6 augusti 412); XVI, 8, 27 (9 aprilis 423). 665 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana: Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio primum edita, R. Cessi (ed.), CXXI. 666 Cf. M. Marcenaro, 1993, 746–747.

153

against their own will.”667 It was similar in the cases of the synagogues burned in Rome668 and Milan. In his letter to Milan, he granted their requests, remarking somewhat tartly: “But why, oh Jew, dost thou petition for peace and quietness on earth when thou canst not find that rest which is eternal?”669 In Rome, some Christian servants employed in Jewish homes were accused of having burned a synagogue.670 The king ordered that it should be rebuilt and urged the Senate to quieten the disturbances. Most likely, the violent action undertaken by those servants or slaves was provoked by some unjust conduct of their masters. As the actual cause remains unknown, it would be rather risky to ascribe the outbreak of the riots to an incident of forced circumcision allegedly performed on one of those Christians, as Bruno Dumézil suggests.671 I have already taken note of Theoderic’s aversion to changing one’s religious affiliation and to those who would follow such practices. He had an even more unfavourable attitude to forced conversions or coercing someone to adopt a different religious denomination or faith. It can be seen very clearly in the context of the king’s appeal to the emperor Justin to allow the forcibly converted Arians

667 Cassiodorus, Variae II, 27: [1] Sicut exorati iustum cupimus praebere consensum, ita per nostra beneficia fraudes fieri legibus non amamus, in ea parte praecipue, in qua divinae reverentiae credimus interesse. non ergo insultare videantur elati, divinitatis gratia destituti. quapropter tegumen tantum vetustis parietibus superimponere synagogae vestrae praesenti vos auctoritate censemus, petitionibus vestris eatenus licentiam commodantes, quatenus constituta divalia permiserunt. nec aliquid ornatus fas sit adicere vel in ampliandis aedibus evagari. [2] Et noveritis vos severitatem minime defugere veteris sanctionis, Si rebus non abstineatis illicitis. in ipsis vero parietibus cooperiendis vel fulciendis tantum licentiam damus, si vobis tricennalis non potest obesse praescriptio. quid appetitis, quae refugere deberetis? damus quidem permissum, sed errantium votum laudabiliter improbamus: religionem imperare non possumus, quia nemo cogitur ut credat invitus. Cf. T. F. X. Noble, 1993, 401; Briefe des Ostgotenkönigs Theoderich der Große und seiner Nachfolger: Aus den “Variae” des d. C. Hrsg. von L. Janus., Eingel., übers. u. komm. von P. Dinzelbacher, Heidelberg: Mattes Verlag 2010, 137–138; likewise, Variae IV, 33; cf. B. Saitta, 1993, 89 and 242; B. SAITTA, 1986, 308; B. Blumenkranz, 1960, 146–147. 668 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 43; B. Blumencranz, 1960, 310. For the laws on rebuilding the synagogues, see J. Juster, 1914, 469–472. 669 Cassiodorus, Variae V, 37: concedimus quidem clementiae nostrae consuetudine quae rogastis: sed quid, Iudaee, supplicans temporalem quietem quaeris, si aeternam requiem invenire non possis? Cf. L. von Janus, 2010, 138–139. 670 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 43. Cf. E. Stein, 1949, 249. 671 Cf. B. Dumézil, 2008, 702.

154

to return to their faith.672 From this particular perspective, it is easier to imagine the rationale behind Theoderic’s tolerant attitude towards the Jews who mocked the baptismal rites. It is hypothetically possible that the decisive circumstance for a different categorization of the act was the practice of forcing the Jews to be baptized, not just the cases of some opportunists who decided to convert to Christianity. Should this have been the account of the incident reported to the king, it would be no wonder that the Christians guilty of setting fire to the synagogues were the only ones who were punished for the riots. This particular version of the events, as communicated to the king, may have been “veiled” in the sentence concerning Trivanes: “he, too, as a heretic favoured the Jews, and cajoled the king into taking action against the Christians.”673 In his letter to the Jews of Genoa (ca. 510), the king speaks of a 30-year-long period of limitation, tricennalis praescriptio, which should not be invoked in this case. Tricennalis praescriptio reappears in another letter, this one addressed to the Jews of Milan regarding the destruction of a synagogue by some clergyman (523–526).674 In this letter, Theoderic refers to another aspect of his religious policy, throwing some more light on his reluctant approach to changing one’s religious affiliation. He speaks in favour of the Jews who had suffered the damage, affirms the privileges of their synagogues, at the same time warning them that they refrain from trying to interfere with the rights of the Christian community.675 There is one more detail relevant to Theoderic’s intervention; it is connected with the critical treatment of the Excerpta Valesiana. The text assumed at 14.82 reads as follows: omnis populus Romanus Ravennates synagogas, quas incendio concremaverunt, data pecunia restaurarent. I have made a note of the two variants: Cessi and Bracke opt for Ravennatis instead of Ravennates, which does not seem to make much difference, but Mommsen inserts et in between the geographical names, which is certainly of significance.676 Lidia Winniczuk follows this latter variant in her Polish translation. The version without et would imply that the synagogues had been burned down at Ravenna only, and the populus romanus (which must be understood as 672 Cf. Ch. VII: “LP 55 on John I.” 673 Excerpta Valesiana 14.82: ipse haereticus favens Iudaeis, insinuans regi factum adversus Christianos. 674 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae V, 37; CTh IV, 14; CI VII, 39; Authentica “Quas actiones,” CI I, 2, 23, Nov. 131, 6; cf. L. Loschiavo, 1996, 109. 675 Cassiodorus, Variae V, 37: ut nec vos quod ad praefatae ecclesiae ius vel religiosas certe personas legibus pertinere constiterit, inciviliter attrectare temptetis. 676 Cf. MGH AA, IX, 327.

155

“Catholics,” as opposed to the Gothic Arians) would have rebuilt them.677 On the other hand, et would mean that the riots erupted in Ravenna and Rome and the inhabitants of the two cities would have rebuilt the synagogues. The verbs have plural endings (restaurarent, habuissent), which makes sense for one as well as two populations. The king’s order was dispatched to Bishop Peter at Ravenna and consul Eutharic. The former of the two is Peter III, who held the bishopric from the 480s until the spring of 519.678 Therefore, the conflict took place in the springtime. In the context of the season, it may prove well worth interpreting the most enigmatic passage at the end of 14.81: Quod et in cena eadem similiter contigit. Obviously, to render it as “at supper-time” would be incongruous. As I have already noted (cf. the original text cited above), Mommsen proposed changing in cena into in Roma in re eadem. Some of the other editors would follow this solution, while others attempt to identify some possibly distorted words, such as synagoga, romana, scena; all of those attempts have been mentioned in one of the recent critical editions of this source.679 Bracke retains in cena, following the interpretation that it could refer to the Jewish Friday supper known as coena pura,680 and renders the passage as Ceci s’est encore produit de la même façon le vendredi.681 It would signify that the incidents of throwing the mysterious oblata into the river by the Jews were not only frequent but also happening on Friday, at the time of the evening Sabbath supper. Another interpretation links the event(s) to the Jewish Passover supper.682 I cannot see why they would have engaged in such activities on Fridays, at the time of Sabbath preparations, and especially on such a solemn occasion as the Passover. They could not have possibly chosen a less opportune moment. Likewise, I would not agree with “Eucharistic” interpretations of the term cena for the above-mentioned reasons. On the contrary, construing the term as an adverbial of time seems to correspond with all the circumstances. If this hypothesis (or, strictly speaking, guesswork) is plausible, the proverbial “last straw” would have been the day when the trouble occurred, Maundy

677 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana: Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio primum edita, R. Cessi (ed.), CXXIII; L’Anonymus Valesianus II, W. Bracke (ed.), 38. 678 Cf. G. Cappelletti, 1866, 39–41. 679 Cf. L’Anonymus Valesianus II, 40, W. Bracke (ed.). 680 Cf., e.g., Tertullianus, Ad nationes 13, PL 1, 579. 681 Cf. L’Anonymus Valesianus II, 37, W. Bracke (ed.). 682 Cf. A. Somekh, 1995, 143.

156

Thursday.683 This holiday was often referred to as coena or cena. For instance, according to the canons of the synod of Meaux (17 June 845): “No one should dare to make the holy chrism, except on the fifth day of the Holy Week, that is, at the Supper which, for greater emphasis, is known as the Lord’s Supper.”684

This is, of course, a late source, but the confirmation can be found in Isidore of Seville (560–635), i.e., in the time almost contemporary with the events under consideration. He used the word coena to refer to the entire day of Maundy Thursday, not to any specific meal-time: “It is said Lord’s Supper, because on that day the Saviour celebrated the Passover with his disciples, which, according to tradition, is still celebrated today; on the same day, the holy chrism is made, as well as the advent of the New Covenant, and the departure of the Old, is announced.”685

Therefore, it is apparently justified to conjecture, at least from this particular point of view, that some transgressions, somehow tolerated throughout the year, would have been so vexing to the population on a holiday such as Maundy Thursday that they went out and set the synagogues on fire. Nevertheless, at Eutharic’s instigation or not, Theoderic would not consider it as a mitigating circumstance and ordered that the synagogues be rebuilt at the Catholics’ expense. To put it briefly, he applied the principle of “collective responsibility,” which was obviously not something out of the ordinary at the time. According to this interpretation, it is also easier to see why one of the manuscripts contains the variant dum laudunt, instead of dum ludunt. Wouter Bracke argues for the former option and renders the passage “while these Catholics were praising God.”686 In his commentary, the scholar discusses the possible adequacy of the variant ludunt, but he prefers the former one as it would better suit his assumption that the author of the text was unfavourable to Theoderic and even

683 A similar hypothesis can be found in B. Dumézil, 2008, 704, but, unfortunately, without any argument to support it. 684 Meaux (845), c. 46: Nemo sacrum Chrisma, nisi in quinta feria maioris septimanae, id est in Ceana, quae specialiter appellatur Dominica, conficere praesumat. 685 Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae XVIII, 16, PL 82, 251: Coena dominica dicta est, eo quod in illo die Salvator Pascha cum discipulis suis fecerit; quod hodie, sicut est traditum, celebratur, sanctamque in eo chrisma conficitur, atque initium novi, et veteris cessatio Testamenti declaratur. Cf. Isidorus Hispalensis, De ecclesiasticis officiis I, 29; PL 83, 746; Du Cange et al., “Coena.” 686 L’Anonymus Valesianus II, 37, W. Bracke (ed.): pendent que ces catholiques louaient Dieu.

157

disapproved of the king’s decision.687 In fact, this specific variant would have been suggestive of some deliberate and perfidious behaviour of those Jews, an action offensive and insulting to the religious beliefs of the others. Though possible, such an interpretation does not seem very convincing. As noted before, the author of the Excerpta Valesiana began to depict Theoderic’s conduct in critical terms from ca. 523, when the king would enter in conflict with the emperor Justin I and Pope John. In my opinion, an attempt at explaining the king’s actions could be observed in the author’s comment on courtier Trivanes and his intrigues against Christians (i.e., the Catholics). The travesty in question could not have been a grave act of sacrilege in itself, as it was not prosecuted by criminal law. In other words, they should have been prosecuted if the nature of those acts had been serious indeed. Apparently, the perpetrators must have jokingly imitated some liturgical gestures. The Excerpta Valesiana clearly say that those who felt offended would rush to avenge it, ignoring the king, consul, and bishop Peter. They may have already complained about such incidents before, but to no avail, and even the bishop seemed to pay little attention to the whole matter. Such a position of the bishop may have been due not only to making light of the aforesaid transgressions but also to the letter of the law, assuming that the incriminated “throwing” into the river had been some unpleasant action taken by a group of Jews against their compatriots. As for such conflicts, the king decreed that they should settle them within their own community. I would argue in favour of the king’s authorship of the Edict of Theoderic,688 especially in view of the following precept, which would be of particular relevance here: “The privileges conferred by the laws upon Jews shall be preserved: when disputes arise between those Jews who live in accordance with their own laws, they must have as judges those whom they consider to be teachers of their observance.”689

This law recapitulates the entire Chapter 8, Book XVI, of the Theodosian Code, with particular regard for the constitution of Arcadius and Honorius from 397, 687 Cf. L’Anonymus Valesianus II, 39, W. Bracke (ed.): Cette interprétation […] justifie l’indignation de l’auteur face aux représailles de Théodoric. 688 Cf. Ch. IX: “Religious aspects in the Edict of Theoderic.” A. Caruso makes no doubt about the attribution of the edict to Theoderic the Great; cf. A. Caruso, 1998, 76–78. 689 ET 143: Circa Iudaeos privilegia legibus delata serventur: quos inter se iurgantes, et suis viventes legibus, eos iudices habere necesse est, quos habent observantiae praeceptores (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). Cf. B. Blumenkranz, 1960, 353; H. C. Brennecke, 2000, 144–145; B. Dumézil, 2008, 700. Cf. Ch. IX: “Religious aspects in the Edict of Theoderic.”

158

where the Jewish superiors and the Christian clergy are made equal in their privileges. Let us have a look at the precept in question: “Jews shall be bound by their own ritual. Meanwhile, in preserving their privileges, We shall imitate the ancients by whose sanctions it was determined that those privileges which are conferred upon the first clerics of the venerable Christian religion shall continue, by the consent of Our Imperial Divinity, for those persons who are subject to the power of the Illustrious patriarchs, for the rules of the synagogues, the patriarchs, and the priests, and for all the rest who are occupied in the ceremonial of that religion. The foregoing, indeed, was decreed by the divine imperial authority of the sainted Emperors Constantine and Constantius, Valentinian and Valens. Such Jews shall therefore be exempt from the compulsory public services of decurions and shall obey their own laws.”690

Thus, the bishop’s call for leaving the Jews alone, even those of them who had participated in the travesty, could be explained by one of the provisions in the Edict, corresponding to Honorius’ constitution. At the same time, it would confirm the fact that the whole affair was a strictly Jewish concern, as much as it might have been upsetting to the Catholics. As it seems, Theoderic’s response was completely in accordance with the laws prescribed in the Theodosian Code, not a case of bending the law in order to show more lenience, as Tessa Canella suggests in her book.691 Another important fact in the context of Theoderic’s attitude towards the Jews was the appointment of a Jewish man named Symmachus as a senior court official, shortly before the king’s death. The Excerpta Valesiana mention this figure in connection with the Arian-Catholic conflict after Pope John’s death.692 At Theoderic’s behest, the same Symmachus was to prepare an edict that would mandate the expropriation of the Catholic church buildings in order to hand them over to the Arians. This repressive measure was intended to be carried out in retaliation for the expropriation of the Arian churches in the East at the emperor Justin’s 690 CTh XVI, 8, 13: Iudaei sint obstricti caerimoniis suis; nos interea in conservandis eorum privilegiis veteres imitemur, quorum sanctionibus definitum est, ut privilegia his, qui illustrium patriarcharum dicioni subiecti sunt, archisynagogis patriarchisque ac presbyteris ceterisque, qui in eius religionis sacramento versantur, nutu 116erseve numinis 116erseverant ea, quae venerandae christianae legis primis clericis sanctimonia deferuntur. Id enim et divi principes Constantinus et Constantius, Valentinianus et Valens divino arbitrio decreverunt. Sint igitur etiam a curialibus muneribus alieni pareantque legibus suis (trans. C. Pharr). 691 T. Canella, 2004, 297: Teoderico arriva addirittura ad ignorare alcune norme restrittive del Codice Teodosiano, stabilendo una consapevole inversione di tendenza che doveva essere percepita come tale anche dai contemporanei. 692 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 16.94.

159

orders.693 As noted before, Theoderic would have supposedly attached greater importance to the “ethnic” aspect of the conflict, considering the fact that the contemporary Arians were overwhelmingly Gothic. It is also surmised that the king had chosen the Jewish-born official Symmachus for the execution of this action on account of the fact that Cassiodorus, whose duties included preparing such documents, would not wish to have anything to do with it.694 At the same time, it may be worth noting that Theoderic died several days after the law in question had been issued, and his death would have been not necessarily sudden and unexpected, despite the Excerpta Valesiana’s mention of the king having suffered from a severe stomach disorder for three days.695 Obviously, if any monarch died suddenly of a stomach ailment, and his recent conduct was rather controversial or objectionable, it would give rise to much questioning and speculation, including allegations of someone’s criminal intent. Still, to date, there has been no proof in support of such hypotheses. Cassiodorus, a gifted politician, could already begin to make preparations for an imminent succession, or even possibly to venture into negotiations over affairs of the state with Amalasuntha, Theoderic’s daughter, who was to rule on behalf of her young son, Athalaric. The first document signed by the juvenile king, at the beginning of Book VIII of Cassiodorus’ compilation, is a very courteous, even obsequious, letter to Justin.696 Cassiodorus was clearly very determined to preserve his position at the court and later on, following his experience of Boethius’ trial (where B. was sentenced to death on the apparently false charges), he had to make much effort to stay alive.697 He knew he had to take precautions and try to ensure the peaceful relations between the Romans (Catholics) and Goths (Arians); it is therefore possible that he not only wished to avoid becoming involved in the controversy over the church buildings but also made sure that none of the prominent Goths would take part in the conflict. On such assumptions, the decision to

693 Cf. Ch. VII: “LP 55 on John I.” 694 Cf. B. Blumenkranz, 1963, 62, n. 6; see also B. Dumézil, 2008, 701 for his hypothesis that the king entrusted Symmachus with a function that comprised legislative efforts, which seems to be a rather far-reaching conclusion. 695 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 16.94–95. The law was issued on Wednesday, seven days before the September Calendae, i.e., on 26 August, whereas the king died on the day when he rejoiced over the seizure of the churches; hence the supposition that it may have taken place on Sunday, 30 August. 696 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae VIII, 1. 697 For a discussion concerning this subject, see M. Vitiello, 2008, 461–484; W. Bark, 1944, 410–426.

160

entrust Symmachus with the task of preparing the anti-Catholic law was not so much a sign of the king’s confidence in him as the outcome of the political manoeuvring undertaken by Cassiodorus, or perhaps even by Amalasuntha, with the aim of orchestrating an urgent reconciliation between the court at Ravenna and the emperor. It also seems of significance that there is no information on Symmachus save for the mention in the Excerpta Valesiana: he was a scholasticus Iudaeus entrusted with drawing up the aforesaid edict. In other words, he would not seem to have been an outstanding figure. Bruno Luiselli links Symmachus’ assignment to carry out the seizure of the Catholic churches with an episode from the life of Caesarius of Arles, when the Goths and Jews stood up against the latter during the siege of the city by the Frankish and Burgundian forces.698 In his opinion, the situation in Italy may have resembled that conflict.699 However, the Life of Caesarius does not seem to imply that the Jews and Goths joined forces in a concerted action against the Catholics; the only thing that could be inferred from the text was that the two groups were in opposition to Caesarius. Secondly, Luiselli is apparently mistaken as to the nature of the Arian faith of the Goths700 in his opinion that they rejected the divinity of Christ just as the Jews did.701 They earned this label on account of their adoption of the Constantinopolitan credo of 360, not the Nicene creed of 325. In fact, however, the former creed did not deny the divinity of Christ, refraining only from discussing God’s substance and the notion of consubstantiality. The religious legislation held them as schismatics, not heretics espousing unacceptable Trinitarian teachings. It is clearly evident in the synodal provisions that sanctioned the baptism of the Arians (and, in consequence, their faith), but would not extend the same treatment to the Eunomians, who had indeed questioned the divinity of Christ.702 For this reason, I would rather say that there was no joint anti-Catholic action of Jews and Arians, and it was all just a coincidence. The Jews were just as unlikely to have

698 Cf. Vita Caesarii I, 29–31; MGH SRMer. III, 467–468. 699 Cf. B. Luiselli, 1995, 311. 700 Cf. Ch. I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.” 701 B. Luiselli, 1995, 311: Non è difficile capire come la comune fede nella natura non divina di Cristo possa essere stata punto di coagulo di tali intese giudaico-gotiche. Cf. B. Dumézil, 2008, 701, where the author rightly notes that no sources attest to the Jewish-Arian alliance against the Catholics, as it was suggested by Levi (cf. I. Levi, 1895, 294–298), whose hypothesis would be sometimes cited by some commentators. 702 Cf. Constantinopolis (381), c. 7 = a fragment of the letter of Gennadius of Constantinople (458–471), DSP 1, 92–95.

161

aligned with the Arians as with the Catholics, and they would have made a distinction between the two only on “ethnic” grounds. It is not entirely clear what the author of the EV refers to in the first sentence of paragraph 81, which deals with Theoderic’s presence at Verona: “After this, while Theoderic was remaining at Verona through fear of the neighbouring peoples …”703

What could Theoderic have been afraid of? He maintained good relations with the emperor, the Senate was on his side, and his son-in-law held the consulship … But if there had been any cause for alarm, the city of Verona seemed the right place where he could stay. After Ravenna, it was his second favourite and, so to say, well-subsidized city. The king erected a palace, new baths, a municipal aqueduct, and reinforced the city walls.704 Alongside Pavia, the two cities seemed to form the main line of defence in the north of Italy.705 Attributing the overall construction of those fortifications to Theoderic would be apparently something of an overstatement, but the repair and strengthening of the defences can be credited to the king.706 Commentators offer different explanations for the precautionary measures taken by Theoderic. Wouter Bracke argues that whoever those foreign invaders might have been, the king could have considered the necessary expenses entailed by possible military operations. After all, when monarchs need more money, they tend to be more gracious and accommodating to those who have it. As a result, Theoderic was willing to answer the grievances of the Jews.707 It is certainly true that the relations with the Jews were, perhaps even to a considerable extent, determined by the social and economic aspects of their activity, especially as regards trade.708 Nonetheless, it is very puzzling that the author of the Excerpta Valesiana would have been the only chronicler to have recorded the fact that 703 Excerpta Valesiana 14.81: Post haec Theoderico Verona consistente propter metum gentium facta est lis. 704 Excerpta Valesiana 12.71: Item Veronae thermas et palatium fecit et a porta usque ad palatium porticum addidit. Aquaeductum, quod per multa tempora destructum fuerat, renovavit et aquam intromisit. Muros alios novos circuit civitatem. Item palatium, thermas, amphitheatrum, et alios muros civitatis fecit. Cf. G. De Francovich, 1970; L. Gatto, 1992–93, 323–324. 705 Cf. A. A. Settia, 1993, 130. 706 Cf. C. La Rocca, 1993, 455–456. 707 Cf. L’Anonymus Valesianus II, W. Bracke (ed.), 43. 708 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae VI, 7, 7–8; L. Cracco Ruggini, 1959, 186–308; L. Cracco Ruggini, 1980, 13–101.

162

Theoderic had to seek refuge within the walls of Verona, whereas there is no trace of any threat or danger in other contemporary sources. Emissaries would travel unhindered to and from Constantinople, as it was on the occasion of negotiations on Eutharic’s consulship. In the East, the problem of Vitalian’s revolt was resolved and the emperor Justin would even appoint him magister militium later that year. In the following year, the emperor elevated him to consulship, but Vitalian was assassinated before the year’s end, apparently at Justin’s behest.709 Perhaps, considering the circumstances, the passage should be understood to mean that it was not Theoderic who could have been propter metum at Verona, but that propter metum gentium facta est lis inter christianos et iudaeos Ravennates.710 In the document under discussion, the term gens is used in its neutral sense. For instance, according to the Excerpta Valesiana 12.60, Theoderic gubernavit duas gentes in uno, Romanorum et Gotorum, which means that the word would not have to be interpreted as referring to some pagans or foreign intruders. The Christians mentioned therein are clearly Catholic (i.e., Romans), as they are contrasted with the “heretics” and, unlike Arians, ordered to cover the costs of rebuilding the destroyed synagogue (cf. 14.82). A possible rendering of the fragment in question could read as follows: “The outrage among the population led to a conflict between the Catholics and Jews of Ravenna.”711 The word metus, in the sense denoting outrage, abhorrence, or disgust, is well attested in literary sources and dictionaries.712 The whole account could then be construed to signify that the travesty perpetrated by that group of Jews were inappropriate to the point of being outrageous and intolerable. In effect, some Catholics, disgusted at that provocative behaviour, rose up in protest and set fire to the synagogue, heedless of the royal laws or exhortations of their bishop. It would also seem that the author of the account disapproved of the fact that the Goths had not joined the protest. All the Christians must have been outraged at the incident, but the Arians preferred to stay away from the conflict. In consequence, it would turn out that the Catholics had to bear the sole responsibility for the riots.

709 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 519 and 520, MGH AA XI, 100. As Theophanes reports, those two appointments took place in 519; cf. Theophanes, Chronographia AM 6011. According to VICTOR TUNNUNENSIS, Chronica, A.D. 523, MGH AA XI, 197, Vitalian was assassinated by Justinian’s supporters in 523. 710 Excerpta Valesiana 14.81. 711 Excerpta Valesiana 14.81. 712 Cf. M. Plezia, 1969, 491.

163

Chapter VII Liber Pontificalis 55 on John I (13 VIII 523–18 V 526)713 “1. John born in Tuscia, son of Constantius, held the see 2 years 9 months 15 days. He was bishop from the consulship of Maximus to the consulship of Olybrius. He was summoned by king Theoderic to Ravenna and the king commissioned him and sent him on an embassy to Constantinople to Justin the emperor. For Justin was a devout man and in his great love for the Christian religion he tried to root out heretics. With great fervor he dedicated the churches of the Arians to the catholic faith.”714

The texts of the Epitome F and K (first recension) serve the purpose of our discussion, as they are not very much different from the version P. As I have noted in the chapter on Theoderic’s Arian faith, the author of the Excerpta Valesiana depicts the king’s intentions differently: the point was to make sure that the Arians converted to Catholicism could return freely to their original faith, rather than to concentrate on the seizure of the church buildings: “Then the king, on his return to Ravenna, acted no longer as a friend of God, but as an enemy to His law; forgetful of all His kindness and of the favour which He had shown him, trusting to his own arm, believing, too, that the emperor Justinus stood in great fear of him, he sent and summoned to Ravenna Johannes, who at that time sat upon the apostolic throne, and said to him: “Go to the emperor Justinus in Constantinople, and tell him among other things to restore those who have become reconciled and joined the Catholic Church.”715

713 Cf. Jaffé 871–873. 714 LP 55, 1: Iohannes, natione Tuscus, ex patre Constantio, sedit ann. II mens. VIIII dies XV, a consulatu Maximi usque ad consulatum Olibrii. Hic vocatus a rege Theodorico Rauenna; quem rex rogans misit in legationem Constantinopolim ad Iustino Aug. vir religiosus, qui summo amore religionis christianae voluit hereticos extricare. Nam summo fervore ecclesias Arrianorum in catholica dedicavit (trans. R. Davis). 715 Excerpta Valesiana 15.88–89: Item credens quod eum pertimesceret Iustinus imperator, mittens et evocans Ravennam Iohannem, sedis apostolicae praesulem, et dicit ad eum: “Ambula Constantinopolim ad iustinum imperatorem ed dic ei inter alia ut reconciliatos in catholica restituat religione”. [89] Cui papa Iohannes ita respondit: “Quod facturus es, rex, fac citius: ecce in conspectu tuo adsto: hoc tibi ego non promitto me facturum, nec illi dicturus sum. Nam in aliis causis, quibus mihi iniunxeris obtinere ab eodem, annuente Deo, potero” (trans. J. C. Rolfe).

165

Why should the emperor Justin have been apprehensive of Theoderic? There are very few explanations relating to this specific hypothesis. Gianluca Pilara argues that following the death sentence on Boethius, Cassiodorus succeeded in persuading the king to undertake some conciliatory gestures towards the emperor aimed to supplant the repressive measures with some compromise as regards the emperor’s anti-Arian position. It was precisely the reason the most eminent of all the possible emissaries, i.e., the Bishop of Rome, would have been sent on his mission to Constantinople.716 However, it would be difficult to say if Cassiodorus could have been able to convince Theoderic that the emperor was afraid of him and certainly willing to make concessions. Persecutions of Arians in the East could be also ascertained on the grounds of some other clues concerning the years 523–525. Paul the Deacon’s account is almost the same as that of the Liber Pontificalis.717 Compared with those clues and indications, our text is still the most reliable source.718 In my opinion, the statement ut reconciliatos in catholica restituat religione could be understood as referring to the Arian Goths, who were, so to speak, captured or seized along with their churches by the Niceno-Chalcedonian Christians.719 The word reconciliatos could be understood as denoting the Arian faithful converted to Catholicism under pressure as well as to the seized church buildings. The Excerpta Valesiana clearly refer to the people, not the buildings,720 while the Liber Pontificalis certainly speaks of the basilica churches.721 Bruno Dumézil asserts that the author of the Excerpta may have intended to convey a “secure” account of the events that avoided referring to the forced conversions ordered by the emperor, so that the pope venerated as a martyr would not be associated with such a contentious undertaking.722 It appears that Theoderic would tend to make a distinction between Goths and Romans rather than Arians and Catholics. In his view, religio stands for his religion and that of his people, not the Catholic faith in the modern sense of this term, as some authors have apparently suggested in their translations of this fragment. Considering the other religious denominations as heretical was a common practice, and Theoderic 716 Cf. G. Pilara, 2005, 452. 717 Cf. Paulus Diaconus, HR XVI, 8. 718 Cf. L’Anonymus Valesianus II, 63–64, W. Bracke (ed.). 719 For Arianism as the “national church” of the Goths, cf. Ch. I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.” 720 Excerpta Valesiana 15.91: Qui se fidei catholicae dederunt, Arrianis restitui nullatenus posse. 721 Cf. LP 55. 722 Cf. B. Dumézil, 2008, 710–711.

166

could have relied on a precedent set forth in Wulfila’s testament (discussed in the chapter on the Arian Church of the Goths),723 where the Gothic faith is recognized as orthodox, while the homoiousian and homoousian creeds are deemed heretical. I do not think that Theoderic’s words ut reconciliatos in catholica restituat religione should be construed as referring to his Arian faith.724 As it seems, the most important reason was his awareness of the “non-Catholic” character of the Gothic faith, of its separate and distinct nature, which would elevate it to the rank of a “national” faith. I have already taken note of the king’s reluctance to converting the Catholics to Arianism. Evidently, he was rather preoccupied to approach his faith as a sort of exclusive domain and would show no inclinations to turn it into a commonly accepted religion. Secondly, there is nothing to make us treat religione as the ablative form in agreement with in catholica. It could be understood as the dative and rendered literally as “[those] converted to Catholicism (abl.) [to be] restored to the religion (dat.). It would be further confirmed in the following sentences of the Excerpta Valesiana, where the same words are used. Let us quote it again: ut reconciliatos in catholica restituat religione;725 Qui se fidei catholicae dederunt, Arrianis restitui nullatenus posse.726 Reconciliatos corresponds with se dederunt, while restituat religione with Arrianis restitui, where both religio and Ariani are in the dative. Theoderic refers to the possibility of a return to the original faith by those Arians who had been forcibly converted to Catholicism, which is something that the pope would not pledge to ensure. It is worth noting that Gregory of Tours mentions the restitution of the churches. Nonetheless, he ascribes such intentions to the pope, not to the emperor. The initiative in question had reportedly angered Theoderic so much that he would send gladiators to attack and kill Catholics on the roads of Italy. When John appeared at the king’s court to voice his protest, he was arrested and imprisoned. According to the same account, he died in prison.727 Apparently, the narrative of

723 724 725 726 727

Cf. Ch. I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.” Cf. B. Dumézil, 2008, 711. Excerpta Valesiana 15.88. Excerpta Valesiana 15.91. Gregorius Turonensis, Libri miraculum 40 (PL 71, 741): Multi quidem sunt martyres apud urbem Romam, quorum historiae passionum nobis integrae non sunt delatae. De Ioanne tamen episcopo, quoniam agon eius ad nos usque non accessit scriptus, quae a fidelibus comperi, tacere nequivi. Hic cum ad episcopatum venisset, summo studio haereticos exsecrans, ecclesias eorum in catholicas dedicavit. Quod cum Theodericus rex comperisset, furore succensus, quia esset sectae Arianae deditus, iussit gladiatores per Italiam dirigi, qui universum quotquot invenisset catholicum populum iugularent.

167

the Liber Pontificalis 55,2 corresponds with the aforementioned account, but the paragraph would not seem to tally with 55,1. “2. Therefore Theoderic, the Arian, was angered and threatened to put all Italy to the sword. Then John, the venerable pope, set forth and journeyed with weeping and lamentation and certain devout men, exconsuls and patricians, went with him. Theodorus, Inportunus, Agapitus and another Agapitus. And they took this for the message of their message as ambassadors, that the churches should be returned to the heretics in the dominions of the East and that otherwise would put all Italy to the sword.”728

The other members of the delegation were Ecclesius of  Ravenna, Eusebius of  Fanum, Sabinus of Campania, some other two bishops, and two senators named Agapitus.729 Ecclesius became bishop with Theoderic’s support in 522; after the king’s death in 526, he received from Pope Felix IV the document that guaranteed a quarter of the revenue for the clergy, prohibited seeking protection for the purpose of obtaining benefices or higher offices, affirmed the bishop’s prerogatives to interfere in the affairs of monastic communities, and imposed restrictions on transferring the church property to laymen.730 Eusebius’ bishopric, Fanum (present-day Fano in Marche, Italy) was destroyed by the Goths in 538. There is no further information on Eusebius and  Sabinus. The secular members of the delegation were eminent figures. Theodore, the consul in 505, accompanied his brother Inportunus, consul in 509 (their father, Caecina Decius

Haec audiens beatus Ioannes, ad regem ne haec fierent deprecaturus accessit. A quo cum dolo susceptus alligavit eum, et posuit in carcerem, dicens: Ego te faciam, ne audeas contra sectam nostram amplius mussitare. Positus vero sanctus Dei in carcere, tantis attritus est iniuriis, ut non post multum tempus spiritum exhalaret; obiitque in carcere cum gloria apud urbem Ravennam. Domini autem misericordia statim ultionem super regem improbum irrogavit; nam subito a Deo percussus, plagis magnis exinanitus interiit, suscepitque protinus perpetuum gehennae flammantis incendium. For the relations between Theoderic and Pope John, in particular the questions of identifying the king’s anger with God’s wrath and falling out of grace, cf. H. Löwe, 1953, 83–100; W. Ensslin, 1951, 127–134. 728 LP 55, 2: Exinde iratus Theodoricus Arrianus voluit totam Italiam gladio perdere. Tunc Iohannes venerabilis papa, egressus cum fletu et mugitu ambulavit et viri religiosi et consules et patricii Theodorus, Inportunus, Agapitus et alius Agapitus hoc accipientes in mandatum legationis ut redderentur ecclesias hereticis in parte Greciarum: quod si non fuerit factum, omnem Italiam gladio perderet (trans. L. R. Loomis). 729 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 15.90; E. Stein, 1949, 258–261; J. Moorhead, 1984a, 112–114. 730 Cf. Agnellus, Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis 60, MGH SRLong 319; Jaffé 877.

168

Maximus Basilius iunior, held the consulship for the year 480).731 Flavius Agapitus served as praefectus urbi in the years 507–509, held the consulship in 517, and acted as the king’s emissary to Constantinople as early as ca. 510. Theoderic commended him for his prudence and wisdom in the letter dispatched on that occasion.732 As for the other man named Agapitus, we know nothing save for the fact that he was a patrician.733 The Liber Pontificalis consistently refers to the restitution of the churches as Theoderic’s demand, while the author of the Excerpta Valesiana is just as consistent in saying that the emperor had promised to grant all the requests submitted by the king’s envoys “except that those who had become reconciled and returned to the Catholic faith could by no means be restored to the Arians.”734 At 55,3, the author of the LP describes a solemn reception of the delegation by the emperor,735 whereas the details that can be found at 55,4 (the paragraph is included in the version P only) are fairly enigmatic, but of relevance to our discussion: “4. Then pope and senators implored the emperor with much weeping that their embassy might be acceptable in his sight. Pope John and those devout senators deserved their complete success, and Italy was delivered from the heretic king Theodoric. Justin was filled with joy because he had deserved as emperor to see the vicar of St Peter the apostle in his own realm; and at his hands the emperor Justin was gloriously crowned.”736

731 Cf. J. Sundwall, 1975, 129. 732 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae II, 6; J. Sundwall, 1975, 84–85. 733 Cf. J. Sundwall, 1975, 86. 734 Excerpta Valesiana 15.91: omnia repromisit facturum praeter reconciliatos, qui se fidei catholicae dederunt, Arrianis restitui nullatenus posse. Cf. Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6016. Anastasius Bibliothecarius explains that Theoderic wished to ensure that the Arians would not be forced to change their religion (PG 108, 1253). 735 Cf. Beda Venerabilis, Chronica maior, no. 510, MGH AA XI, 306, who states that the delegation was solemnly received in front of the Golden Gate. 736 [LP 55, 4: Eodem tempore beatus Iohannes papa cum senatores supra scriptos cum grandem fletum rogaverunt Iustinum Augustum ut legatio acceptabilis esset in conspectu eius. Qui vero papa Iohannes vel senatores viri religiosi omnia meruerunt et liberata est Italia a rege Theodorico heretico. Iustinus imperator tamen gaudio repletus est quia meruit temporibus suis vicarium beati Petri apostoli videre in regno suo, de cuius manibus cum gloria coronatus est Iustinus Augustus] (trans. R. Davis).

169

The pope arrived at Constantinople just before Easter, in 526.737 What exactly was the thing that the emissaries asked for so plaintively? Could it be that the pope would have changed his mind and asked [the emperor] to allow the Goths to retain their Arian faith for the sake of preserving peace in Italy? What was their achievement? What does it mean that Italy had become free from the heretical king? Was it the king’s resignation of the reprisals? Considering the fact that Theoderic died after John, he would have still managed to inflict some hardship on the pope, as we shall see further on. It is rather open to dispute if the aforementioned lenience shown to the members of the delegation could have been the fact that the emperor had reportedly condemned the superior of the palace eunuchs, a man named Amantius, for having said something inappropriate about John.738 The chronologies of the events as reported in the Excerpta Valesiana and the Liber Pontificalis begin to diverge at this point, just as the recensions of the Liber Pontificalis do, as LP 55,5 is longer in the Epitome F than in the final text of the P. To be clear, the text of the F is somewhat repetitive at several places and not very “neat.” Still, it may be worth having a closer look at the Epitome F as well as at the version P. “5. Likewise the emperor granted all the request of the noble senators, exconsuls and patricians of the city of Rome, Flavius Theodorus, who excelled the other dignitaries in splendour and distinction, the illustrious Inportunus, also an exconsul, the illustrious Agapitus, and the other Agapitus, the patrician, and to save the blood of the Romans he returned the churches to the heretics. But while this was taking place in the dominion of the East, in accordance with the will of king Theoderic, the heretic, many priests and Christians were being put to the sword. Even while king Theoderic kept the blessed bishop John and the other illustrious men sojourning in Constantinople he slew two senators, exconsuls and patricians, Boethius and Symmachus, with the sword and commanded that their bodies should be concealed.”739

737 Cf. Marcellinus Comes, Chronicon, A.D. 525. For an error in the year of this visit, cf. P. Goubert, 1956, 346–359. 738 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, Historia arcana 6. 739 LP 55, 5 (Epitome F): Cui vero simul et senatoribus tantis et talibus exconsulibus et patriciis civitatis urbis Romae, Flavium Theodorum viris inlustribus praecedentem omnium dignitatum splendorem, sed et Inportunum viro in ex consulibus et Agapito viro inlust. ex consulibus et alio Agapito patricio, omnem concessit petitionem propter sanguinem Romanorum reddidit hereticis ecclesias et dum actum fuisset in partes Greciarum secundum voluntatem Theodorici regis heretici, maxime sacerdotes vel christiani ad gladio mitterentur, illud vero beatissimo Iohanne episcopo, sed et viros inlustris positos Constantinopoli rex Theodoricus tenuit, duos senatores ex consulibus

170

Likewise, the Epitome K repeats the information that “to save the blood of the Romans he returned the churches of the heretics to them,”740 whereas it is absent in the version P: “5. Meanwhile, when the above mentioned men namely pope John and the senators Theodore, Inportunus and Agapitus the exconsuls and Agapitus the patrician (who died at Thessalonica) – when they were still at Constantinople, the heretic king Theodoric arrested two distinguished senators and exconsuls, Symmachus and Boethius, and slew them with the sword.”741

The differences in the accounts are considerable and quite significant from the perspective of Theoderic’s religious policy. It could be assumed that the king’s appeal delivered to Constantinople by the delegation led by the pope concerned the two issues: restitution of the church buildings and restoration of the “souls,” i.e., a return of the Arian faithful “converted” to Catholicism. The quotation marks could be understood as pertaining to those Arians who became part of the Catholic Church after being taken over along with the church buildings. Perhaps, they would have been required to make some formal statements to that effect. Importantly, Theoderic was concerned not so much with the recovery of the buildings themselves as with the restoration of their previous function, namely the reinstatement of the Arian communities, with their own clergy and their own places of worship. The essential point was not only the religious creed itself but also their “national” identity, as there were very likely no Arians except for the Goths.742 It would be also worth recalling that Theoderic had not been very enthusiastic about conversions. In a note under the year 499, Theodore Anagnostes reports that the king condemned a certain deacon to death, because the man had converted to Arianism in an attempt to gain favour with the ruler. In Theoderic’s

et patricios gladio interfecit Boetium et Symmachum, quorum etiam corpora abscondi praecepit (trans. L. R. Loomis). 740 LP 55, 5 (Epitome K): Concessit petitiones propter sanguinem Romanorum reddidit hereticis ecclesias suas (trans. L. R. Loomis). 741 [LP 55, 5: Eodem tempore cum hii suprascripti, id est papa Iohannes cum senatores, Theodorum excons., Inportunum excons., Agapitum ex cons. et Agapitum patricium defuncto Thessalonica et supra scriptos positos Constantinopolim, Theodoricus rex hereticus tenuit duos senatores praeclaros et exconsules, Symmachum et Boetium, et occidit interficiens gladio] (trans. R. Davis). According to the Excerpta Valesiana (15.87), Boethius was not decapitated; he was put to death by means of a chain tightened around his head. 742 Cf. B. Luiselli, 1995, 307. Cf. Ch. I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.”

171

words, you could not trust the loyalty of someone who was not loyal to God.743 Likewise, Procopius of Caesarea recounts that the Goths would not readily endorse Catholicism-to-Arianism conversions and vice versa.744 As can be seen, the authors of the Liber Pontificalis link the deaths of Boethius and Symmachus with the anti-Catholic turn in Theoderic’s policy. Scholars offer varying opinions on the possible existence of such a connection.745 It would follow from the both Epitome versions that the king’s demands regarding the restitution of the church buildings were satisfied. In turn, the narrative in the Excerpta Valesiana intimates that his demand of restoring the “souls” was declined. Indeed, should it have been the case, it would be easier to understand the next paragraph of the LP as well as the further actions of Theoderic, as described in the Excerpta Valesiana. The king was not content with the results. Let us quote the relevant passage from the epitomes of the first edition: “6. Then when everything had been accomplished in due order746 and Agapitus, the patrician, was dead in Greece, the aforesaid illustrious men with John, the bishop, returned and were received by king Theoderic [the heretic]. In great hatred he received John, the bishop, and the illustrious and devout senators and in the heaviness of his wrath he would have punished them with the sword but he feared the indignation of Justin Augustus, the orthodox, and did it not. However, he confined them all cruelly in prison, so that the blessed pope John, worn by illness, gave up the ghost and died in prison. He died at Ravenna gloriously, May 18, in the prison of king Theoderic. On the 98th day after bishop John had died in prison, by the will of omnipotent God, king Theoderic [the heretic (P)] suddenly was struck down by divine power [by a thunderbolt (K)] and perished.”747

743 Cf. Theodoros Anagnostes, Excerpta II, 18, 193; PG 86, 1, 193; cf. Theophanes, Chronigraphia AM 5991. Cf. A. Garzya, 1995, 344. 744 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Gothico II, 6. Cf. Ch. I: “The Arian Church of the Goths.” 745 Cf., e.g., M. Natali, 2008, 45; J. Moorhead, 1983, 107–116; J. Moorhead, 1984a, 107–115; M. Vitiello, 2008, 461–484. 746 In the version P, the passage reads as follows: “returned with the glory, having obtained all their requests of Justin Augustus.” 747 LP 55, 6: Venientes vero hii supra dicti viri cum Iohanne episcopo omnia per ordinem acta Agapito patricio defuncto in Grecias suscepti sunt a rege Theoderico cum dolo et grande odio Iohannes episcopus etiam et senatores viros religiosos suscepit, quos itaque cum tanta indignatione suscipiens gladio eos voluit punire, sed metuens indignatione Iustini Augusti orthodoxi non fecit tamen in custodia omnes cremavit, ita ut beatus Iohannes papa in custodia adflictione maceratus deficiens moreretur. Qui vero defunctus est Ravenna cum gloria XV kal. Iun. in custodia regis Theoderici. Post hoc nutu

172

If the Epitome F and K are indeed earlier than the version P of the Liber Pontificalis, the enhanced “hagiographical” portrayal of Pope John becomes evident. There is nothing to hint at his possible role in making concessions to the heretics and, in view of this particular account, he died like a martyr. According to the Excerpta Valesiana,748 Theoderic received the returning emissaries rather coldly and told John that “he was out of favour with him.” The source reports that the pope died several days later, but there is no mention of any imprisonment or maltreatment. In the final part of his work, the author does not hide his disenchantment with Theoderic, referring to his rule as tyranny. He would castigate the king for many things, including his alleged illiteracy (and being unable to master the four letters necessary for signing the official documents).749 Let us take note of the author’s use of the topos featuring the emperor Justin (cf. Ch. VI), as drawn from Procopius of Caesarea.750 Should he have known anything about Theoderic’s brutal treatment of John, he would not have hesitated to mention it in his work, possibly even exaggerating it for a greater effect. What he does mention, however, is that when the body of John was being carried beyond the walls of the city, a man suffering from epilepsy was healed, while the people (the populace as well as the senators) rushed to tear the pope’s garments into pieces, treating them as relics. Nonetheless, the author does not call the pope a martyr.751 So much attention on this public ceremony, with the pall-bearers carrying the body solemnly in close proximity of Theoderic’s palace, seem to cast some doubt on the king’s allegedly cruel and hostile treatment of Pope John. Perhaps, there is some exaggeration in the Liber Pontificalis’ account of the imprisonment ordered by Theoderic. Another argument for Theoderic’s anti-Catholic turn is the fact that the Vandal king Hildericus recalled the African bishops from exile, beginning to restore the churches in Africa after 74 years of heretical dominance that would have probably started in 429.752

Dei omnipotentis, XCVIII die postquam defunctus est Iohannes episcopus in custodia, subito Theodoricus rex (trans. L. R. Loomis). 748 Excerpta Valesiana 15.93: in offensa sua eum esse iubet. 749 Cf. Excerpta Valesiana 14.79. 750 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, Historia arcana 6. 751 Excerpta Valesiana 15.93: Ergo euntes populi ante corpusculum eius, subito unus de turba, adeptus daemonio, cecidit et dum pervenisset cum lectulo, ubi latus erat, usque ad hominem, subito sanus surrexit et praecedebat in exequias: quod videntes populi et senatores coeperunt reliquias de veste eius tollere. Sic cum summo gaudio populi deductus est corpus eius foris civitatem. 752 Cf. Beda Venerabilis, Chronica maior, nr 513, MGH AA XI, 307.

173

Moreover, the Excerpta Valesiana make a mention of Theoderic’s final move in this field, when he decided to pay the Catholics back in their own coin: “Then Symmachus, an advocate and a Jew, at the order of a tyrant rather than a king, announced on an appointed day, which was a Wednesday, the 26th of August, in the fourth indiction, under the consulship of Olybrius, that on the following Sabbath the Arians would take possession of the Catholic churches. But He who does not allow his faithful worshippers to be oppressed by unbelievers soon brought upon Theoderic the same punishment that Arius, the founder of his religion, had suffered; for the king was seized with a diarrhoea, and after three days of open bowels lost both his throne and his life on the very same day on which he rejoiced to attack the churches.”753

Disappointed with the emperor’s judgement that sanctioned the restitution of the buildings but would not permit the people to return to their Arian faith, Theoderic decided to show his side of the issue. It could be said he had ordered a retaliatory action. The author of the Excerpta Valesiana makes a clear allusion to the circumstances of Arius’ death from a sudden bout of stomach disorder on the day of his ceremonious entry to the cathedral church of Constantinople on the emperor Constantine’s orders.754 Picotti does not give credence to the above-mentioned decision, considering the fact that Theoderic had the pope held in captivity.755 This argument cannot be taken at face value, however, since such an order might as well have been issued after John’s death. In turn, Antonio Caruso conjectures that the seizure of the Arian churches in the East was a provocation initiated by Justinian, who was intent on making Theoderic embark on some precarious course of action, thus obtaining a pretext for launching an invasion with the aim of restoring the power of the former Roman Empire under his rule.756 It is not impossible in view of Justinian’s great political ambitions and his influence on the emperor Justin.

753 Excerpta Valesiana 16.94–95: Igitur Symmachus scholasticus Iudaeus, iubente non rege sed tyranno, dictavit praecepta di quarta feria, septimo kalend. septembr., indictione quarta, Olybrio consule, ut die dominico adveniente Arriani basilicas catholicas invaderent. [95] Sed qui non patitur fideles cultores suos ab alienigenis opprimi, mox intulit in eum sententiam Arrii auctoris religionis eius: fluxum ventris incurrit et dum intra triduum evacuatus fuisset, eodem die, quo se gaudebat ecclesias invadere, simul regnum et animam amisit (trans. J. C. Rolfe). 754 Cf. Theoderetus, HE I, 14; Socrates Scholasticus, HE I, 38. 755 Cf. G. B. Picotti, 1956, 225. 756 Cf. A. Caruso, 1998, 124–125.

174

Chapter VIII Liber Pontificalis 56 on Felix IV (12 VII 526–22 IX 530) “Felix, born by Samnium, son of Castorius, held the see 4 years 2 months 13 days. He was bishop in the time of king Theoderic and of the emperor Justin from 12 July in the consulship of Maburtius to 12 October in that of Lampadius and Orestes.”757

This short note contains an error in the year of Felix’s election. The source reports that Pope John died at Ravenna on 18 May and that the sedes would be vacans for as long as 58 days. As a result, it is calculated that Felix was elected on 12 July, but in 526, whereas in actual fact Maburtius would hold his consulship one year later. Towards the end of the brief biographical note on the pope, the author of the Liber Pontificalis records that Felix was elected at the behest of Theoderic,758 who would die soon afterwards (30 August). King Atalaric, Theoderic’s successor, dealt with this question at some more length in one of his letters addressed to the Senate of Rome. The text of this document is well worth quoting here: “We profess that we hear with great satisfaction that you have responded to the judgment of our glorious lord and grandfather in your election of a Bishop. It was right in sooth to obey the will of a good Sovereign, who, handling the matter with wise deliberation, although it had reference to a form of faith alien from his own, thought fit to select such a Pontiff as could rightfully be displeasing to none. You may thus recognise that his one chief desire was that Religion might flourish by good priests being supplied to all the churches. You have received then a man both admirably endowed with Divine grace and approved by royal scrutiny. Let no one any longer be involved in the old contention. There is no disgrace in being conquered when the King’s power has helped the winning side. That man makes him [the successful candidate] his own, who manifests to him pure affection. For what cause for regret can there be, when you find in this man, those very qualities which you looked for in the other when you embraced his party?”759

757 LP 56 (Epitome K): Felix, natione Samnius, ex patre Castorio, sedit ann. IIII mens. II dies XIII, a consulatu Maburti usque in consulatum Lampadii et Orestis, a die IIII id. Iul. usque in diem IIII id. Oct (trans. R. Davis). 758 LP 56 (Epitome K): Qui etiam ordinatus est ex iusso Theoderici regis. 759 Cassiodorus, Variae VIII, 15: Gratissimum nostro profitemur animo, quod gloriosi domni avi nostri respondistis in episcopatus electione iudicio. Oportebat enim arbitrio boni principis oboediri, qui sapienti deliberatione pertractans, quamvis in aliena religione, talem visus est pontificem delegisse, ut nulli merito debeat displicere, ut agnoscatis illum hoc optasse praecipue, quatenus bonis sacerdotibus ecclesiarum omnium

175

Felix had already enjoyed Theoderic’s favour in the past, as evident in the light of the information present in the Liber Pontificalis. According to this source, Pope Hormisdas followed the king’s advice and sent a deacon of that name, among some other emissaries, to Constantinople.760 That man may have been the same figure who was known at the court and, as could be inferred from the letter, acting with the support of Atalaric (or rather, on the ruler’s behalf, Cassiodorus) and Amalasuntha, Atalaric’s mother. His mission at Justin’s court must have been well appraised, and maintaining friendly relations with the emperor continued to be in the king’s best interests. Picotti conjectures that Theoderic’s order was given in response to the protests surrounding the translation of Pope John’s body from Ravenna to Rome.761 The scholar does not give much credence to the period of 58 days of sede vacante. Indeed, such a lengthy time would have been highly unusual. He also takes note of the mention in the Epitome F to the effect that the sede vacante following John I’s death was only 10 days long.762 It appears then that some other candidate would have already been elected, perhaps the result of a parallel procedure, but the king deposed him from office swiftly. It is this “defeated” candidate that Atalaric referred to in his letter. In consequence, the Bishop of Rome would have been eventually elected by the Senate, in accordance with the king’s will (without the participation of the people, which is not even mentioned in the letter). As Picotti noted, electing popes by popular assembly would have been probably discontinued by then because of many previous incidents of violence and intimidation.763 Incidentally, this event marked the last case of Theoderic’s interference in the affairs of the Church. The king died shortly thereafter. The circumstances of his death remain uncertain. The above passage from the Excerpta Valesiana leaves some space for speculation and imaginary stories. Gregory the Great speaks of a certain holy hermit from the island of Liparia, who had a vision that “at nine, in between Pope John and senator Symmachus, [Theoderic] was brought in, with no belt and shoes, and

religio pullularet. Recepistis itaque virum et divina gratia probabiliter institutum et regali examinatione laudatum. Nullus adhuc pristina contentione teneatur. pudoren non habet victi, cuius votum contingit a principe superari. ille quim immo suum efficit, qui eum sub puritate dilexerit. nam quae sit causa doloris, quando hoc et in isto reperit, quod alteri in partem ductus optavit? 760 Cf. LP 54, 5. 761 G. B. Picotti, 1956, 220. 762 Cf. G. B. Picotti, 1956, 222; LP, Epitome F, MGH IV, 262. 763 G. B. Picotti, 1956, 223.

176

with his hands tied, and he was then thrown into the nearby volcano crater.”764 Theoderic’s mausoleum, a grand monument erected in his honour, served as the king’s tomb for a short time only (if ever).765 The bathtub-shaped porphyry sarcophagus, dating from the 4th century, would be placed at various locations after his death. Since 1913, it has been housed inside the upstairs chamber at Theoderic’s mausoleum.766

764 Gregorius Magnus, Dialogus IV, 30. Cf. Paulus Diaconus, HR, XVI, 10. 765 Cf. B. Schulz, 1911; W. Jänecke, 1928; S. Ferri, 1956, 57–64; R. Heidenreich, H. Johannes, 1971; G. Bovini, 1977; W. Gaddoni, 1989; G. Tabarroni, 1999, 125–134. F. Gangemi, 2008, 169–184; D. M. Deliyannis, 2010b, 365–383. 766 Cf. F. Gangemi, 2008, 184.

177

Chapter IX Religious aspects in the edict of Theoderic 1.  The Authorship of the Edict This chapter is concerned with the so-called Edict of Theoderic, thus named after the final words of the document Explicit Edictum Theoderici Regis.767 It remains as one of the most enigmatic documents from the early period of Gothic rule in Europe, especially as it is not certain which Theoderic it really refers to. It was published for the first time in Paris in  1579, by Pierre Pithou, on the basis of two, later lost, manuscripts, and it is now impossible to verify the authenticity of that edition. The publisher had no doubt as to ascribing the ET to Theoderic the Great.768 No one would have questioned this attribution until 1953, when Piero Rasi ascribed it to Theodoric II, king of the Visigoths in the years 453–466.769 Perhaps the most significant advocate of the latter innovative hypothesis in the following decades was the professor of law from Milan Giulio Vismara (d. 2005), who would take every opportunity to discuss and defend this view.770 He embraced Rasi’s hypothesis almost immediately after its publication and proceeded to elaborate on it, becoming probably the most vocal proponent of attributing the authorship of the Edict to someone other than Theoderic the Great. From the beginning, Vismara771 had based his reasoning on the premise that the well-informed sources on Theoderic’s political activity, and taking every opportunity to extol his achievements, are all silent on this particular legal document, e.g., the Variae and the Chronicle by Cassiodorus, Getica by Jordanes, the Excerpta Valesiana and the Panegyric by Ennodius. In addition, he perceives the contents of the Edict as more in tune with times of unrest, whereas the reign of Theoderic had been predominantly undisturbed by major conflicts. He also remarked that dividing the population into Romans and barbarians would have

767 Citations according to: Edictum Theodorici Regis, MGH, Leges V, F. Bluhme (ed.), Hannover 1875–1889, 145–179. 768 Cf. B. Paradisi, 1987, 139. 769 Cf. P. Rasi, 1953, 105–162. 770 Cf. the following publications: G. Vismara, 1956, 409–463; G. Vismara 1967 (review: H. Nehlsen, [in:] Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Weimar 1969, 246–260); G. Vismara, 1987; G. Vismara, 1993, 275–315; G. Vismara, 2000. 771 Cf. G. Vismara, 1956, 410.

179

been incomprehensible, from Theoderic’s perspective, and even insulting to his own people.772 These and other arguments, expressed in so many scholarly publications, are not as obvious as they may seem. Vismara’s assertions have been questioned by, among others, Bruno Paradisi,773 but one of the outstanding experts on the history of the Goths, Biaggio Saitta,774 is in favour of his view. Jerzy Strzelczyk775 and Ewa Wipszycka776 refer to the Ostrogoth provenance of the document. Franco Cardini from Florence seems to be in favour of the same opinion,777 while Manlio Bellomo has argued to the contrary.778 In the light of recent research on the authorship of the Edict, the opinions continue to be divided. The Ostrogothic origin of the text is favoured by Sean D.W. Lafferty, author of important studies on the Edict.779 Orazio Licandro has gone in a completely different direction. In his monograph,780 he undermines all the arguments for Theoderic the Great as the author or even the initiator of the writing of the Edict. Moreover, he does not attribute it to any known person, ruling out the possibility that it could have been the work of either the imperial office in the West or Theoderic’s office. He suggests that the Edict is an ordinary collection of legal norms, both Roman as well as barbarian, written

772 773 774 775

Cf. G. Vismara, 1956, 414–416. Cf. B. Paradisi, 1987, 139–188. Cf. B. Saitta, 1999, 200. In Book II of his Epistolae, Sidonius Appolinarius (430–489) mentions a figure named Seronatus, who oppressed Arvernia; in the author’s words, he “disregards Theodosius’ laws and, espousing the laws of Theoderic, he prosecutes the old transgressions and [imposes] new taxes.” Source: Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistolae II, 3. Jerzy Strzelczyk notes that some information in the text would point to the promulgation of the edict in Italy and therefore it should be attributed to Theoderic the Great. Cf. J. Strzelczyk, 1984, 193. In my opinion, the promulgator of the laws mentioned by Sidonius should not be identified with Theoderic the Great on account of the fact that Book II of Sidonius’ Letters was composed ca. 477 and, for this reason, the above-mentioned edict cannot be attributed to Theoderic the Great. On the other hand, Theodoric II, King of the Visigoths, would have certainly issued some codification of laws, which Sidonius compares here with the Theodosian Code. 776 Cf. E. Wipszycka, 1999, 602. 777 Cf. F. Cardini, 2009. In Ch. 1, devoted to the codes of the Visigoths, the author refers to the Codex euricanus (ca. 470) as the earliest codification of Germanic laws, while in Part II, Ch. 5, argues that it is impossible to determine the authorship of the ET. 778 Cf. M. Bellomo, 2002, cap. 1: L’Italia fra Oriente e occidente. 779 Cf. S. D. W. Lafferty, 2013. 780 Cf. O. Licandro, 2013.

180

by an anonymous lawyer for his personal use.781 For him, an important argument was the use of the plural Edicta in the prologue and epilogue, which in his view shows the heterogeneity of the whole collection.782 He thinks that its disorder is even more significant. The edict consists of a prologue, epilogue and main text divided into 154 laws, covering many areas of life, but it is impossible to find any key that just such a system would justify. Therefore it would be a very disorganised collection which, according to him, it would be inappropriate for the work of the royal office.783 In my opinion, the lack of categorization does not matter. It is obvious that the Edict of Theoderic was a document of legal character that was not original in its content. It was an accommodation of earlier Roman rights, which was established for the purpose of the Gothic environment, as highlighted in the Edict’s epilogue: “We have gathered these laws to some extent from recent law (lex) and the sanctity of ancient Roman custom (ius). And all judges and those who pronounce the law shall know that if they allow these edicts to be violated in any way, they shall be deservedly struck by the punishment of proscription and exile.”784

Regardless of the actual author of the document, I shall now proceed to discuss the Edict’s provisions dealing with religious issues in order to find any relevant clues in support of or against the authorship of Theoderic the Great. Considering the absence of any conclusive argument either for or against that hypothesis, I have chosen to assume tentatively that Theoderic had been the author with the intent of confirming or disproving the claim of his authorship through an analysis of the individual provisions of the edict. As Stefano Gasparri noted, regardless of which Gothic king was the author of this edict, it was not a reflection of the ancient laws of the Goths. More than anything else, it was an adaptation of Roman laws to the Gothic milieu.785 Theoderic established laws as a ruler of Italy, although his activity in this field was not completely independent. His authority had been sanctioned by the emperor and he would often say himself that he ruled on the emperor’s behalf, and this state of affairs would continue at least until Justin began to persecute the 781 782 783 784

Cf. O. Licandro, 2013, 130–131. Cf. O. Licandro, 2013, 73–75. Cf. O. Licandro, 2013, 70–73. Epilogus (ET 155), MGH LL V, 168: Quae ex novellis legibus ac veteris iuris sanctimonia pro aliqua parte collegimus: scituris cognitoribus universis ac iura dictantibus, quod si in aliquo haec edicta fuerint violata, se proscriptionis deportationisque poena merito esse feriendos (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 785 Cf. S. Gasparri, 1993, 223.

181

Arians, as I have noted in the previous chapter.786 Known for his great piety, this emperor decided to bring the “Acacian schism” to an end and ordered the seizure of the Arian church buildings in the territories under his rule, of course, along with “the souls.” According to the Liber Pontificalis: “Justin, a devout man, out of his ardent love for the Christian faith, wished to eliminate the heretics. With great fervour, he decided to turn the Arian churches over to the Catholics.”787 Theoderic came to power in Italy as a ruler dependent on the emperor Zeno, for whom, formally speaking, he seized Italy after defeating Odoacer, as the latter was regarded as a tyrant, not a legitimate sovereign.788 Odoacer asserted his authority without the emperor’s consent and his usurpation could not have been treated with favour, despite his efforts to secure friendly relations with Constantinople.789 Conversely, the status of Theoderic, who arrived in Italy with Zeno’s approval,790 was different. He was very proud of it and, as he said in a letter addressed to the emperor Anastasius in 508, he learnt in the East how to rule over the Romans justly.791 Unlike the Barbarians, he wanted his reign to be guided by civilitas, understood not only as civility and good conduct, but also as being loyal to the law, to which the ruler as well as his subjects are obliged to submit. Although he learnt it in Greece, for which, notably, he would be praised by Ennodius,792 it was Rome that would ultimately become the sedes civilitatis, as Theoderic put it in one of his letters in 509,793 or, to use Ennodius’ phrase, the “mother of states” (mater civitatum).794 Even more than a virtue of the ruler himself, civilitas is a virtue of good governance, a warranty of the unity and fairness

786 Cf. Ch. VII: “LP 55 on John I.” 787 [LP 55: Iustinus imperator, vir religiosus, summo ardoris amore religionis christianae voluit hereticos extricare. Nam summo fervore christianitatis hoc consilio usus est ut ecclesias Arrianorum catholicas consecraret]. 788 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello gothico I, 1. 789 Cf. A. H. M. Jones, 1962, 126–130; K. Zakrzewski, 1933. 790 Cf. M. Ożóg, 2011a, 97–112. 791 Cassiodorus, Variae I, 1, 2: in republica vestra didicimus quemadmodum Romanis aequalibiliter imperare possimus; MGH AA XII, 10. Cf. B. Saitta, 1993, 9. 792 Ennodius, Panegyricus 11; MGH AA VIII, 204: Educavit te in gremio civilitatis Graecia praesaga venturi. 793 Theodericus, Epistola ad Speciosum, Variae I, 27, 1; MGH AA XII, 29. Speciosus is known from two letters by Theoderic: this one and the one at Variae II, 10, where he is called vir devotus comitiacus. Cf. PLRE II, 1025. 794 Cf. Ennodius, Panegyricus 56.

182

of governance.795 It is for the sake of civilitas that Theoderic declared he wished to remain in the unity of the Empire as a ruler of one of the two republics forming one body.796 In Theoderic’s view, it seems to have been the key concept associated with being in power. As Athalaric attests, the ruler considered the values such as respect for the law, protection and advancement of civilitas as his first and foremost duty.797 Biaggio Saitta puts a particular emphasis on Theoderic’s dedication to the law and his efforts to preserve the Roman values.798 All things considered, it would have apparently been more surprising if he had not issued his own collection of laws, which would have been obviously based on the constitutions of the former emperors which he held in high esteem. In 500, Theoderic went on a long visit to Rome. He would stay there for six months, visiting basilicas, and showing his respect to the Pope, the Senate, and the people of Rome.799 On this particular occasion: “Then coming to Rome and entering it, he appeared in the senate, and addressed the people at The Palm, promising that with God’s help he would keep inviolate whatever the former Roman emperors had decreed.”800

Obviously, the text refers to the rulers residing in Rome as well as to all the emperors who had a profound sense of their romanitas even without visiting Rome. The pledge to preserve the laws enacted by the emperors is of great significance as it would point to Theoderic’s awareness of following the previously established course, also in the field of law observance. There may be different interpretations of this provision. Vismara, firmly arguing that the king of the Ostrogoths Theoderic was not the author of the Edict, stressed that there was no question of the ruler’s own laws, only the previously existing laws.801 He also cited Procopius, 795 Cf. M. Reydellet, 1995, 294. In spite of his Barbarian origin, Byzantine historians emphasize Theoderic’s Roman virtues; cf. P. Lamma, 1968b, 188–190. 796 Cassiodorus, Variae I, 1, 14: quia pati vos non credimus inter utrasque res publicas, quarum semper unum corpus sub antiquis principibus fuisse declaratur, aliquid discordiae permanere. Cf. Reydellet, 1995, 295. 797 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae IX, 14, 8; MGH AA XII, 279: Gothorum laus est civilitas custodita. 798 Cf. B. Saitta, 1986, 300–306. 799 Cf. M. Vitiello, 2005a, 39–90; see also Ch. VI: “LP 54 on Hormisdas.” 800 Excerpta Valesiana 12.66: Deinde veniens ingressus Urbem venit ad senatum et ad Palmam, populo adlocutus se omnia, Deo iuvante, quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt, inviolabiliter servaturum promittit. To be correct, the proper rendering should be “formerly” or “previously.” 801 Cf. G. Vismara, 1987, 13.

183

who, in his account of one of the events during Justinian’s Gothic campaigns quotes a message sent by the inhabitants of Rome, Goths and Romans, remaining under Belisarius’ occupation, where they assure the Imperial commander that “there is not a single law (no/moj), written or unwritten, by Theoderic or any of his successors.”802 Due to the fact that promulgating laws (leges) in the Roman Empire was regarded as the emperor’s prerogative, the Ostrogoth kings, like the other high-ranking officials, were empowered to pass edicts that would be, for the most part, legal documents lower in rank than no/moj, issued by some less prominent governors or the emperor in some specific matters. On the contrary, a lex was usually a legal act of greater significance and more general validity. It is better to add “usually,” as this definition is not always applied very consistently, still it is important enough to be taken into consideration in any new hypothesis.803 For this reason, the sentence cited by Procopius is not contradictory to the assertion that some laws had been enacted by Theoderic. Besides, it would be difficult to imagine a ruler exercising his authority, even in subordination to the emperor, without establishing any laws at all (unless they contradict the general laws issued by the emperor). Vismara makes a note of this particular fact, although his view of the authorship of the ET remains intact.804 Another significant circumstance is the change in the political system that ensued in consequence of the abdication of Romulus Augustulus would cause much turmoil in the power structure of Italy. Pietro Vaccari even assumed that the king’s authority during the Gothic period was greater than that of the emperor in the West.805 It is very likely because the last few emperors in the West were definitely inept rulers, whereas Theoderic was by no means a “painted” monarch. It is then very reasonable to believe that he indeed had the power to enact his laws, even if they may have been subordinate to the Imperial legislation. Paradisi does not share Vismara’s view and considers the above-mentioned sentence from the  Excerpta Valesiana as alluding to the promulgation of this Edict.806 Should it really have been the case, this situation would have followed in the footsteps of the promulgation of the Theodosian Code in the same location, ad Palmam, opposite the Curia.807 802 Cf. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello gotico II, 6, 17; G. Vismara, 1956, 421. 803 Cf. “Edictum,” [in:] J. F. Niermeyer, 1976, 365–366; “Lex,” 601–605. 804 Cf. G. Vismara, 1956, 425–428. 805 Cf. P. Vaccari, 1956, 591. 806 Cf. B. Paradisi, 1987, 187. 807 Cf. Gesta Senatus Romani de Theodosiano publicando; W. Wołodkiewicz, 2009, 315– 320; W. Wołodkiewicz, 2006; the author takes note of this coincidence of the place.

184

Importantly, the Edict of Theoderic contains several provisions that may have reflected the ruler’s religious policy.

2.  Ius asyli Two constitutions of the ET deal with the question of seeking asylum in churches.808 This particular custom had its origins in the ancient right of asylum at Imperial statues.809 It dated back to the emperor Tiberius’ reign, as attested by such authors as Tacitus and Suetonius.810 The latter one refers to Agrippina being persecuted by Tiberius, who had falsely accused her of “attempting to seek refuge from him at the foot of Augustus’ [statue].”811 It was associated with glorifying the emperors and, by extension, their images as well. The custom would have survived until the time of John Chrysostom, who mentions it in one of his homilies.812 The right itself would have originated, in turn, from the customs hearkening back to the legendary Roman hero Romulus, who had reputedly delimited an area called “asylum,” where those guilty of committing various offences were allowed to find refuge.813 The right was sometimes abused when some individuals would seek asylum at such places so as to attract attention to their grievances, sometimes only imagined and slanderous. Thus, the constitution of Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius of July 6, 386, attempted to civilize the practice, making a distinction between those who were genuinely harmed or in need of such asylum and those who would cunningly seek to use the arm of justice against their own enemies. The recognition of Christianity as a religion equal to others led this privilege to extend to church buildings as well. The constitution provides that: “We suffer those persons who have taken refuge at the statues of the Emperors, either for the purpose of avoiding danger or of creating ill will, neither to be taken away by anyone before the tenth day nor to go away of their own accord; provided that, if they had definite reasons for which they had to flee to the statues of the Emperors, they shall be protected by law and the statutes. But if they should be revealed to have wished to

808 Cf. M. Ożóg, H. Pietras, 2011, 85–96. 809 Cf. W. Mossakowski, 2000. 810 Cf. Tacitus, Annales 4, 67; Suetonius, De vita Caesarum: Tiberius 53. 811 Suetonius, De vita Caesarum: Tiberius 161. 812 Cf. Johannes Chrysostomos, In illud: vidua eligitur 13, PG 51, 333. 813 Cf. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 47, 19; for the right of asylum in the pre-Christian era, see K. Burczak, 2005, 46–56. Cf. R. A. Bauman, 1974.

185

create ill will against their enemies by their own artifices, an avenging sentence shall be pronounced against them.”814

I assume the term invidia would generally refer to malice or ill will, though these expressions may seem to be something of an understatement. In any case, the point is to cause harm to someone with such a display of apprehension. In his commentary, Roland Delmaire notes that taking refuge at the foot of a statue just to cause invidia towards someone else is also the subject of a text analysis of a section of Justinian’s Digests,815 which would testify to the actuality of this problem. As the Theodosian Code contains several provisions that regulated this question with respect to church buildings, the compiler of the Edict of Theoderic had sufficient material to rely on. It appears that the practice of seeking asylum in churches would have arisen at first as sort of a popular custom, similar to the treatment of the sacred space and Imperial statues in the Roman Empire. The emperors would tend to restrict those practices to certain indisputable questions, but there was evidently no such latitude in approaching this custom as in the case of the statue in the previously cited constitution of Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, with a mention of the 10-day-long period of “lawful deliberation.”816 In turn, the emperors Theodosius, Arcadius, and Honorius decreed in 392 that if debtors with outstanding taxes should seek asylum in churches, their obligations to the fisc must be incurred by the bishop or any other clergyman, i.e., the person responsible for the church offering asylum.817 This law was stated in a letter addressed to the comes sacrae largitiones, the officer in charge of dispensing money, as the name of the office suggests, but also responsible for collecting taxes. 814 CTh IX, 44, 1: eos, qui ad statuas vel evitandi metus vel creandae invidiae causa confugerint, ante diem decimum neque auferri ab aliquo neque discedere sponte perpetimur; ita tamen, ut, si certas habuerint causas, quibus confugere ad imperatoria simulacra debuerint, iure ac legibus vindicentur; sin vero proditi fuerint artibus suis invidiam inimicis creare voluisse, ultrix in eos sententia proferatur (trans. C. Pharr). Cf. A. D. Manfredini, 1986, 39–58; R. Gamauf, 1999; W. Mossakowski, 2000, cap. 2: Asylum: ad statuas confugere. 815 D XLVII, 10, 38: Senatus consulto cavetur, ne quis imaginem imperatoris in invidiam alterius portaret: et qui contra fecerit, in vincula publica mittetur; XLVIII, 19, 28, 7: Ad statuas confugere vel imagines principum in iniuriam alterius prohibitum est. Ad statuas confugere vel imagines principum in iniuriam alterius prohibitum est (SCh 531, 211). 816 Cf. CTh IX, 44, 1. 817 CTh IX, 45, 1: publicos debitores, si confugiendum ad ecclesias crediderint, aut ilico extrahi de latebris oportebit aut pro his ipsos, qui eos occultare probantur, episcopos exigi. Sciat igitur praecellens auctoritas tua neminem debitorum posthac a clericis defendendum aut per eos eius, quem defendendum esse crediderint, debitum esse solvendum.

186

In 397, Arcadius and Honorius issued a prohibition on giving asylum to Jews feigning conversion in order to be able to find refuge inside a church, in an attempt to evade some penalty or debts to be paid.818 The abuses connected with fake conversions and baptisms are well attested by Socrates Scholasticus. For instance, the author makes a mention of a certain Jew who would have reportedly been baptized several times in various church communities just to make a profit.819 It was a Christian custom to offer generous support to poor converts. In the following year, members of the clergy were obliged to bear financial responsibility towards the state and private citizens for granting asylum to debtors.820 The relevant constitution provides that debtors to the state as well as office-holders and functionaries abusing their office should be excluded from having the right to seek asylum in churches. This provision was co-authored by a man named Eutropius, who fell out of favour at the court one year after the promulgation of this law and, paradoxically, had to seek asylum in a church.821 It also deals with the question of slaves, who were particularly at risk to suffer severe penalties for any offence or transgression. Even relatively minor offences could be treated as punishable by death, depending on the owner’s discretion. According to the same constitution, some asylum-seekers would even go so far as to become a clergyman in order to evade criminal or financial liability.822

818 CTh IX, 45, 2: Iudaei, qui reatu aliquo vel debitis fatigati simulant se christianae legi velle coniungi, ut ad ecclesias confugientes vitare possint crimina vel pondera debitorum, arceantur nec ante suscipiantur, quam debita universa reddiderint vel fuerint innocentia demonstrata purgati. 819 Cf. Socrates Scholasticus, HE VII, 17. 820 CTh IX, 45, 3: Servus, ancilla, curialis, debitor publicus, procurator, murilegulus, quilibet postremo publicis privatisve rationibus involutus ad ecclesiam confugiens vel clericus ordinatus vel quocumque modo a clericis fuerit defensatus nec statim conventione praemissa pristinae condicioni reddatur, decuriones quidem et omnes, quos solita ad debitum munus functio vocat, vigore et sollertia iudicantum ad pristinam sortem velut manu mox iniecta revocentur: quibus ulterius legem prodesse non patimur, quae cessione patrimonii subsecuta decuriones esse clericos non vetabat. sed etiam hi, quos oeconomos vocant, hoc est qui ecclesiasticas consuerunt tractare rationes, ad eam debiti vel publici vel privati redhibitionem amota dilatione cogantur, in qua eos obnoxios esse constiterit, quos clerici defensandos receperint nec mox crediderint exhibendos. 821 He managed to obtain assistance from John Chrysostom. Cf. Socrates, HE VI, 5; Sozomenos, HE VIII, 7; J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, 1990, 189; M. B. Leszka, 2000, 21. 822 Cf. G. Barone Adesi, 1990, 695–741.

187

As can be seen, this constitution concerned the questions of taxes and private debts alike. Interestingly, it may have caused some awkward trouble to Augustine. In one of his letters, the saint recounts a story of how the circumstances forced him to pay the debts, to a value of 17 solidi, of a man named Fascius, who had come to seek asylum inside a church in an attempt to hide from his creditors.823 He borrowed some money from someone, taking an obligation to pay it back, but unfortunately found himself unable to settle the debt and came [to the church] to ask for a donation.824 The circumstances correspond to the situation which the constitution referred to, and it seems that the editors of the Nuova Biblioteca Augustiniana were wrong in dating it to after 395. In 431, the right of asylum was extended to include the precincts of churches, beginning from the outermost walls or fencing so as not to force asylum-seekers to stay inside the church buildings all the time.825 Eventually, in 432, it was decreed that fugitive slaves be returned to their owners if the latter pledged to forgive them and remit their penalties that made the slaves want to seek refuge inside a church. However, if slaves were armed, their owners would be permitted to remove them by force only if the superiors of that church proved unable to do so.826 The provisions of the Edict would be applicable in this specific context: “If a slave of any nation should take refuge in a church, let him be returned immediately upon his owner promising pardon, for We forbid him from staying in that place for more than a single day. If he is unwilling to depart, the archdeacon of that church, or a priest and clerics shall compel him to return to his owner, and deliver him up without delay on the owner pardoning him. But if it happens that the abovementioned religious persons are unwilling to do this, they shall be compelled to give to the owner another slave of equal value; even the slave that remains within the retreats of the church may be claimed by his owner forthwith if he can be captured beyond church limits.”827

823 One solidus had a value of 4.54 g in gold; see J. Iluk, 2011, 63–82. 824 Cf. Augustinus, Epistola 238, PL 33, 1092–1093. 825 Cf. CTh IX, 45, 4. 826 Cf. CTh IX, 45, 5. 827 ET 70: Si servus cuiuslibet nationis ad quamlibet ecclesiam confugerit, statim domino veniam promittente reddatur: nec enim ultra unum diem ibidem residere praecipimus. Qui si exire noluerit, vir religiosus archidiaconus eiusdem ecclesiae, vel presbyter atque clerici, eundem ad dominum suum exire compellant, et domino indulgentiam praestanti sine dilatione contradant. Quod si hoc suprascriptae religiosae personae facere forte noluerint, aliud mancipium eiusdem meriti domino dari cogantur: ita ut etiam illud mancipium quod in ecclesiae latebris commoratur, si extra ecclesiam potuerit comprehendi, a domino protinus vindicetur (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty).

188

The ET makes it very clear that the law would concern slaves from any nation and any Church.828 The accuracy of the latter phrase is seemingly not necessary at all, but the legislator must have had reasons to use this particular wording. Did he intend to communicate that the constitution applied to the Romans and the Goths alike, as well as to the Catholics and the Arians? Still, it does not resolve the problem of the authorship of the Edict, as the same situation prevailed in both Gaul and Italy. Let us now have a look at the statement of the synod of Orange (441) referring to this matter: “If, however, anybody presumed to take possession of slaves of the clergy in compensation for his slaves seeking asylum in church, let him be condemned in all the Churches with all due severity.”829

This provision was restated in the collection known as the Second Synod of Arles,830 compiled after the synod of Orange, but before the synod of Agde (506). If we were to assume that Vismara831 was right in saying that the ET had been composed in Gaul during the reign of Theodoric II, the compiler would have taken much risk in having drawn up such a formulation of this law, in direct defiance of the king’s legislation. The attribution of the ET to Theoderic the Great seems to be more justified, as there would have been no discrepancy between the synodal legislation and the state law, the canon was completely in line with the king’s declaration to respect the old Imperial laws, even providing for a slave-for-slave exchange in compensation. Canon 2, concerning the right to seek asylum in churches, remained true to the constitution CTh IX (cf. CTh IX, 45, 1).832 The novelty here was the specific requirement that an archdeacon should be present in “any church,” whose task would be to act as a mediator, or even, ultimately, to settle the tax payment due. The previous canon provided that it could be any other clergyman.

828 This particular wording seems to contradict Vismara’s view that the ET would not impose the same law on the Romans and the barbarians (in none of the edict’s sections); cf. G. Vismara, 1956, 424: é dunque escluso che l’Editto, almeno in ogni sua parte, tendesse ad imporre un unico diritto a barbari e a Romani. 829 Orange (441), c. 5 (6), SCL 6, 16: Si quis autem mancipia clericorum pro suis mancipiis ad ecclesiam confugientibus crediderit occupanda, per omnes ecclesias districtissima damnatione feriatur. Cf. G. Vismara, 1967, 100–109; K. Burczak, 2005, 94–100. 830 Cf. Arelate (442–506), c. 32 (31), SCL 6, 29. 831 Cf. G. Vismara, 1987, 152–160. 832 Cf. S. D. W. Lafferty, 2013, 88.

189

“If anyone flees to a church on account of a public debt, the archdeacon shall compel him to leave in order to render account according to the law; but if the debtor is unwilling to do this, let him deliver forthwith his property which he transferred to the church. Unless he does this, let the archdeacon be compelled to pay the debt: this is of great interest to the public good.”833

In the legal language of the Church, particularly in the synodal legislation, the archdeacon is mentioned in the acts of the first synod of Toledo (ca. 400).834 The term referred to the church official whose duty was to ensure that the existing legislation was not infringed. Specifically, it concerned the regulations on the use of the chrism, which was normally reserved for the bishops. At the synod of Myra (ca. 458), an archdeacon signed the synodal acts on behalf of his bishop,835 while a certain archdeacon from Gaul acted as an envoy to Pope Leo.836 The so-called “Old Statutes of the Church” from Gaul, dating from the years 476–485, decreed that bishops should provide care for widows and pilgrims through an archpresbyter or archdeacon, not personally.837 He was also to assist the bishop in performing ordinations and to deliver instructions on duties of the clergy. For instance, his role in appointing an ostiarius is described as follows: “at the archdeacon’s request, the bishop shall hand the church keys to him, addressing him in front of the altar, ‘Do your duty in such a manner as if you had to account before God for the things which are unlocked with these keys’.”838 In 499, during the synod of Rome concerned with ending the stalemate after the unfortunate simultaneous pontifical election of Symmachus and Laurentius,839 the archdeacon Fulgentius acted in the capacity of a court warden, introducing the inauguration of a synod session.840 In turn, according to the synod of Agde (506), the archdeacon should ensure that a disobedient presbyter whose hair was too long, and who refused to 833 ET 71: Si quis in causa publici debiti ad ecclesiam quamlibet convolaverit, archidiaconus eum compellat egredi, ad edenda legibus ratiocinia sua: aut si hoc facere noluerit, eius substantiam, quam ad ecclesiam detulit, sine mora contradat. Quod nisi fecerit, quanti interest utilitatis publicae, archidiaconus cogatur exsolvere (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 834 Cf. Toletum (ca. 400), SCL 4, 125. For a survey of various synodal positions on this particular issue, cf. M. Ożóg, H. Pietras, 2011. 835 Cf. Myra (458), 14, SCL 6, 214. 836 Cf. Narbonne (458/459), SCL 6, 224. 837 Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua 7, SCL 6, 262: Ut episcopus gubernationem viduarum et pupillorum ac peregrinorum non per seipsum, sed per archipresbyterum, vel archidiaconum agat. 838 Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua 97, SCL 6, 271. 839 Cf. Ch. III: “LP 53 on Symmachus.” 840 Cf. Roma (499), SCL 6, 339.

190

cut it short, would be brought to discipline, if necessary by force, thus charging the archdeacon with the task of cropping the presbyter’s hair.841 In addition, his duties would be similar to the function of a majordomo (c. 23). Let us conclude this brief survey of the archdeacon’s duties by referring to the 5th synod of Aurelianum (Orleans). It says that “an archdeacon or the superior of a church” was entrusted with the obligation to visit those who were in prison.842 This clearly evident fact of the existence of so much evidence of archdeacons’ presence in the church structure in Gaul (as compared with Italy) is, in Vismara’s view, another argument in favour of the Gaulish origin of the Edict.843 It does not seem to be plausible, however, in consideration of the fact that there are very few extant acts of the synods in Italy (unlike those in Gaul) for the period 400–550. The fact that such a limited body of canons the term “archdeacon” is mentioned several times is something out of the ordinary in itself. In the light of these regulations, negotiations with fugitives who were debtors to the state should be carried out by an archdeacon who could be regarded as the bishop’s plenipotentiary in legal and economic matters. A similar prohibition on arresting the fugitives hiding in asylum can be found in the Lex Visigothorum: “No one can detain them, but they should be urged by a presbyter or a deacon to leave. Also, the right of asylum cannot serve as a pretext for not paying debts.”844 It is conceivable that such a provision may have been welcomed by rich slaveowners and resented by the clergy. Another asylum-related canon, clearly more accommodating to the debtor, must have aroused a totally opposite reception: “If anyone should remove other individuals from churches, that is religious places, or presumes to remove anything therein by force, let him be punished capitally.”845

841 Cf. Agatha (506), c. 20, CCL 148, 202. 842 Aurelianum (549), c. 20; CCL 148 A, 155. 843 Cf. G. Vismara, 1987, 160. 844 Lex Visigothorum IX, III, 4, MGH LL nat. Germ., I, 380, ed. K. Zeumer: Eos, qui ad ecclesiam vel ad ecclesie porticos confugerint, nullus contingere presumat, sed presbitero vel diacono repetat, ut reformet; et seu debitor sive reus, qui confugerat, si non meretur occidi, aput repetentem ecclesie cultor interveniat, ut ei veniam det, et exoratus indulgeat. Quod si debitor aliquis ad ecclesiam confugerit, eum ecclesia non defendat, sed presbiter aut diaconus debitorem sine dilatione restituat; ita ut ipse, qui debitum repetit, nequaquam cedere aut ligare eum presumat, qui ad ecclesie auxilium decurrit; sed presente presbitero vel diacono constituatur, intra quod tempus ei debitum reformetur. 845 ET 125: Si quis de ecclesiis, id est locis religiosis, homines traxerit, vel aliquid violenter crediderit auferendum, capite puniatur (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty).

191

Apparently, this law would have drawn directly on the prohibition against removing the fugitives from churches by force, as issued by Theodosius and Honorius at Ravenna in 409.846 It would follow therefore that although ownership rights were protected by law, they could not be enforced with the use of violence. Nonetheless, there must have existed some forms of ensuring the enforcement of the law. For example, the ET 126 stipulates that the outstanding tax obligations should be executed, in four-fold amounts, by force, but the tax receipts should not be handed out to the debtors inside a church.847 The precept at ET 71 that orders the clergy to settle, from their church funds, the outstanding tax payments of an asylum-seeker whom the church superiors would have decided to defend regardless of consequences, would be an exception (in a way) to the prohibition on the alienation of church property, which, as it seems, is somewhat akin to settling someone’s debts. I have referred to Theoderic’s visit to Rome in the year 500, when his relations with the Pope were very good indeed.848 It would not be long (most probably in late 501) before a strong opposition movement of the senatorial aristocracy began to take shape, accusing the Pope of immoral conduct.849 Denunciations to the king began to surface, accusing the Pope of allegedly leaving the fate of the Church in the bishops’ hands, and that he practically tolerated the anti-pope Laurentius’ return to Rome and the risk of a re-emerging schism. This sudden proliferation of Symmachus’ enemies is really surprising. It is possible that the key to this mystery could have been the law providing for the settlement of asylum-seekers’ debts from the funds of the Church, which was so strongly resented by the clergy that they would eventually decree otherwise. Incidentally, it was in Rome that Theoderic promulgated his Edict, where many of the earlier laws would be restated, even though the selection was not accidental at all. Among other things, the legislator provided for the fiscal responsibility of the Church for those debtors to the

846 Cf. CI I, 12, 2: Fideli ac devota praeceptione sancimus nemini licere ad sacrosanctas ecclesias confugientes abducere: sub hac videlicet definitione, ut, si quisquam contra hanc legem venire temptaverit, sciat se ad maiestatis crimen esse retinendum. 847 ET 126: Ut nullus curialium sive tabulariorum vel susceptorum, intra ecclesiam residens, emittat pittacia (pictatia). Nullus post haec curialium, sive tabulariorum aut susceptorum, in ecclesia residens pictacia delegationis emittat, sed si quem fisco debitorem novit, exponat eum extra ecclesiam constitutus, aut certe deleget facturus cum eo, qui se debitorem negaverit, publice rationem. Quod si invitum quis, cum sibi delegatur, et se non debere clamaverit, violenter crediderit exigendum, in quadruplum extorta restituat (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 848 Cf. Ch. V: “LP 53 on Symmachus.” 849 Cf. above, Fragmentum Laurentianum, in Ch. V: “LP 53 on Symmachus.”

192

state who would seek refuge in church buildings. It was well received indeed, in particular by the tax-collectors. At a synod in November 501, as if in response, Symmachus decreed the law according to which the property of the Church was inalienable. On the other hand, the ET stipulated that quanti interest utilitatis publicae, archidiaconus cogatur exsolvere.850 In response, the synod of Rome ruled that Nec cuiusquam excusentur necessitatis obtentu, quippe cum non sit personale, quod loquimur.851 There is indeed some similarity involved, even though any connection between the two regulations may be assumed only hypothetically. It is not impossible, therefore, that the turning point in the relations between the king and the Pope had been not so much the effect of the reputed immoral conduct as a negative response to the news of the newly enacted law that would have breached the king’s recently promulgated constitution so beneficial to the secular elite, whilst the charges of immoral behaviour were simply of secondary importance. The “Laurentian schism” gained a new momentum, in consequence, but Theoderic would consistently avoid taking any definite position, only encouraging the parties to settle the dispute within the Church. Nevertheless, his judgement in the matter was indispensable and although the multiple-session synod of 502852 ruled in favour of Symmachus, clearing him of all the accusations, it would not be until 507 that the king put a final end to the schism, formally accepting the decisions of the synod in the year 501. Still, it is possible that some negotiations may have been going on at the time, as suggested by Theoderic’s words in the following statement: “What is then so ungodly as the failure to respect the donator’s will, when the things that everybody wanted to be the property of the Church, accumulated for the purpose of making a profit out of it, is appropriated by private individuals.”853

The question of alienation was thus narrowed down to private persons and there was no more space for any possible interpretation contrary to what ET 71 said. As can be seen, the right of asylum would be often, in practical terms, linked to various economic matters, as it was treated as the recourse in attempts to evade 850 ET 71: Unless he does this, let the archdeacon be compelled to pay the debt: this is of great interest to the public good (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 851 Roma (6 novembris 501), 4, SCL 6, 355: It should not be justified by any pretext of benefit, as we do not speak of private property here. 852 Cf. Roma (502), SCL 6, 366–374. 853 Theodericus, Praeceptum regis, 11 III 507, MGH AA, XII, 392; Thiel 696: Quid enim tam profanum est quam ut in hac largientis parte violetur arbitrium, dum quod ad ecclesiam quisque voluit pertinere, privatae sibi vendicent pro usufructu rei personae contractum.

193

unjust oppression as well as in the hope of escaping the necessity to abide by lawful obligations. Let us now take a closer look at the two cases from the Variae and juxtapose them with the practice on the strength of the ET. In the first case, in consequence of a love affair, a woman named Agapitha had recklessly abandoned her husband Basil,854 passing some unspecified land property to her lover. Later on, she decided to seek asylum inside a church. The king ruled that the woman be judged because she had acted to the detriment of the family, who deserved the utmost possible protection under the law. The whole situation was, in fact, a scandal involving some members of the elite. Basil was referred to as a vir spectabilis, while the lover who had received the lavish gift was the patrician Probinus, ex-consul, an adherent of Laurentius and opponent of Symmachus during the “Laurentian schism.”855 The high ranks of the two parties involved as well as the value of Agapitha’s property would explain why the king himself decided to intervene in the case. He ordered the restitution of the property, deeming the donation as invalid on account of the alleged loss of sanity by the woman. Considering the significance of marriage and family, as stressed by the author of the letter,856 it may be assumed that the duty of Agapitha towards her own family would have been reckoned as a public debt and regarded as on a par with the fiscal obligations mentioned at ET 71. In this case as well, there was no sanction other than the restoration of the property, which seems to suggest that the right of asylum was considered to have been in effect. A similar mitigation can be seen in the case of a man named Jovinian, a functionary in the Curia, who was guilty of committing a homicide in result of an altercation. Thanks to his flight and the subsequent asylum in a church, he managed to avoid a death sentence for his crime and was condemned to a lifelong exile on the Isle of Vulcano, in the Lipari (Eolian) Islands, north of Sicily.857 The ET provided for death penalty for murder,858 which is no surprise at all, but it made no reference to the crime of murder in the context of the right of asylum. Nonetheless, Theoderic’s decision to mitigate the penalty on account of the right of asylum should not appear to have been contradictory to the spirit and the letter of the Edict. Another provision relating to the asylum law may have been ET 114, which stipulated that if members of the clergy or anybody else rescued, in any way, a

854 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae II, 11; B. Saitta, 1993, 76–77. 855 Cf. Ch. V: “LP 53 on Symmachus.” 856 Cf. also ET 54. 857 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae III, 47; B. Saitta, 1993, 77. 858 Cf. ET 99, 152.

194

person convicted in court, they should themselves suffer the penalty imposed on that person: “If clerics or any others should forcibly release those who have been adjudged [guilty] and condemned in a criminal proceeding, they themselves shall be penalized or held liable for the fines which the judgment rendered against those convicted had stipulated; and if it is proven that this was perpetrated through the complicity or collusion of the judge, that same judge shall be compelled to pay five pounds of gold.”859

Our analysis of the right of asylum in the Edict of Theoderic seems to lead us to the conclusion that it is more likely the Edict would have been promulgated in Italy by Theoderic the Great, rather than by Theodoric II in the Kingdom of the Visigoths (Tolosa). The attribution of the document to Theoderic the Great would also make it easier to understand the actual course of events during the “Laurentian schism” and the reason for accusations levelled against Pope Symmachus in late 501.

3.  De heredibus clericorum This particular precept of the Edict, part of the ruler’s religious policy, is set within a broader context of the inheritance law. The ET ensures the fullness of rights as regards last wills and testaments and prescribes capital punishment for falsifying such documents.860 It also provides for appropriate procedures in case of dying intestate, according to which the nearest of kin should inherit the property left by the deceased, “with the preservation of the rights of his children and grandsons.”861 If there is no legitimate heir, the inheritance may be transferred to the fisc in order to verify if anybody would be eligible to receive it “by way of title or office.”862 In accordance with the precept of the Edict, it pertains to clergymen and officials of the Curia. As for the latter,863 it is notable that they had been the

859 ET 114: Si damnatum clerici aut alii eruerint. Si addictos damnatosque iudiciis clerici vel quilibet alii violenter eruerint, ipsi ad poenam, vel ad dispendia teneantur, quae sententia in convictos prolata statuisse monstrabitur: et si conniventia iudicis vel conludio hoc claruerit perpetratum, quinque auri libras idem iudex cogatur exsolvere (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 860 Cf. ET 28–30. 861 ET 23: Si quis intestatus mortuus fuerit, is ad eius successionem veniat, qui inter agnatos atque cognatos gradu vel titulo proximus invenitur, salvo iure filiorum ac nepotum (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 862 Cf. ET 24. 863 ET 27: Curialis si sine successore, quem leges vocant, intestatus defecerit, excluso fisco curiae suae locum faciat (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty).

195

sole privileged group in this respect. Moreover, the curiae and the church institutions would have been the only privileged legal entities entitled to receive the inheritance before the fisc. As regards the clergy, let us take a note of the following passage from the ET: “We prescribe that clerics or religious persons who become intestate whenever a lawful successor has died are to bequeath their belongings to their church in accordance with the laws.”864

This law corresponds to one of the provisions in the constitution of Theodosius and Valentinian of 15 December 434 (cf. CTh V, 3, 1). It refers to such members of the clergy as bishop, presbyter, deacon, deaconess, subdeacon, any other cleric, monk, or a woman quae solitarae vitae dedita est,865 and deals with the question of those who die intestate. The relatives considered as possible heirs may be on the father’s or mother’s side, though the children and the wife are given priority, just like according to ET 23, but the latter provision makes no reference to wife. In his commentary on this Imperial constitution, Roland Delmaire makes reference to some earlier laws, according to which the property of those who died intestate and where no heirs would be ascertained could be transferred to various entities:866 the Curia, institutions dealing with navigation and sea trade,867 the army unit where the deceased had served,868 or to the offices or cohorts of provincial governors.869 Therefore, the Codex prescribes some conditions and reservations: the inheriting by churches or monasteries is possible unless the deceased is bound by any duty such as: taxes to be paid, patronage-related obligations, or their status of a curial official, soldier, official, or a member of a trade “enterprise.”

864 ET 26: Clericos religiosasque personas intestatas deficientes, quotiens defuerit qui iure succedat, locum ecclesiae suae secundum leges facere debere praecipimus (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 865 CTh V, 3, 1. 866 SCh 531, 82–83. Cf. A. Ponchielli, 1923, 30. 867 CI VI, 62, 1: Si quis navicularius sine testamento et liberis vel successoribus defunctus sit, hereditatem eius non ad fiscum, sed ad corpus naviculariorum […] (Constantine in 326). 868 CI VI, 62, 2: Universis tam legionibus quam vexillationibus comitatensibus seu cuneis insinuare debebis, ut cognoscant, cum aliquis fuerit rebus humanis exemptus atque intestatus sine legitimo herede decesserit, ad vexillationem, in qua militaverit, res eiusdem necessario pervenire (Constantius in 347). 869 CI VI, 62, 3: Si quis cohortali condicione gravatus sine testamento vel quolibet successore ultimum diem obierit, successionem eius non ad fiscum, sed ad ceteros cohortales eiusdem provinciae pertinere iubemus (Constantius in 349).

196

It is not proper, as the law says, that the Church receive the property lawfully due for someone else. The prohibition on alienating the curial property is apparently applied in this case.870 This situation had changed and the presence of this particular precept in the ET demonstrates the radical character of that change. In view of this extraordinary privilege, the entitlements of the churches and monasteries (unlike those of other entities or persons) were not to be restricted.871 Incidentally, the law decreed by Alaric in 506 refers to the same thing. It is more specific, however, and provides that the legitimate heirs of clergymen may be their relatives to the seventh degree of relationship, and in the absence thereof, the property should be inherited by the Church.872 Assuming that the ET had been promulgated by Theoderic the Great on the occasion of his visit at Rome, the edict could be interpreted in the light of Theoderic’s policy towards the Church at the time of the “Laurentian schism.”873 When the conclave of 498 resulted in the de facto election of the two popes, Symmachus and Laurentius, Theoderic decided to give his support to the former, whereas Laurentius was appointed Bishop of Nocera, which would temporarily calm the situation. However, soon after the king’s visit to Rome in 501, some unspecified events must have caused the schism to reappear, with a strong opposition movement, composed mostly of high-ranking members of the senatorial aristocracy, forming against Pope Symmachus in Rome. The synod of November 501 was convoked to deal with the issues of the pontifical election and the inalienability of church property. The outcome was the absolute ban on the alienation of such property, even going so far as to act retroactively in order to make all the previous purchase agreements null and void. This would have very likely annoyed the senatorial circles, whose estates should have been largely reduced in favour of the Goths.874 The precept in question could be conceived of as a sort of tinderbox that would have motivated Symmachus to formulate claims and decrees aiming to protect the church property and estates against any possibility to resort to measures of vindication by the officials or, generally speaking, the senatorial 870 Cf. CTh XII, 3, 2. 871 Cf. R. Bidagor, 1935, 53–60. 872 Lex Visigothorum IV, 2, 12, MGH LL I, ed. K. Zeumer, 177–178: Clerici vel monaci sive sanctimoniales, qui usque ad septimum gradum non relinquerint heredes et sic moriuntur, ut nihil de suis facultatibus ordinent, ecclesia sivi, cui servierunt eorum substantiam vindicabit. 873 Cf. Ch. V: “The LP 53 on Symmachus.” 874 Cf. C. Sotinel, 1998, 296.

197

class. This, in turn, explains why so shortly after the king’s visit to Rome the senators would travel to Ravenna with their grievances against the Pope, as I have already noted in connection with the right of asylum. It appears that a part of Justinian’s efforts to “restore order” in Italy, culminating in the Gothic wars, may have been the re-incorporation of the constitutions from the CTh in the new code,875 thus revoking the privilege granted by Theoderic.

4.  Interdictio sacrificii ritu pagano Since the moment that Christianity changed its formal status from a tolerated religion to a favoured one, a number of prohibitions directed at various forms of pagan worship had been enacted. The precept ET 108 is very rigorous in this regard: “If anyone is apprehended while sacrificing according to the pagan rite, as well as diviners and necromancers should they be discovered, upon conviction in a lawful trial they shall be punished capitally; of those individuals who are knowledgeable of the wicked arts, that is magicians, honestiores, upon being stripped of all their possessions that they might possess, shall be condemned to perpetual exile; and humiliores shall be punished capitally.”876

Various types of penalties and the dependence of their application on being a member of a specific social class were frequently recurring themes in Roman law and it is not necessary to discuss this subject with much reference detail. Let us recall, however, that the prescribed penalties would not always be so harsh. The author of the ET had ample material in the Theodosian Code to rely on. As early as 319, Constantine the Great outlawed offerings and magic practices to evoke harm or misfortune on the pain of being burned alive,877 although he would tolerate practices such as magic healing and asking for auspicious weather, as well as

875 Cf. CI I, 3, 20. 876 ET 108: Si quis pagano ritu sacrificare fuerit deprehensus, arioli etiam atque umbrarii, si reperti fuerint, sub iusta aestimatione convicti, capite puniantur; malarum artium conscii, id est malefici, nudati rebus omnibus, quas habere possunt, honesti perpetuo damnantur exilio, humiliores capite puniendi sunt (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 877 CTh IX, 16, 1: Nullus haruspex limen alterius accedat nec ob alteram causam, sed huiusmodi hominum quamvis vetus amicitia repellatur, concremando illo haruspice, qui ad domum alienam accesserit et illo, qui eum suasionibus vel praemiis evocaverit, post ademptionem bonorum in insulam detrudendo: superstitioni enim suae servire cupientes poterunt publice ritum proprium exercere. Accusatorem autem huius criminis non delatorem esse, sed dignum magis praemio arbitramur.

198

consulting the diviners to predict the possibility of a stroke of lightning.878 In 357, Constantius prohibited, on the pain of capital punishment, consulting magicians, including the arioli, calling them “enemies of mankind.”879 In the same year, Julian, an advocate of ancient pagan religions, to be known later as the Apostate, held the consulship for a second time. The entire CTh IX, 16, 4 is devoted to this particular question, though always only referring to magic and divination practices with the intent of inflicting harm, not to making sacrificial offerings as such. Nonetheless, it is worth quoting the relevant provision in extenso, as it makes use of some terms previously present in the ET: “Emperor Constantius Augustus to the People. No person shall consult a soothsayer or an astrologer or a diviner. The wicked doctrines of augurs and seers shall become silent. The Chaldeans and wizards and all the rest whom the common people call magicians, because of the magnitude of their crimes, shall not attempt anything in this direction. The inquisitiveness of all men for divination shall cease forever. For if any person should deny obedience to these orders, he shall suffer capital punishment, felled by the avenging sword.”880

The malefici, rendered as sorcerers in the present book, are depicted in Deuteronomy 18:10 as those who perform magic practices forming part of various pagan religions, which Israel was bound to condemn and reject. Another category are (h)arioli, i.e., diviners. The emperor Constantius condemned them to death along with the so-called “mathematicians,” meaning astrologers and other types of soothsayers. The relation between sorcerers and magic may have been a factor linking that sorcery with making offerings to gods, hence they would be consistently put on a par in terms of penalties. Capital punishment for making offerings is expressly stated at CTh XVI, 10.881 It is prescribed in the constitutions 4 and 6 (356). The most similar to the precept under consideration would be apparently the constitution of the emperors Theodosius, Valentinian, and Arcadius from 385. It reads as follows:

878 CTh IX, 16, 3; XVI, 10, 1; cf. P. Veyne, 2008. 879 Cf. CTh IX, 16, 4. 880 CTh IX, 16, 4: nemo haruspicem consulat aut mathematicum, nemo hariolum. augurum et vatum prava confessio conticescat. chaldaei ac magi et ceteri, quos maleficos ob facinorum magnitudinem vulgus appellat, nec ad hanc partem aliquid moliantur. sileat omnibus perpetuo divinandi curiositas. etenim supplicium capitis feret gladio ultore prostratus, quicumque iussis obsequium denegaverit (trans. C. Pharr). 881 Cf. R. Delmaire, 2004, 319–333.

199

“No mortal shall assume the audacity of performing sacrifices, so that by the inspection of the liver and the presage of the entrails of the sacrificial victims, he may obtain the hope of a vain promise, or, what is worse, he may learn the future by an accursed consultation. The torture of a very bitter punishment shall threaten those persons who, in violation of Our prohibition, attempt to explore the truth of present or future events.”882

Let us notice the same elements here: making offerings and divination. The constitution was confirmed by Arcadius and Honorius in 395,883 but Honorius and Theodosius II would subsequently replace the capital punishment with the penalties of confiscation and exile in 423. Most likely, however, the offence targeted by the lawgiver would have become different by then. I have rendered the phrase exsecrabilis consultatio as “abominable examination,” as it seems it is meant to denote the manner of divination deserving the utmost punishment. Eusebius of Caesarea depicts the atrocities committed by Maxentius in Rome: “To crown all his wickedness, the tyrant resorted to magic. And in his divinations he cut open pregnant women, and again inspected the bowels of newborn infants. He slaughtered lions, and performed various execrable acts to invoke demons and avert war. For his only hope was that, by these means, victory would be secured to him.884

The excesses of Maxentius were still remembered in the late 4th century. It would be difficult to assess the extent of this phenomenon, but it must have been fairly large. Anthropomancy had been known for centuries; for instance, it was practised by Julian the Apostate merely several decades before the Theodosian Code. Following Julian’s death, according to Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the body of a woman hanging by her hair, with her intestines sliced open and revealing the traces of liver haruspicy, was found at Carre in Mesopotamia. The author also mentions some boxes with severed human heads and limbs discovered in the same locality.885 It is possible that such incriminating allegations could have been nothing but slanderous rumours and invectives spread by the Christians intent on painting an extremely negative picture of Julian the Apostate.886 The provision of the ET would correspond to this particular law-making tradition, as does the following 882 CTh XVI, 10, 9: Ne quis mortalium ita faciendi sacrificii sumat audaciam, ut inspectione iecoris extorumque praesagio vanae spem promissionis accipiat vel, quod est deterius, futura sub execrabili consultatione cognoscat. Acerbioris etenim inminebit supplicii cruciatus eis, qui contra vetitum praesentium vel futurarum rerum explorare temptaverint veritatem (trans. C. Pharr). 883 Cf. CTh XVI, 10, 13. 884 Eusebius Caesarensis, HE VIII, 14, 5. 885 Cf. Theodoretus, HE III, 26–27. 886 See, e.g., Sz. Olszaniec, 1999, 63.

200

oration by Gregory of Nazianzus, who refers to Julian’s death in such a way as to evoke a distinctly negative memory of the emperor: “With one blow of the assassin’s hand, he atones for the frequently practised observation of entrails, which he put his trust in to his own detriment. It is of surprise to me how a person so vain, and therefore confident that he knew it all, was unable to foresee this one thing, namely a blow to his own intestines.”887

The Polish translator of the oration adds the phrase “of sacrificial animals” right after the aforesaid “observation of entrails,” apparently rejecting the possibility of sacrificing humans for the purpose of divinatory practices. However, the context is not very obvious and the passage might as well have referred to human entrails. Let us recall that Gregory composed his oration briefly after Julian’s death and it may be safely assumed that he would have relied on some well-informed source; notably, his brother Caesarius was a physician at Julian’s court. He had left shortly before the emperor’s death, but he returned to the court before long and would have certainly heard of everything he wanted to know.888 According to Ammianus Marcellinus’ account, as cited by Tadeusz Zieliński, Julian would have already ordered the execution of some secret rites at the time of his campaign in Gaul in the late 360s.889 At the same time, the author describes this period as one marked by the absence of augury, unlike the later campaign against Constantius, which, as he reports, “involved a still moderate reliance on it. In the third, and disastrous, Persian war, this reliance would exceed all proportions.”890 He may not have dared to have been more specific in referring to “exceeding all proportions,” but it would tally with all the relevant evidence in the sources. The Edict prescribes the penalty of exile in case of some less “serious” divinatory practices, except for people of humble origin who are not even taken into consideration at all. However, in the case of offerings being made in connection with magic practices, capital punishment is still upheld. I would assume that the odium would not have been placed on “innocuous” offerings in honour of gods or spirits, and the sanction would be applied to all sacrifices made for purposes associated with divination practices, which may have been linked with the above-mentioned anthropomancy.

887 Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio 5, 13; Mowy Wybrane, Warszawa: IW PAX 1967, 120. 888 Cf. Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio 7, 9–14, [in:] J. M. Szymusiak, 1965, 295–297. 889 Cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae XXI, 5, 1; T. Zieliński, 1999, 449–450. 890 Cf. T. Zieliński, 1999, 455, n. 28.

201

The urgency of this particular law is attested by the expiation books, where throughout the first millennium various prohibitions against magic practices, killing by witchcraft, or making sacrificial offerings, would reappear very frequently. For instance, let us cite the following provision prescribed by a certain 8th-century penitential book: “24. If someone commits a sacrilege by practising what is called haruspicy or augury, as well as using birds for divination, or practising it in any other nefarious way, let him do penance for three years on bread and water.”891

As can be seen, the prescribed penalty was much less serious than those mandated by the earlier emperors and the ET. There is no mention of capital punishment, which is fairly obvious as no penitential tribunal had such prerogatives, but there is no reference to exile, either, even though the same book (and some others as well) would determine such penance for murder (cf. item 1). Would it mean that the problem had become somewhat insignificant by then and for that reason the penalties would have no longer been so severe? Perhaps so, but the amount of relevant precepts is considerable, rather attesting to the actual weight of this issue. Still, there seems to be no reason to suspect that human sacrifices for magic-related purposes would have continued by the time of that 8th-century penitential provision, and therefore there was no need for very harsh penalties. The provision prescribed at ET 108 does not make it clear whether it was actually formulated by Theoderic himself, although there is a mention in the extant correspondence that pertains to the ruler’s actions in accordance with this specific law. Let us take note of the reference to someone who, [being] “oblivious of piety, practises atrocities,”892 namely the senators Basil and Pretextatus, who were involved in some magic practices. The seriousness of the situation is confirmed by the fact that the letter was addressed to Argolicus, Prefect of Rome in the second half of 510 and early 511,893 also referring to Arigernus, the recipient of the subsequent letter in the collection. Arigernus894 was Theoderic’s aide and a man of confidence often entrusted with taking care of the most urgent legal questions, and he was apparently the figure entrusted with finding a positive solution to each specific case, regardless of

891 Poenitentiale Burgundense, SCL 5, 263. 892 Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 22: oblitus pietatis crudelia sectatur erroris; cf. Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 23. 893 Cf. Argolicus 1, PLRE II, 140. 894 Cf. Arigernus, PLRE II, 141–142.

202

the rank or stature of the protagonists formally involved.895 For instance, in 502, he was among the mediators assigned to resolve the problem of proceeding with Pope Symmachus’ trial;896 likewise, as a comes and  vir illustrissimus, he would have a part in settling the controversies involving Rome’s Jews (ca. 510). The king did entrust the case to the Senate, but with a clear emphasis on Arigernus, thus pointing to who was regarded as the leading authority in the matter.897 The problem must have been serious indeed, judging by the high rank of the official involved in the case. The gravity of the offence perpetrated by the two senators is further affirmed by the fact that a committee of five senators had been appointed to investigate the case. The two incriminated men managed to escape but they were eventually captured and Basil was burned at the stake in Rome.898 His flight to the monastery of Amiternum, near present-day l’Aquila, where he attempted to seek refuge, his expulsion from there and his subsequent death by burning are described by Gregory the Great, who portrayed him as a notorious sorcerer and a devil incarnate.899 Very certainly, there would have been no need for such an uproar if the man had engaged in some “innocuous” practices such as crystal gazing.

5.  Violatio sepulcri The Edict deals with violation of tombs in very straightforward terms, but the prosecution of this offence is much more rigorous than in some other documents

895 As noted by G. B. Picotti in a discussion following  Vaccari’s paper presented at Spoleto (1955), with reference to Variae III, 36. 45; IV 16. 23, [in:] I Goti in Occidente, 617–618. The publication makes an error of listing III instead of IV. 896 Cf. Roma (6 novembris 501) 362 & 365. 897 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 43. Cf. E. Stein, 1949, 249. The case in question was the burning of a synagogue by some servants employed in Jewish households. Theoderic called for the cessation of hostilities, but also stated that the Jews guilty of instigating the riots should be punished. It is difficult to render the text precisely, cf., e.g., B. Blumenkranz, 1963, 54. 898 Cf. Basilius 9, PLRE II, 215. I would not concur with B. Saitta’s opinion that this Basil is the same person that is known from Variae II, 11 & IV, 40, where the protagonist is referred to as vir spectabilis and appears in the context of the restitution of the property defrauded by his wife; cf. Ch. IX: “Religious aspects in the Edict of Theoderic,” subsection on the Ius asyli; B. Saitta, 1993, 58 and 76. The penalty of death by burning followed the sanction prescribed at CTh IX, 16, 1. 899 Cf. Gregorius Magnus, Dialogi de vita et miraculis patrum italicorum I, 4.

203

endorsed by Theoderic or his chancery. According to the relevant provision of the ET: Qui sepulchrum destruxerit, occidatur.900 It appears that the weight of the incriminated act is expressed by the verb destruo, which denotes substantial destruction. It is worth considering to what extent the problem was featured in legal tradition and whether any other provisions relating to this particular question made use of such a stringent expression.901 The provision itself is of religious, and not originally Christian, provenance. Violatio sepulcri was a serious offence throughout the Imperial era and even beforehand.902 Initially, cases of sepulchral desecration were prosecuted on the strength of private lawsuits, but from the 3rd century onwards, when violatio sepulcri became categorized as one of the serious offences identified as crimina, it would be a matter of public prosecution.903 Commentators tend to indicate several constitutions as the possible sources of the precept in question. The emperor Constans,904 in his constitution of June 25, 900 ET 110: Anyone who destroys a grave shall be killed (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 901 For earlier constitutions dealing with the problem of sepulchral desecration, see J. Iluk, 1985, 18–22. Emperor Septimius Severus (193–211) issued a similar decree prescribing capital punishment for those who were guilty of breaking into tombs and desecrating the dead interred therein; cf. J. Pudliszewski, 2009, 9. Similar sanctions are imposed in the so-called Nazarene Edict, an inscription dating from the first half of the 1st century CE, i.e., the reign of Tiberius or Claudius; A. C. Johnson et al. (ed.), 1961, 113, n. 133: “Edict of Caesar. It is my pleasure that graves and tombs which anyone has prepared as a pious service for forebears, children, or members of his household are to remain forever unmolested. But if any person shows that another either has destroyed them, or in any other way has cast forth the persons buried there, or with malicious deception has transferred the bodies elsewhere to the dishonor of the dead, or has removed the inscribed or other stones, I command an action to be instituted against such person, protecting the pious services of men, just as if they were concerned with the gods. For it shall be by far more proper to do honor to the dead. No one whatsoever shall be permitted to remove them. If anyone does so, however, it is my will that he shall suffer capital punishment on the charge of desecration of graves.” Cf. F. de Zulueta, 1932, 184–197. 902 Cf. E. Rebillard, 2009, 61–63; J. Iluk, 1993, 15–31; F. De Visscher, 1963. 903 It can be found, for the first time, in the emperor Gordian’s III constitution of 240; cf. A. Dębiński, 1995, 71–73; B. Sitek, 2003, 172–175. 904 The Theodosian Code mentions Constantius, but the actual lawgiver was the emperor Constans, considering the fact that Constantius was a ruler in the Eastern Empire, while the constitution itself was addressed to the Prefect of the West; cf. R. Delmaire, for a commentary, [in:] Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin à Théodose II (312–438), SCh 531, 160.

204

340,905 addressed to Titianus,906 Prefect of Rome, prohibited plundering tombs on the pain of being deported to mines (metalla), if the perpetrator committed that offence of his own will. In case the offenders acted on somebody else’s orders, they would be punished with the sanction of “ordinary” exile (not to be confused with the penalty of forcible deportation), which amounted to having to leave their land. If any objects removed from sepulchres were found inside a building, they would be confiscated by the fisc. The law did differentiate between municipal and rural estates, or other types of property (domus, villa, aedificium quodqumque), but the sanction was the same, nonetheless. Although the precept in question makes no mention of the verb destruo, it contains the following clause: si quis in demoliendis sepulchris fuerit adprehensus. Demolitio could in fact refer to destroying or demolishing something, but the further part of this constitution would imply that it referred to robbing tombs of something they contained or otherwise violating their integrity, rather than the destruction of a grave as such. It would appear that the aim of such “demolition” was not vandalizing or destroying tombs, but robbing them of valuable objects or material. Let us notice that the punishment ad metallas would have been practically tantamount to death penalty. And the legislator had indeed perceived it as such, hence the subsequent, significantly mitigating, constitution would begin with the following words: factum solitum sanguine vindicari multae inflictione corrigimus.907 Another constitution issued by Constantius,908 that of March 28, 349,909 modified the contents of the one decreed by Constans. It reduced the penalty to a fine of one pound of gold for each grave from which marble columns or some other building material, except for those cases when the pontifex permitted removing some elements from neglected or derelict tombs. Moreover, it prohibited destroying graves (acts of vandalism) on the pain of a fine of 20 pounds of gold. 905 CTh IX, 17, 1: Si quis in demoliendis sepulchris fuerit adprehensus, si id sine domini conscientia faciat, metallo adiudicetur; si vero domini auctoritate vel iussione urgetur, relegatione plectatur. Et si forte detractum aliquid de sepulchris ad domum eius villamque pervectum post hanc legem repperietur, villa sive domus aut aedificium quodcumque erit fisci viribus vindicetur. 906 Cf. PLRE I, 918–919. 907 CTh IX, 17, 2: “We rectify the law that had usually resorted to death penalty.” (trans. C. Pharr). 908 According to the Latin text, this constitution would have been issued by the signatory of the previous one, i.e., the emperor Constans. However, in view of the fact that it was addressed to Limenius, Praetorian Prefect in the East (cf. PLRE I, 510), Constantius should be regarded as the actual lawgiver of CTh IX, 17, 2. 909 Cf. CTh IX, 17, 2.

205

Even though it was stated that the law was not only to be in effect in the future but should be applied to past incidents as well (however, it specified that it referred to the situations that had taken place following the consulship of Dalmatius and Zenophilus, i.e., after the year 333. There is no evidence concerning any contemporary event connected with tombs, although according to one of the hypotheses,910 the above-mentioned situation may have been related to the emperor Constantine’s building activity, in particular the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica built on the site of a necropolis at via Cornelia.911 However, as Roland Delmaire rightly notes,912 Constantine, as the pontifex maximus, had the authority to relieve himself of the duty to keep the tombs inviolate, as can be seen in the text of the same constitution.913 Interestingly, the penalty of fines was extended to those high-ranking officials who would be responsible for ordering acts of sepulchral devastation. In turn, any governor responsible for such negligence would have to suffer the punishment of infamy.914 The emperor also warned against selling marble tomb fragments to lime-burners. In addition, the same constitution mentioned the officials in charge of protecting cemeteries and prosecuting those who attempted to destroy graves. In Rome, such officials were the pontifices, praetorian prefects, and judges in provinciis locorum. In one of his orations, Libanius censures Florentinus, among some other figures, for demolishing a sepulchre in order to obtain material for building a portico.915 As I have noted, the sanctions are very stringent indeed, though not as harsh as in the Edict of Theoderic. It could be said that the offences were very different on account of the fact that the relevant precepts would not be concerned with acts of destruction as such but focused rather on the question of re-using such 910 Cf. W. Seston, 1957, 153–159. 911 In order to erect a basilica directly over the Apostle’s grave, Constantine would have had to act in contravention of the contemporary laws ensuring the inviolability of sites such as a necropolis, with the requirement of obtaining the necessary approval of the Senate; cf. E. Kirschbaum, 1957, 71. 912 Cf. SCh 531, 161. 913 CTh IX, 17, 2: […] qui vero libellis datis a pontificibus impetrarunt, ut reparationis gratia labentia sepulchra deponerent, si vera docuerunt, ab illatione multae separentur. 914 In Roman law, infamia signified the essential deprivation of civic rights and dignity of incriminated individuals, e.g., resulting in their inability to hold public offices. In addition, the infames were stripped of the right to act as witnesses in court or hold the office of a judge; they would be also subject to further restrictions in matters related to the inheritance law; cf. W. Litewski, 1998, 118. 915 Cf. P. Petit, 1955, 89.

206

material, which should have been strictly regulated in accordance with the law. It is very evident, however, that this problem was a very difficult matter in practice, considering the fact that the following constitution would have to deal with yet another aspect that required being regulated as well. It is possible that the actual difficulty may have been in the effective obtainment of the pontifices’ permission to demolish the tombs, since the constitution of 356,916 issued by the emperors Constantius II and Julian, provided for a return to the sanctions that had been in force before the provision mitigating Constans’ laws. The precept pertained to those who would be guilty of robbing graves and removing the material from them in order to take it to their own estates or houses. The key term here is sepulchra subvertere. It would refer to devastating or vandalizing tombs with the sole intent of obtaining construction material without permission. The law-makers of Theodosius must have perceived a significant difference between this particular situation and those described in the previous precepts, as they deemed it necessary to put it in the form of a separate provision. In the next year, Constantius referred to pagan tombs as “dwellings of shadows, houses of the dead,” calling acts of sepulchral robbery “barbarous and insane cruelty.” In the constitution of June 13, 356,917 Constantius II, with Caesar Julian omitted, stated that those who would desecrate graves committed a double offence, for such people disturbed the peaceful repose of the dead and would bring the impurity upon the living through the use of the material looted from tombs. The term destruo reappears in the phrase sepultos spoliant destruendo et vivos polluunt fabricando. The precept referred to those who would be guilty of such an act in order to use the material for construction purposes or sell it to somebody else. The prescribed punishment was a fine of 10 pounds of gold to be paid to the fisc in addition to the previously decreed sanctions. This may have likely signified a return to the constitution of 340, even though it is not very clear how a fine of 10 pounds of gold should have been added to the confiscation of the entire property, as mentioned at CTh IX, 17, 1; unless the lawgiver had wished to make a distinction between those property owners who would steal material from tombs for the purpose of aggrandizing or decorating their estates, and thus punished them by confiscating their property, and those who would only render their services to the aforesaid category of people, making their living by selling the building material plundered from sepulchres. They would make some profit out of their illegal activity, and therefore they would

916 Cf. CTh IX, 17, 3. 917 Cf. CTh IX, 17, 4.

207

be punished with heavy fines, but they might not have been the owners of the property and, for that reason, the penalty of confiscation would have been inapplicable in their case. At this point, one could ask how much profit the perpetrators of such illegal practices could have made, considering the fact that the penalty was a fine of 10 pounds of gold, equivalent to 720 solidi, which was a considerable amount of money. The same sanction would have been applied in case of touching the interred bodies. The constitution refers to corpora sepulta aut reliquias, thus making a distinction between the apparently different categories of entombed bodies and relics (the latter denoting any mortal remains, not necessarily the relics in today’s religious sense of this word). The mid-4th century marked the beginning of a rapid growth of the Christian martyr worship, resulting in a burgeoning demand for holy relics.918 The constitution of February 26, 386,919 issued by the emperors Valentinian, Arcadius,920 and Theodosius, is concerned with defining the activity taking place at the necropolises associated with the worship of Christian martyrs as a manifestation of sepulchral violation. As a result, trading in relics as well as translating thereof are considered to be illicit acts. The Theodosian Code provides two more constitutions concerned with funerary questions. One of them, issued by the emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius (dated June 30, 381) prescribes translating all the urns and sarcophagi beyond the limits of the City of Constantinople, simultaneously forbidding any new burials there.921 The other one, rather unrelated to the Edict of Theoderic, prohibits holding funeral processions in the daytime.922 There is an even earlier constitution by Constantine (331),923 where sepulchral desecration, along with the crime of homicide and preparation of magic potions, perpetrated by the husband is treated as sufficient grounds for granting divorce to his wife. Secular laws were accompanied by some relevant church legislation. The regulations authored by Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa should be dated to the 370s. According to Basil:

918 Cf. R. Wiśniewski, 2011, 11–42. 919 Cf. CTh IX, 17, 7. 920 The constitution is erroneously attributed to Gratian, as he was assassinated in 383 and his successor was Arcadius, one of the signatories of this particular law. 921 CTh IX, 17, 6: Omnia quae supra terram urnis clausa vel sarcofagis corpora detinentur. 922 Cf. CTh IX, 17, 5. 923 Cf. CTh III, 16, 1.

208

“Whoever is guilty of desecrating a grave should be excluded from communion for ten years: two years doing his penance, three as a listener, four years lying prostrate, one year standing among the faithful, after which he will be admitted.”924

While his brother explained the issue as follows: “Desecration of graves can be either pardonable or unpardonable. If a person shows respect for the law of God, he shall not violate the buried body and thus expose the abominations of nature to daylight, only using the stones of the grave for some building purpose, such an act is not deserving of commendation but shall be justified by tradition, if the material thus collected is employed in an important and generally useful work. But digging through the ashes of the interred body and taking out the bones in the hope of finding the jewellery buried along with the corpse shall be subjected to the penalty prescribed for common debauchery, with the provision of the aforesaid difference, which means that the superior is to observe the progress in the healing of such a patient and may reduce the time for penance prescribed by the canons.”925

The contents of the other synodal canons of relevance tend to be similar. Ps-Theodore the Studite’s canons on confession and compensation for sins make reference to the aforementioned canon of St Basil: “Those who rob graves should remain out of communion for fifteen years, according to Basil’s instruction. We determine however that after the vice is eradicated, he should be excluded from communion for one year, eating only dry food past the hour of nine in the evening and fulfilling 200 metaniae.”926 In comparison, the precept from the ET would look rather terse but intelligible. Even if the Imperial constitutions mentioned some other penalties, they would have been, so to speak, additional or exceptional, whereas the general principle had been, at least initially, capital punishment. Giulio Vismara, an advocate of the view that Theoderic the Great is not the author of the edict and the document should be attributed to Theodoric II, King of the Visigoths, also takes ET 110 as the basis for his assertions of the edict’s putative authorship, claiming, among other things, that it stands in contradiction to the king’s other regulations concerning the same issue.927 In this way, he points to the barbarous nature of this precept, which, in his opinion, would suggest that the guilty person could be executed without any trial and sentence. He claims that such an act could have been committed by anybody on the strength

924 Basilius 66, Canones Patrum Graecorum, SCL 3, 55. 925 Gregorius Nazianzenus 7, Canones Patrum Graecorum, SCL 3, 84. 926 Theodorus Studita, De confessione, c. 25, Libri Poenitentiales, SCL 5, 491. Cf. A. Baron, 2013, 225. 927 Cf. G. Vismara, 2000, 241–244.

209

of this law.928 I can see no reason to believe this view is correct, because if a certain precept of the law prescribed capital punishment, it would entail both a judicial trial and a sentence. Moreover, no law prohibiting any specific act under penalty of death had ever been an incentive for lynching. Vismara argues that this provision would stand in contradiction to Theoderic’s order regarding the case of a presbyter named Laurentius, who had been accused of leading a band of criminals searching for valuable objects inside the graves.929 The king ordered an inquiry into the case, not the immediate execution of death penalty, which, in Vismara’s view, would be contradictory. However, it seems, if the ruler had not ordered that the matter be examined, it would have been in contravention of the law. With the investigation ordered, it was clear that the guilty, if found, would receive a penalty prescribed by the law.930 As can be seen, the king did not want to rely on unverified reports from some informers in a capital case. Likewise, one of the precepts contained in a certain letter that defined the scope of duties of the comes privatae, who was in charge of such things as making sure that the dead may rest in peace, would not contravene the aforesaid law.931 In another instruction, expressed in one of Theoderic’s letters, referring to obtaining construction material and various valuables from tombs, but solely from the abandoned ones (dominus non habetur) and provided that the ashes of the dead remain intact (ut abstineatis manus a cineribus mortuorum)932 does not seem to be contrary to the ET 110. In one of the letters in the Variae, Theoderic points out that gold should be removed from tombs, as it would be a sin to part with objects which could still be used to serve the living.933 A. Kokowski may be, it appears, correct in his hypothesis of the ruler’s consent for plundering tombs and his “peculiar play undertaken with his subjects,”934 in a belief that if people deposited precious objects in the tombs, they would be themselves to blame for the loss of all such valuables.

928 Cf. G. Vismara, 2000, 242: chiunque lo abbia sorpreso abbia facoltà di ucciderlo. 929 Bands of “grave robbers,” sometimes evidently in service of some official authority, were active in various periods throughout history. The extent of this illegal phenomenon would induce many Imperial-era jurists (e.g., in the reigns of Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius) to address the problem. Cf. CI II 39; D XLIX 14, 3. 930 Cf. Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 18. 931 Cassiodorus, Variae VI, 8: tibi commissa sunt castitas viventium et securitas mortuorum. 932 Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 34. 933 Cassiodorus, Variae IV, 34. 934 A. Kokowski, 2007, 296.

210

According to Vismara, the Edict of Theoderic, contrary to the above-mentioned regulations, provides for the absolute protection of tombs,935 and therefore it could not have tolerated the practice of removing valuable material from graves. In my opinion, it would not be necessary at all, as the ET forbids destruction [of tombs] very clearly, whereas the precept in question treats of removing objects from all tombs that are abandoned, unattended, and thus evidently falling into disrepair – similar to how the constitutions of the Theodosian Code would handle the same problem, prescribing more or less rigorous penalties for sepulchral robbery, depending on the seriousness of each specific offence. It is notable that the ET law refers to the graves which would be completely destroyed or demolished, not just used or re-adapted for some other purposes. As a result, one might venture an opinion that the law in question referred to desecration in the strict sense of this term, which was precisely a capital offence. During his famous visit to Rome in the year 500 Theoderic visited the basilica churches, showing his respect for the Pope, the Senate, and the people of Rome. On this particular occasion: “Then coming to Rome and entering it, he appeared in the senate, and addressed the people at The Palm, promising that with God’s help he would keep inviolate whatever the former Roman emperors had decreed.”936

The pledge to abide by the laws promulgated by the previous emperors is significant in that it testified to Theoderic’s awareness of the need to continue within the existing political, and also legal, framework. There have been various interpretations of this precept. In Vismara’s opinion, the ruler’s pledge referred to the earlier legislation, not his own laws.937 As I have noted before, it may have alluded to the promulgation of the Edict938 and the Theodosian Code at the same place. It was exactly the occasion for Theoderic’s pledge to respect the earlier laws and, should we assume that the  ET would have been the outcome of his lawmaking efforts, such a law intended to secure effective protection for tombs was definitely in order. In general terms, it simply stated that the sanction of capital punishment would remain in force, which was something that the Romans could

935 G. Vismara, 2000, 243: […] intende tutelare in modo assoluto l’integrità dei sepolcri. 936 Excerpta Valesiana 12.66: Deinde veniens ingressus Urbem venit ad senatum et ad Palmam, populo adlocutus se omnia, Deo iuvante, quod retro principes Romani ordinaverunt, inviolabiliter servaturum promittit. 937 Cf. G. Vismara, 1987, 13. 938 Cf. B. Paradisi, 1987, 187.

211

accept without objection. The later ecclesial legislation, as reflected in the Penitential Books, would continue in a similar vein.939 Another, somewhat related, precept in the ET forbids the interment of the dead in the city of Rome: “Anyone who buries corpses within the city of Rome shall be compelled to allocate a fourth of his patrimony to the fisc; if he is destitute he shall be publicly flogged.”940

The precept in question may be related to the previously discussed constitution CTh IX, 17, 6 of 30 July 381, in which the emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius renew the prohibition on burying the dead within the city, i.e., in Constantinople, stressing that it would also apply to the places honoured with the presence of holy relics. In one of his commentaries,941 Roland Delmaire makes reference to the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople, where some eminent figures (e.g., Constantine) were interred, noting that some people may have perceived it as a precedent and it was exactly the thing that the emperors wished to avoid, hence the mention of the places sanctified by holy relics. The penalty amounted to one third of the perpetrator’s property. It was allowed to cite the laws promulgated in Constantinople with the intention of disseminating them throughout the Empire, but it was not permitted to 939 I have chosen the following items and the relevant passages for general information only, as the earliest penitential books cited here date from the 7th century. The Penitential Books of Burgundy, Paris, and Florence make no doubt about it: Si quis sepulchri violator fuerit, V annos paeniteat, III ex his in pane et aqua; cf. Burg 15, Paris 9, Flor 15, SCL 5, 263, 272, 279. “The Book of Bobbio”: Si quis sepulcrum violaverit, quinque annos paeniteat; cf. Bob 15, SCL 5, 267. “The Book of Halitgarius”: Si quis sepulcrum violaverit, VII annos peniteat, III in pane et aqua; cf. Halit IV, 29, SCL 5, 320. “The Book of St. Hubertus’ Monastery”: Si quis sepulchrum violatus fuerit, V annis paeniteat; cf. Hub 16, SCL 5, 334. “The Book of St. Gallus’ Monastery”: Si quis sepulchri violator fuerit, V annos; cf. Sangal 23, SCL 5, 344. “The Book of PsGregorius”: Si quis clericus aut laicus in demoliendis sepulcris deprehensus fuerit, quia facinus hoc pro sacrilege legibus publicis sanguineum diditur, oportet in tali scelere proditum a clericatus ordine submoveri, et poenitentiae triennio deputari; cf. Greg XX, SCL 5, 355. “Burchard Decrees”: Violasti sepulcrum, ita dico, dum aliquem videres sepelire, et in nocte infringeres sepulcrum et tolleres vestimenta eius? Si fecisti, il annos per legitimas ferias poeniteas; cf. Burch V/48, SCL 5, 380. “The Book of Vigilanum”: Et qui sepulchrum violaverit, V annos paeniteat; cf. Vig 33, Sil 54, SCL 5, 407, 459. 940 ET 111: Qui intra urbem Romam cadavera sepelierit, quartam partem patrimonii sui fisco sociare cogatur: si nihil habuerit, caesibus fustibus civitate pellatur (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty). 941 Cf. SCh 531, 171; G. Downey, 1959, 27–51.

212

modify them at will. This is how it is provided for at CTh IV, 4, 4942 and Vismara takes it as the basis on which to support his assertions of the Visigoth origin of the Edict. However, the changes in question were unjustifiable indeed: Rome instead of Constantinople; a fourth, not a third, of the property liable to forfeiture; flagellation and banishment for the poor, instead of a fine. There is therefore no reason to believe why this particular law would have been promulgated for Gaul in Tolosa, as Vismara claims.943 Rather, in both of the capital cities the situation of the Empire was still very much the same (as Rome continued to remain the capital, even with the Goths in power), as great numbers of relics of many holy martyrs had been amassed in Rome as well as in Constantinople and many devout Christians wished to be buried close to them.944 The cemeteries were normally situated outside the walls of the city, but the 4th century marked the beginning of translating the relics into the churches and the temptation to bury the dead inside them must have been very strong indeed.945 Destruction of graves would not always have been perceived as a crime on account of the popular Christian view that the non-Christian tombs should not be recognized as sacred.946 To illustrate this point, let us quote one of the precepts from Justinian’s Digests: “The sepulchres of enemies are not religious places in our eyes, and therefore we can make use of any stones which have been removed from them for any purpose whatsoever, without becoming liable to the action for violating a sepulchre.”947

The most common penalties for sepulchral desecration in the Empire would be fines or infamy. Capital punishment in both Roman and other legislations was

942 Cf. CTh IV, 4, 4: Interpretatio. Testamenta omnia vel reliquas scripturas apud censuales in urbe Roma voluit publicari, hoc est, ut in reliquis regionibus apud curiae viros testamenta, vel quaecumque scripturae actis firmari solent, gestorum allegatione muniantur. Si vero mortuorum voluntates actis reservatae non fuerint, nihil valebunt. 943 Cf. G. Vismara, 2000, 239–242. 944 Burials in the vicinity of martyrs’ graves (ad sanctos) originated from the belief shared by many Christians that the practice would ensure them a “better” intercession with God. 945 Cf. Y. Duval, 1988. 946 Christians regarded non-Christian tombs (i.e., those of the followers of Roman and Hellenistic religions) statues as visible symbols of pagan worship and believed they should be destroyed. 947 D XLVII, 12, 4: Sepulchra hostium religiosa nobis non sunt: ideoque lapides inde sublatos in quemlibet usum convertere possumus: non sepulchri violati actio competit (trans. S. P. Scott).

213

nothing new and would have already been applied much earlier. The Edict of Theoderic was made into the obligatory law for the Goths and Romans alike. Significantly, it had relied primarily on the laws contained in the Theodosian Code and the Sentences by Paulus,948 as evident, for instance, in the precepts dealing with the offence of violatio sepulcri. It is only surprising that despite the ET jurists’ reliance on these two bodies of laws, and despite the edict’s amalgamation of precepts from the Roman and Germanic laws,949 the sanction prescribed in the provision dealing with sepulchral violation is so harsh. It could be added that bringing a lawsuit to court on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) and in the period directly preceding Easter would be punished just as severely. According to Theoderic’s sanction decreed in the Edict, such practices should be treated as a crime of sacrilege (sacrilegium), and therefore punishable by death as well as the other related crimes: “We order that no one is to be sued on the day of the sun, which is called the Lord’s Day, as well as the days of Easter; anyone who contradicts this precept shall be considered guilty of sacrilege.”950

The Edict touches on yet another question concerning religious issues. As I have noted in the final paragraphs of Ch. VI, the ET 143 provides for preserving the privileges of the Jewish population.

948 Cf. J. Iluk, 1985, 40. 949 Cf. K. Koranyi, 1963, 65–66. 950 ET 154: De die dominico et diebus sancti Paschalis (paschae). Die solis, qui dominicus nuncupatur, sed et diebus paschalibus, nullum praecipimus conveniri; qui contra fecerit, sacrilegii reus habeatur (trans. S. D. W. Lafferty).

214

Conclusions The declining Western Roman Empire came to its formal termination upon the abdication of Romulus Augustulus and the Germanic commander Odoacer’s rise to power. However, the rule of the latter would prove to be only an episode lasting a dozen or so years and failed to meet with much enthusiasm at Constantinople. This situation explains, in part, the career of Theoderic, who seized Italy with the Emperor Zeno’s knowledge and consent. Theoderic the Great, a member of the Amal family, was a ruler whose years of political activity coincided with the advent of a new era and were marked by features of the two distinct civilizations. He was born in ca. 452/3. His father was Tiudimer and his mother’s name was Ereulieva. At the age of 8, he was sent to the Constantinopolitan court of Leo I, where he would spend an entire decade, gaining knowledge and experience. He considered the acquisition of his first domain, the city of Singidunum (Belgrade), as the beginning of his rule, yet he would officially come to rule over the state of the Ostrogoths only upon the death of his father in 474. His conquest of Ravenna and the subsequent assassination of Odoacer (493) marked the beginning of a new period – the Ostrogoth rule in Italy. Theoderic died on 26 August 526, at Ravenna. The grand mausoleum erected in his honour housed his tomb only for a short time (provided that it had ever served as his tomb at all). From the political and cultural viewpoint, Theoderic stood at the boundary between the Roman tradition and his Germanic origin. He attempted to stay true to his own ethnic group, simultaneously adopting Roman laws and civic virtues. He was clearly impressed by being a Roman. From the religious perspective, when he came to power in Italy at the Emperor’s behest, he found himself amid the conflict embroiling Rome and Constantinople at that time. It was the so-called Acacian schism centred around the issue of the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon (451) with its teaching on the two natures in Christ as well as the acknowledgement of Constantinople as the principal see of the Church in the East. Also, a significant circumstance was Theoderic’s Arian faith, which allowed him to keep equal distance from the two sees involved in the dispute. Another ecclesiastical, and strictly Roman, problem noted in the Liber Pontificalis is the Laurentian schism, named after Lawrence, who was elected Pope on the same day as Symmachus (the latter recognized as legitimate Bishop of Rome by the king). Despite that initial recognition, it was to continue until at 215

least 507, i.e., for less than a decade, because, among other things, the king had deftly manoeuvred his support from one to the other candidate, depending on what he and the notables of Rome (whom he could not afford to ignore) regarded as expedient. In order to examine Theoderic’s religious policy, I have chosen to rely on the text of the Liber Pontificalis, analyzing the biographies of the popes from the period of his reign and seeking any mentions or clues referring to him. The authors of this work, composed shortly after Theoderic’s death, had been certainly wellinformed, even though their accounts may not have been impartial. They were primarily concerned for representing the merits of the Bishops of Rome and the superiority of the Roman orthodoxy. Therefore, if they depict any positive aspects of the Arian ruler’s reign, it is definitely worth taking note of. In the biography of Pope Felix III (483–492), Theoderic’s name is used only as a chronological pointer, appearing only in the second edition of the Liber Pontificalis. It is not surprising at all, considering the fact that Theoderic had just begun his rule in Italy at the time of Felix III’s pontificate. Although scholars believe that there had not elapsed much time between the first and the second edition of the LP (see Introduction), this annotation can be found in the second one only, as if the authors had wished to state the fact that – at least to some people – might not have been very obvious anymore. The biography of Gelasius (492–496) mentions Theoderic alongside the Emperor Zeno, dating his pontificate to the time of the reigns of the two rulers, Theoderic in the West, Zeno in the East. The LP made use of the initially ordinary Roman method of determining chronology by stating the names of emperors and consuls. It was continued until as late as Pope Liberius (352–366). Further on, it simply recorded the duration of the pontificates in years, months, and days, with no specific reference to figures of authority. I  have noted that the second edition of the biography of Pope Felix III makes a mention of Theoderic’s rule, while the authors of this particular biography revert to the previous practice, by mentioning the names of Theoderic and Zeno, as if on a par, and omitting the consuls’ names. It seems to imply, which one may assume only tentatively, that the authors of the Liber Pontificalis viewed Theoderic as the one who had ascended to the position formerly occupied by the emperors in the Western Roman Empire. The biography also makes another allusive reference to Theoderic, which is fairly vague without recourse to other relevant sources. It can be seen, e.g., in the statement that he rescued Rome from the threat of famine, which is somewhat less enigmatic only in the context of the correspondence between Gelasius and Theoderic’s mother, where the Pope asks her to intercede with the king on this matter. 216

The dating in the biography of Pope Anastasius II (496–498) appears to be even more noteworthy, as it makes a mention of Theoderic only, with no reference to the Emperor at Constantinople. It may have been caused by the Emperor Anastasius’ support for Monophysitism, even though the names of those emperors who were responsible for persecutions would not have been omitted. Following the brief pontificate of Anastasius II, the biography of Pope Symmachus (498–514) offers much more information concerning Theoderic. As regards the dating, the name of the king is mentioned in the first place, followed by the Emperor Anastasius. This biography portrays Theoderic as the ruler who pronounces his just and immediate verdict in recognition of Symmachus’ election. The Liber Pontificalis goes on to take note of his further involvement in the Laurentian schism and appointment of an inspector of the Holy See. We do not know why the authors passed over Theoderic’s adventus in Rome and his role in summoning a synod to resolve the question of the accusations against the Pope. More information relating to this subject is provided by the author of the edition known as the Fragmentum Laurentianum (critical of Pope Symmachus), who states that Theoderic had ultimately granted all the titular churches of Rome to Symmachus. The Liber Pontificalis also fails to mention the king in connection with the disturbances in the city at that time, as if the authors had wanted to divert any suspicion of the king’s complicity in the unrest. The biography of Hormisdas (514–523) is concerned with the resolution of the Acacian schism; it takes note of the Pope’s consultation with the king, their joint delegation sent to the East, as well as of the jointly prepared policy in response to the civil conflict in the East caused by Vitalianus. According to the authors of the LP, the co-operation between the king and the Pope was so obvious that the Emperor Justin would dispatch one and the same delegation to the king and the Pope in anticipation of their concerted decision. Indeed, such concerted action did take place, which is clearly depicted, in particular, in the second edition. After the death of Anastasius and upon Justin’s accession to the throne, the Pope continued to consult the king on the matter of negotiating with the Emperor. This particular point underscores Theoderic’s role in bringing an end to the schism, although, to which I refer in my work on a number of occasions, some other sources make it appear as if the whole situation had been actually working to his advantage inter duas potestates. Apparently, another token of a somewhat more sympathetic view of Theoderic is the information concerning the gifts donated to St. Peter’s Basilica. It says that Clovis, king of the Franks, who had just been baptized in the Catholic faith, donated a crown adorned with precious stones, which is immediately followed by the information that king Theoderic donated a gift of two silver chandeliers, 70 lbs each, an offering no worse than 217

that presented by the Catholic king of the Franks. During Hormisdas’ episcopate, several interventions were undertaken by the king in connection with the Jews, but our main source does not make any mention of it. The biography of Pope John I (523–526) makes a note of the measures undertaken by the king, outraged at the action of the Emperor Justin, who had ordered the seizure of the Arian churches along with their members. It says that he told the Pope to go to Constantinople in order to persuade the Emperor to change his decision. At the same time, he warned that he would seek revenge on the Catholics in Italy if the Pope’s mission ended in failure. According to the Liber Pontificalis (but contrary to other sources), the Emperor agreed to return the churches to the Arians in order to spare the blood of the Roman faithful. It is however difficult to determine the actual facts; the author goes on to say that Theoderic was dissatisfied with the results of John’s mission and the senatorial delegation. Upon their return, the envoys had to face the king’s discontent and eventual incarceration. The Liber Pontificalis also notes that the king had Boetius and Symmachus imprisoned and sentenced to death. The Pope died in prison, and Theoderic would die only three months later, which the second version records without any further comment, while the Epitome K suggests that Theoderic’s sudden death caused by a lightning be regarded as divine retribution. Let us note that according to other sources, Theoderic’s death was caused by a digestive disorder. The biography of Felix IV (526–530) makes use of the previous manner of dating, as it mentions Theoderic and Justin as the reigning rulers as well as the two consulship dates. One of the Liber Pontificalis editions – Epitome K – notes that Felix had been elected pope at the behest of king Theoderic. The absence of this detail in the second edition allows us to assume that the authors had preferred to keep silent on the issue. Other sources should be consulted for more details, while as far as our source is concerned, this is most likely the last time it refers to the king’s interference in the church affairs. On account of the bias of our primary source, it was necessary to keep referring to a number of other sources, which are not very impartial, either, notably the socalled Excerpta Valesiana, Cassiodorus’ Variae, Jordanes’ Getica, Ennodius’ Panegyric and Epistles. Chronicles of the fifth and sixth centuries are of fundamental importance as well. The Edict of Theoderic is taken into consideration, albeit its authorship remains a matter of dispute. Nonetheless, the legal provisions contained therein have much in common with the king’s decrees known from other sources. Our research reveals an image of a prudent ruler, capable of taking advantage of the existing conflict situations. It is best exemplified by the above-mentioned two schisms, Acacian and Laurentian. In the case of the former schism, it seems that Theoderic had no intention to act in favour of a reunification of the Churches 218

at the two capital cities of the Empire in order to prevent any possible action by the united and consolidated orthodox Church against the Arians (as if following the Roman tradition of divide et impera). It would become reality after the year 519, when the schism had come to an end primarily thanks to the efforts of the Emperor Justin. Possibly, Theoderic may have been somewhat consoled by the fact that the Emperor wished to co-opt the king’s son-in-law Eutharic as a co-consul during the first year of Justin’s reign. It can be seen that the Arian – Catholic relations had assumed certain “national” traits. In Theoderic’s view, the Arians are Goths, the Catholics are Romans, whereas conversions from one confession to another acquires a taste of national treason. He even goes so far as to use the names of the confessions and the nations interchangeably. It leads him to undertake some political manoeuvring in an attempt to establish an Arian alliance of Germanic peoples inhabiting the Western Mediterranean, centred around the idea of consolidating forces able to counterpoise the power of the Byzantine Empire rather than the opposition to the Catholicism itself. At the same time, however, he makes a pilgrimage to Rome, is received with honours by the Pope, gives donations to Rome’s churches, and he acts, as one of the sources puts it, “as if he were a Catholic”. Still, shortly after his return to Ravenna, it does not prevent him from giving credence to those who make accusations against the Pope and eventually supporting the antipope Laurentius. It is notable that his conduct towards Jews did not depart from the laws enacted by Roman emperors. Theoderic retained their privileges, yet insisted on maintaining respect for the law. In order to be a  fair and just ruler, he would punish any acts of hostility against the Jews. Such a policy was apparently guided by the ideal of religious tolerance and it is often described in that particular vein. It seems, however, that his actions had been motivated by his political pragmatism moderated by the ideal of romanitas rather than respect for religion itself. In one of his letters, he writes the following words: religionem imperare non possumus. It is not to be understood in the sense of the Enlightenment-era idealism, but rather as a practical principle that serves to maintain social order: Jews ought to follow Judaism, Romans – Catholicism, Goths – Arianism. His kingdom would experience a period of peace and stability (unseen for such a long time) for as long as he managed to preserve such a state of affairs. The Emperor Justin’s forced conversions of Arians into Catholicism marked the end of Theoderic’s peace-seeking rule and ushered in a less peaceful period in the last three years of his reign.

219

Abbreviations ASanc BBKL ByZ CCL CI Coll. Avell. CSCO CSEL CTh D DHGE DOP DPAC DSP 1 EpThV ET GCS HE HJb HN HR ChH

Acta Sanctorum I-LXIII, ed. Socii Bollandiani, Paris- Bruxelles 1863–1940. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, Berlin 1897 → „Byzantinische Zeitschrift“, Leipzig 1892 (od 1994 Stuttgart – Leipzig) → Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, Turnhout 1954 → Codex Iustinianus: Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. II, ed. P. Krueger, Berolini 1954. Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab. a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae, Avellana quae dicitur collectio. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris 1903 → Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Wien 1866 → Codex Theodosianus. Digesta: Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. I, ed. P. Krueger, T. Mommsen, Berolini 1963. Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, ed. A. Baudrillard i in., Paris 1912 → Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Dumbarton-Cambridge Mass. 1940 → Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane, Marietti, Casale Monferrato 1983. Dokumenty Soborów Powszechnych (325–787), vol. 1, A. Baron, H. Pietras (ed.), Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 2001. Epistulae Theodericianae variae. Edictum Theodorici regis. „Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte“, Leipzig-Berlin 1897 → Historia Ecclesiae: Eusebius Caezarensis, Evagrius Scholasticus, Philostorgius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomenos, Theodoretus, Zacharias Rhetor. „Historisches Jahrbuch“, Freiburg 1980 → Historia Nova Paulus Diakonus, Historia Romana. “Church History”, Philadelphia 1932 →

221

Jaffé

Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. Philippus Jaffé, ed. secunda ausp. Gulielmi Wattenbach curaverunt S. Loewenfeld, F. Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald, Lipsiae: Veit et Comp. 1885. JEH “The Journal of Ecclesiastical History”, London 1950 → JHS “Journal of Historical Studies”, Princeton 1968 → JRS “The Journal of Roman Studies”, London 1911 → JTS “The Journal of Theological Studies”, London 1900 → LP Le Liber Pontificalis, texte, introduction et commentaire par l’abbé L.-M. Duchesne, tome premier, Paris 1886; Libri Pontificalis pars prior, ed. Theodor Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Gesta Pontificum Romanorum I (=MGH GPR), Berlin 1898. Mansi J. D. Mansi i  in., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, I–LX, Florentiae 1759–1789, reprint: Paris-Leipzig 1901–1927. MGH AA Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi. MGH GPR Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Gesta Pontificum Romanorum. MGH LL navol. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Leges Nationum GermanGerm. icarum. MGH SRLong Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Longobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX. MGH SRMer. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores Rerum Merovingarum. MIÖG „Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung“. NDPAC Nuovo Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane, Casale Monferrato: Marietti 2006. Nov. Novellae: Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. III, rec. R. Schoell, G. Kroll, Berlin 1895. NRTh „Nouvelle Revue Théologique“, Louvain 1869 → OŻ Ojcowie Żywi, oprac. M. Starowieyski, Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 1978 → PCBE II Prosopographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire, vol. 2: Italie 313– 604, ed. Ch. L. Piétri, Roma 1999. PG Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca, 1–161, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris 1857–1866. 222

PL

Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, 1–222, ed. J. P. Migne, Paris 1878–1890. PLRE I A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I: AD 260–395, Cambridge University Press 1971. PLRE II J. R. Martindale, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. II, AD 395–527, Cambridge University Press 1980. PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. POK Pisma Ojców Kościoła, 1–28, ed. J. Sajdak, Poznań 1924–1970. PS „Polonia Sacra“, Kraków 1918 → PSP Pisma Starochrześcijańskich Pisarzy, Warszawa 1969 → RACh Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. Th. Klauser, Stuttgart 1950 → RBen „Revue Bénédictine“, Maredsous 1884 → RhM „Rheinisches Museum für Philologie“, Köln 1842 → RIN „Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e scienze affini“, Milano 1888–97. SCL 1 Acta Synodalia (Ann. 50–381), Synodi et Collectiones Legum, vol. 1, A. Baron, H. Pietras (ed.), Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 2006. SCL 3 Canones Patrum Graecorum, Synodi et Collectiones Legum, vol. 3, A. Baron, H. Pietras (ed.), Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 2009. SCL 4 Acta Synodalia (Ann. 381–431), Synodi et Collectiones Legum, vol. 4, A. Baron, H. Pietras (ed.), Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 2010. SCL 5 Libri Poenitentiales, Synodi et Collectiones Legum, vol. 5, A. Baron, H. Pietras (ed.), Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 2011. SCL 6 Acta Synodalia (Ann. 431–505), Synodi et Collectiones Legum, vol. 6, A. Baron, H. Pietras (ed.), Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 2011. SDHI Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris, Roma 1935 – SEA Studia Ephemeridis „Augustinianum“, Roma 1967 → SCh Sources Chrétiennes, Paris 1947 → Thiel Thiel A. (ed.), Epistolae romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilario usque ad Pelagium II, ex schedis clar. Petri Coustantii aliisque editis, adhibitis praetantissimis codicibus Italiae et Germaniae, Braunsberg 1868. 223

ThS TPat USS VetCh VoxP ZACh ZDA ZKG ZPE ŹM ŹMT

224

Theological Studies, Woodstock Md 1940 → „Teologia Patrystyczna“, Poznań 2004 → U schyłku starożytności. Studia źródłoznawcze, Warszawa 2009 → „Vetera Christianorum“, Bari 1964 → „Vox Patrum“, Lublin 1981 → „Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum“, Berlin-New York 1997 → „Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur”, Stuttgart 1841 → „Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte“, Stuttgart 1876 → „Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik“, Köln 1967 → Źródła Monastyczne, Kraków-Tyniec 1993 → Źródła Myśli Teologicznej, Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM 1996 →

Bibliography 1.  Primary Sources Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, tomus alter, Concilium Universale Chalcedonense, volumen quintum, Collectio sangermanensis, ed. E. Schwartz, Berolini et Lipsiae 1936. Acta syn. Agathensis (506), CCL 148, 189–228. Acta syn. Alexandriae (458) III: Epistola quorundam episcoporum Aegyptiacae dioecesis, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 206–208. Acta syn. Antiochiae (341), SCL 1, Kraków: WAM 2006, 129–142. Acta syn. Arausicanae (441), c. 5 (6), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 16. Acta syn. Arelatensis (442–506), c. 32 (31), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 29. Acta syn. Aurelianensis (549), c. 20; CCL 148 A, 155–156. Acta syn. Constantinopolitani (381), c. 1, DSP 1, Kraków: WAM 2001, 70. Acta syn. Constantinopolitani (448), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 62–105. Acta syn. Meaux (845), Mansi XIV, 811–842. Acta syn. Myrensis (458), 14, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 214. Acta syn. Narbonnensis (458/459), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 224. Acta syn. Nike (359), SCL 1, Kraków: WAM 2006, 235–236. Acta syn. Parisiensis (360/361), SCL 1, Kraków: WAM 2006, 247. Acta syn. Romanae (28 lulii 484), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 279–285. Acta syn. Romanae (1 martii 499), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 338–347. Acta syn. Romanae (501), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 350–359. Acta syn. Romanae (501), Relatio episcoporum ad regem, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 362–363. Acta syn. Romanae (502), Synodus habita Romae Palmaris, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 366–374. Acta syn. Serdicae (343) VII: Decretum sinodi orientalium apud Serdicam episcoporum a parte arianorum, quod miserunt ad Africam, SCL 1, Kraków: WAM 2006, 170–183. Acta syn. Toletanae (ca. 400), SCL 4, Kraków: WAM 2010, 125. Agnellus, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, MGH SRLong, dr. O. HolderEgger (ed.), Hannover 1878, 265–391.

225

Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri qui supersunt: Roman History, J. C. Rolfe (ed.), vol. 1–3, London 1935–1939. Anastasius Augustus, Hormisdae papae, Coll. Avell. 107 i 109; Latin imperial laws and letters (A.D. 306–565), ) not included in the Codes and Novels of Theodosius and Iustinianus, compiled by Ingo G. Maier, Internet Publication Vermont 3133 Melbourne (Australia), Third edition – 7 October 2010. Anastasius Augustus, Anastasii imperatoris ad Hormisdam papam per legatos apostolicae missa, PL 63, 381–383; Thiel 761–764. Anastasius II, Ad Clodoveum Francorum Regem (Epist 2), Thiel 623–624. Anastasius II, Epistola ad Imperatorem Anastasium (Episvol. 1), Thiel 615–623; Jaffé 744. Apokryfy Nowego Testamentu II/1, Apostołowie, M. Starowieyski (ed.), Kraków: WAM 2007. Arius, Epistola ad Alexandrum, [in:] Athanasius, De synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria 16, wyd. H. G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke II, 1, 6–7, Berlin 1940, 231–278. Athanasius, De synodis Arimini in Italia et Seleuciae in Isauria, H. G. Opitz (ed.), Athanasius Werke II, 1, 6–7, Berlin 1940, 231–278. Augustinus, Adnotationes in Iob, PL 34, 825–886. Augustinus, Epistola 238, PL 33, 1092–1093. Auxentius, Epistola de fide, vita, et obitu Ulfilae, R. Gryson (ed.), SCh 267, Paris 1980; trans. Jim Marchand, ttp://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/ auxentius.trans.html. Avitus Viennensis, Contra arianos [Avitus episcopus domno Gundobado regi], MGH AA, VI/2, R. Peiper (ed.), Berolini 1883. Beda Venerabilis, Chronica maior, MGH AA, XIII, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1888, 225–354. Beda Venerabilis, Venerabilis Baedae opera historica, ed. C. Plummer, 2 vols. (1896); The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Judith McClure, and Roger Collins (ed.), Oxford University Press 1994. Breviculus historicus Eutychianistarum sive gesta de nomine Acacii, Collectio Avellana 99. Canones Patrum Graecorum, SCL 3, Kraków: WAM 2009. Cassiodori Senatoris Chronica ad a. DXIX, MGH AA, XI, Chronica Minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII, vol. 2, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1898, 120–161. Cassiodori Senatoris Variae, MGH AA, XII, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1894; Variarum libri XII, A. J. Fridh (ed.), CCL 96, Turnholti 1973. 226

Cassiodorus, Institutiones: De institutione divinarum litterarum; de artibus ac disciplinis saecularium litterarum (PL 70, 1105–1150; 1149–1220); Institutiones, R. A. B. Mynors (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press 1937 (wiele wydań); Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning and On the Soul, trans. J. W. Halporn, Liverpool University Press 2004, repr. 2007. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, with an English translation, E. Cary (ed.), Heinemann – Harvard Univ. Press, London-Cambridge Mass, 1968–1970. Chronica Gallica a 511, MGH AA, IX, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1892, 632–666; R. Burgess, The Gallic Chronicle of 511: A New Critical Edition with a Brief Introduction. Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul, Revisiting the Sources, R. W. Mathisen, D. Shantzer (ed.), Aldershot 2001. Chronicon Paschale, B. G. Niebuhr (ed.), volumen II, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, Bonnae 1832, s. 426–433; Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD, trans. M. Withby and M. Withby, Liverpool 1989. Codex Theodosianus: Codex Theodosianus, Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, T. Mommsen, P. M. Meyer (ed.), Berlin 1962; The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, trans. C. Pharr, Princeton 1952; Codicis Theodosiani liber sextus decimus, M. Ożóg, M. Wójcik (ed.), SCL 7, WAM Kraków 2014. Collectio Avellana: Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab. a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae, Avellana quae dicitur collectio, recensuit commentario critico instruxit indices adiecit Otto Günther, pars. I, Prolegomena. Epistilae I-CIV, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum vol. 35, Vindobonae 1895. Concilium Chalcedonense, Documentum fidei i canon 28, DSP 1, Kraków: WAM 2001, 214–225 oraz 251. Constitutio Silvestri, [in:] E. Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste in Rom. Der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498–514). Studien und Texte, München: Tuduv 1993, 228–246. Continuatio Hauniensis Prosperi, MGH AA, IX, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1892, 298–339. Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. I: Institutiones, Digesta, P. Krueger, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1963; The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The Rules of Ulpian, The Opinions of Paulus, The Enactments of Justinian, and The Constitutions of Leo, trans. S. P. Scott, Central Trust Company1932. Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. II: Codex Justinianus, P. Krueger (ed.), Berolini 1954. Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. III: Novellae, R. Schoell, ab. G. Kroll (ed.), Berlin 1895.

227

Edictum Theodorici Regis, MGH, Leges V, F. Bluhme (ed.), Hannover 1875–1889, 145–170; The Edictum Theoderici, trans. S. D. W. Lafferty, [in:] Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great. A study of the Edictum Theoderici, Cambridge University Press 2013, 243–294. Ennodius Magnus Felicius, Epistolae III, 10, PL 63, 60. Ennodius Magnus Felicius, Epistolae IX, 23, PL 63, 158–160. Ennodius Magnus Felicius, Libellus adversus eos qui contra synodum scriber praesumpserunt, [in:] Opera omnia, Recensuit et commentario critico instruxit Gulielmus Hartel, Vindobonae 1882, CSEL 6, 286–330. Ennodius Magnus Felicius, Panegiricus dictus Clementissimo regi Theoderico, Opera omnia, Recensuit et commentario critico instruxit G. Hartel, Vindobonae 1882, CSEL 6, 261–286; Panegyricus, MGH AA, VII, Magni Felicis Ennodi Opera, recensuit F. Vogel, Berolini 1885, 203–214; Magno felice Ennodio, Panegirico del clementissimo re Teodorico, a cura di Simona Rota, Biblioteca di cultura romanobarbarica 6, Roma: Herder 2002 (wyd. łac.włoskie). Ennodius Magnus Felicius, Paraenesis Didascalica ad Ambrosium et Beatum, PG 63, 249–256. Ennodius Magnus Felicius, Vita Epiphanii episcopi Ticinensis, MGH AA VII, F. Vogel (ed.), Berolini 1885, 84–108. Eusebius Caesarensis, Epistola ad suam parrochiam, DSP 1, Kraków: WAM 2001, 54–61. Eusebius Caesariensis, Historia ecclesiastica, E. Schwartz (ed.), GCS NF 6/1–3, Lipzig 1932; Historia kościelna, trans. A. Lisiecki, A. Caba, ŹMT 70, Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM); Church History, trans. A. C. McGiffert, [in:] From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co. 1890. Eusebius Caesariensis, Vita Constantini, PG 20, 905–1440. Evagrius Scholasticus: Ecclesiastical History. A History of the Church in Six Books from A.D. 431 to A.D. 594, trans. E. Walford, London: Samuel Bagster and Sons 1846. Excerpta Valesiana = Anonimus Valesianus: Fragmenta Historica ab Henrico et Hadriano Valesio primum edita, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores XXIV, 4, R.Cessi (ed.), Città di Castello 1913; Excerpta Valesiana, trans. J. C. Rolfe, http:// penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Excerpta_Valesiana/home. html; recensuit J. Moreau, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubnerina, Lipsiae 1961; L’Anonymus Valesianus II, ch. 79–96, W. Bracke (ed.), Bologna 1992; Czasy Teoderyka, trans. L. Winniczuk, “Meander” 17 (1962), z. 6, 327–337. 228

Fasti Heracliani, MGH AA, XIII, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1898, 386–410. Fasti vindebonensis posteriores (Consularia Italica III), MGH AA, IX, T. Mommsen (ed.) Berolini 1892, 330–334. Felix III, Ad clericos et monachos orientales; Coll. Avell., CSEL 35, nr 70 (O. Guenther, 1895). Felix III, Epistola 11. Synodus Romana ad presbyteros et archimandritas, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 287–290. Felix III, Epistola ad Zenonem Imperatorem, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 285–287. Felix III, Epistola Felicis papae damnantis Acacium Constantinopolitanum episcopum, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 283–285; E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische Klasse 10.4, München 1934, 6–7 (Collectio Veronensis). Felix III, Epistola Felicis papae III ad Acacium Constantinopolitanum, Roma (28 Iulii 484), SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 279–283; E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, 69–73 (Collectio Berolinensis). Fragmentum Laurentianum, [in:] Le Liber Pontificalis, texte, introduction et commentaire par l’abbé Louis Marie Duchesne, tome premier, Paris 1886, 44–46. Gelasius Teodorico Regis, EpThV, MGH AA, XII, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1894, 389. Gelasius Hereleuvae Reginae, EpThV, MGH AA, XII, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1894, 390. Gelasius, Epistola 3, Thiel 313; E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, 49–55 (Collectio Veronensis). Gelasius, Epistola 8, MGH AA, XII, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1894, 391. Gelasius, Epistola 10, Thiel 341–348; Jaffe 619; E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, 16–19 (Collectio Veronensis). Gelasius, Epistola 12, Ad Anastasium Augustum, Thiel 349–358; E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, 19–24 (Collectio Veronensis). Gelasius, Epistola 14, Thiel 360–379. Gelasius, Epistola 95, Coll. Avell., O. Günther (ed.), CSEL 35, Vindobonae 1895, 390–392. Gregorius Magnus, Dialogi de vita et miraculis patrum italicorum, PL 77, 147–430. Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio 5, PG 35, 664–720. Gregorius Naziansenus, Oratio 7, PG 35, 756–788. 229

Gregorius Turonensis, Historiarum libri X, B. Kursch, W. Arndt (ed.), MGH SRMer. I, 52–55, Hannover 1884. Gregorius Turonensis, Libri miraculum, MGH SRMer I, 2, B. Krusch (ed.), Hannoverae 1885, 34–370. Grumel V., Les Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, vol I: les actes des patriarches, fasc. I (381 a 714), Istambul: Socii Assumptionistae Chalcedonenses 1932. Hermias Sozomenos, Ecclesiastical History, SCh 306, Paris 1983; History of the Church, trans. ‪Ch. D. Hartranft, vol. 2, Select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church, Eerdmans 1957. Hieronymus, Chronicon, R. Helm (ed.), GCS 47, Berlin 1956. Hormisdas, Anastasio Augusto, Coll. Avell. 126, 540–544. Hormisdas, Episcopis orthodoxis, Coll. Avell. 130, 549–552. Hormisdas, Epistola XXVII, Ad Iustinum Imperatorem, PL 63, 427. Hormisdas, Ad Johannem Constantinopolitanum episcopum, Thiel 845–846; Coll. Avell. 145. Hormisdas, Indiculus qui datus est Ennodio et Fortunato episcopis, Venantio presbytero, Vitali diacono, et Hilaro notario, legatis apostolicae sedis Constantinopolim, ab Hormisda papa, PL 63, 374–379; Thiel, 748–755. Hormisdas, Timotheo Episcopo Constantinopolitano, Coll. Avell. 128, 545–546. Hormisdas, Universis episcopis in Orientis partibus Constitutis, Coll. Avell. 129, 547–549. Inscriptiones Christianae Urbis Romae VII saeculo anteriores, 1–10, G. B. De Rossi, A. Silvagni i inni (ed.), Roma 1957–1992. Ioannes Antiochenus: Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta ex Historia chronica, a cura di U. Roberto, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Band 154, Berlin 2005; Ioannis Antiocheni Fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, recensuit anglice vertit indicibus instruxit Sergei Mariev, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 47, ser. Berolinesis, Berlin 2008. Iohannes ep. Constantinopolitanus, Exemplum relationis Johannis apiscopi Constantinopolitani per Gratum missae ad Hormisdam papam, Thiel, 832–833, Coll. Avell. 146. Isidorus Hispalensis, De ecclesiasticis officiis, PL 83, 737–826. Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae, PL 82, 73–728. Isidorus Hispannensis, Historia Gothorum, Vandalorum, Sveborum, MGH AA, XI, T. Mommsen (ed.) Berolini 1894, 241–303. Iustinianus, Iustiniani comitis ad Hormisdam papam, missa per eumdem Gratum imperatoris legatum, Thiel 833–834; Coll. Avell. 147. 230

Iustinus Augustus, Epistola ad Hormisdam, PL 63, 426–427. Johannes Chrysostomos, In illud: vidua eligitur, PG 51, 321–338. Jordanes, Getica: MGH AA, V, pars prior, Iordanis Romana et Getica, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1882, 53–138; F. Giunta, A. Grillone, Iordanis de origine actibusque Getarum, Roma 1991; Origen y gestas de los godos, Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra 2001; Histoire de Rome de Romulus à Justinien (753 av J.-C. – 552 ap J.-C.) suivie de l’Histoire des Goths, traduit du latin par A. Savagner et R. Fougères, Paris 2003; The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, trans. Ch. C. Mierow, Princetown 1908. Jordanes, Romana: MGH AA, V, pars prior: Iordanis Romana et Getica, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1882, 1–52. Le Liber Pontificalis, texte, introduction et commentaire par l’abbé Louis Marie Duchesne, tome premier, Paris 1886; Libri Pontificalis pars prior, T. Mommsen (ed.), MGH GPR, I, Berlin 1898; L. R. Loomis, The Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis). To the pontificate of Gregory I, Columbia University Press 1916; R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis): The Ancient Biographie of the Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, Liverpool University Press 1989; Liber Pontificalis I–XCVI (usque ad annum 772), M. Ożóg, H. Pietras (ed.), SCL 9, WAM Kraków 2014. Leo I Magnus, Tomus ad Flavianum, DSP 1, Kraków: WAM 2001, 196–213. Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin à Théodose II (312–438), vol. II, Code Théodosien I–XV, code Justinien, constitutions Sirmondiennes, texte latin: T. Mommsen, P. Meyer, P. Krueger, traduction: Jean Rougé, Roland Delmaire; introduction et notes Roland Delmaire, SCh 531, Paris 2009. Lex Visigothorum, MGH LL navol. Germ., I, 380, ed. K. Zeumer, Hannoverae 1902, 33–456. Libri Poenitentiales, SCL 5, Kraków: WAM 2011. Mansi G. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 1–31, Venezia 1759–1798, reprint: Paris 1901–1927. Marcellinus Comes, Chronica, MGH AA, XI, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1894, 37–108; The chronicle of Marcellinus, trans. B. Croke, Australian Association of Byzantine Studies, Sydney 1995. Marius Aventicensis, Chronica, MGH AA, XI, 1894, T. Mommsen (ed.), 225–239; La Chronique de Marius d’Avenches: (455–581), Lausanne: J. Favrod, 1991. Nicefor Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastica Historia, PG, tome 145, kol. 1279–1290, 1319–1332; tome 146, kol. 15–22, 99–122, 1057–1090, 1129–1132, 1221–1242, 1269–1274; tome 147, kol. 9–218 (księga XV i XVI); Günter Gentz, Die Kirchengeschichte des Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulos 231

und ihre Quellen, überarbeitet und erweitert von F. Winkelmann, Berlin 1966. Nicetius Trevirensis, Domine clementissime in Christo filiae, Hlodosvinde regine, CCL 117, 419–423. Paschale Campanum, MGH AA, IX, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1892, 744–750. Paulus Diaconus, Historia Romana, MGH AA, II, Eutropi breviarium ab Urbe condita cum versionibus graecis et Pauli Landolfique additamentis, rensuit et adnotavit Hans Droysen, Berolini 1979, 183–224. Philostorgius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez, F. Winkelmann, GCS, Berlin 1981. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Gothico, [in:] Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, recognovit Jacobus Haury, vol. II: De bellis libri V–VIII, editio stereotypa correctior addenda et corrigenda adiecit Gerhard Wirth, Lipsiae 1963. Prokopios Kaisareus, De bello Vandalico, [in:] Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, recognovit Jacobus Haury, vol. I: De bellis libri I–IV, editio stereotypa correctior addenda et corrigenda adiecit Gerhard Wirth, Lipsiae 1963. Prokopios Kaisareus, Historia arcana: Procopii Caesariensis Opera Omnia, recognovit Jacobus Haury, vol. III: Historia arcana, editio stereotypa correctior addenda et corrigenda adiecit Gerhard Wirth, Leipzig 1963. Ps.-Fredegarius, Chronicon, ed. B. Krusch, MGH SRMer. II, 1–193. Publiius, Publilii Syri sententiae, H. Beckby (ed.), München 1969. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. Ab Condita Ecclesia. Ad annum post Christum natum, ed. P. Jaffé, vol. 1, Lipsiae: Veit et Comp, 1885. Salvianus Massiliensis, De gubernatione Dei, G. Lagarrigue (ed.), SCh 220, Paris 1975. Sidonius Apollinaris, Poems and letters; trans., introduction, and notes by W. B. Anderson, London: Heinemann, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press 1963–1965. Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, texte grec G. C. Hansen, SCh 477, 493, 505, 506, Paris 2004–2007; History of the Church, trans. A. C. Zenos, vol. 2,‪Select library of Nicene and post-Nicene fathers of the Christian church, Eerdmans 1957. Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua = Carthago 4, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 261–272. Suetonius, De vita Caesarum, M. Ihm (ed.), Loeb Classical Library edition, 1913–1914; Żywoty Cezarów, trans. Janina Niemirska-Pliszczyńska, Wrocław: Ossolineum 1987. Symmachus, Apologeticus Symmachi episcopi Romani adversus Anastasium imperatorem, Thiel 700–708; E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, 153–157. 232

Symmachus, Epistola 8; Thiel 697. Tacitus, Annales, Opera omnia, R. Oniga (ed.), Einaudi, Torino 2003; Roczniki: Dzieła, trans. S. Hammer, Warszawa: Czytelnik 2004. Tertullianus, Ad nationes, J. W. Ph. Borleffs (ed.), CCL 1, 9–75. Theodericus, Anagnosticum regis, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 364–365. Theodericus, Epistola ad Imperatorem Anastasium, [in:] Cassiodorus, Variae I, 1, 2. Theodericus, Epistola ad Speciosum, MGH AA XII, T. Mommsen (ed.), Berolini 1894, 29. Theodericus, Luduin Regi Francorum, [in:] Cassiodorus, Variae II, 41. Theodericus, Praeceptio regis missa ad synhodum, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 360–362. Theodericus, Praeceptio regis, missa ad synhodum per Germanum et Carosum episcopos, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 359–360. Theodericus, Praeceptio regis, SCL 6, Kraków: WAM 2011, 363–364. Theodericus, Praeceptum regis, 11 III 507, MGH AA, XII, 392; Thiel 696. Theodoretus, HE, SCh 501, L. Parmentier (ed.), Paris: Cerf 2006. Theodoros Anagnostes, Excerpta, Kirchengeschichte, herausgegeben von Günther Christian Hansen, GCS, Berlin 1971. Theophanes, Chronographia, K. de Boor (ed.), vol. 1–2, Leipzig 1983–1885; The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813, trans. C. Mango, R. Scott, G. Greatrex, Oxford 1997. Thiel A. (ed.). Epistolae romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Hilario usque ad Pelagium II, ex schedis clar. Petri Constantii aliisque editis, adhibitis praetantissimis codicibus Italiae et Germaniae, Braunsberg 1868. Victor Aquitanus, Cursus Paschalis annorum CXXXII, MGH AA, IX, T. Mommsen (ed.) Berolini 1892, 667–735. Victor Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae tempore Geiserici et Hunerici regum Wandalorum, MGH AA, III, 1, ed. C. Halm, Berolini 1879; Dzieje prześladowania Kościoła w Afryce przez Wandalów, POK 14, Poznań 1930. Victoris Tonnennensis Episcopi Chronica, T. Mommsen (ed.), MGH AA, XI, 184–206; Vittore da Tunnuna, Chronica. Chiesa e impero nell’età di Giustiniano, A. Placanica (ed.), Firenze 1997. Vita Caesarii, MGH SRMer III, B. Krusch (ed), Hannoverae 1896, 457–501. Vita Hilari ab. Galeatensis, ASanc XVI, Maius III, 471–474. 233

Vita S. Fulgentii, A Sanc I, Januarius I, 32–45. Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta, interpretatus est Ernest Walter Brooks, tomus I i II, Lovanii 1924 (CSCO, scriptores syri, series tertia, tomus V et VI); The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. F. J. Hamilton, E. W. Brooks, London 1899; Die sogenannte Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor, in deutscher Übersetzung herausgegeben von K. Ahrens, G. Krüger, Leipzig 1899. Zosimos, Historia Nova: Histoire nouvelle, F. Paschoud (ed.), Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1971; New History, trans. R. T. Ridley, Australian Association of Byzantine Studies 1982.

2.  Secondary Sources Aimone P. V., 2000, Gli autori delle falsificazioni Simmachiane, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 53–77. Alchermes J. D., 1995, Petrine Politics: Pope Symmachus and the Rotunda of Svol. Andrew at Old Svol. Peter’s, “The Catholic Historical Review” 81, 1–40. Alessandrini A., 1944, Teodorico e Papa Simmaco durante lo scisma Laurenziano, “Estratto dell’Archivio della R. Deputazione romana di Storia Patria” 67, 167–197. Amici A., 2002, Iordanes e la Storia Gotica, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Amory P., 1997, People and identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489–554, Cambridge University Press. Aragüés Aldaz J., Domingo Pérez T. (ed.), 1993, Miracula Beatae Mariae Virginis. Colección latina medieval de milagros marianos en un Codex Pilarensis de la Biblioteca Capitular de Zaragoza, Zaragoza: Delegación Diocesana de Catequesis de Zaragoza; Parroquia San Pío X. Electronic version: http://www. cervantesvirtual.com/s3/BVMC_OBRAS­/01d/e86/6a8/2b2/­11d/fac/c70/021 /85c/e60/64/mimes/­01de866a-82b2-11df-acc7-002185ce6064.pdf (1 I 2012). Arnold J. J., 2008, Theoderic, the Goths, and the Restoration of the Roman Empire, The University of Michigan. Arnold J. J., 2014, Theoderic and the Roman Imperial Restoration, Cambridge University Press. Atzeri L., 2008, Gesta senatus Romani de Theodosiano publicando. Il Codice Teodosiano e la sua diffusione ufficiale in Occidente, Berlin: Duncker und Humblovol. 234

Augenti A., 2007, The Palace of Theoderic at Ravenna: A New Analysis of the Complex, [in:] L. Lavan (ed.), Housing in Late Atiquity. From Palaces to Shops, Late Antique Archaeology 3.2, Boston: Leiden, 425–454. Ausbüttel F. M., 2003, Theoderich der Große. Gestalten der Antike, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschafvol. Ausbüttel F. M., 2007, Theoderich. Die Herrschaft der Goten über Italien, [in:] Germanische Herrscher. Von Arminius bis Theoderich, Darmstad: Verlag, 137–155. Ayres L., 2004, Nicea and its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, Oxford University Press. Bach E., 1957, Theoderic, romain ou barbare?, “Byzantion” 25–27, 413–420. Bark W., 1944, Theodoric vs. Boethius: Vindication and Apology, “The American Historical Review” 49, nr 3, 410–426. Barnes D., 1990, The Consecration of Ulfila, JTS 41, 541–545. Barnish S. J. B., 1983, The “Anonymus Valesianus II” as a Source for the Last Years of Theoderic, “Latomus” 42, 572–596. Barnish S. J. B., 1984, The Genesis and Completion of Cassiodorus’ Gothic History, “Latomus” 43, 336–361. Baron A., 2011, Synody czasów upadku i przemiany Imperium Rzymskiego na Zachodzie, PS 15/33, nr 29/73, 5–36. Baron A., 2013, Świętość a ideały człowieka (Ojcowie Apostolscy, Klemens Aleksandryjski, Orygenes). Studium teologiczne na tle modeli filozoficzno-religijnych, Kraków: WAM. Barone Adesi G. 1990, “Servi fugitivi in ecclesia”. Indirizzi cristiani e legislazione imperiale, [in:] Atti dell’Accademia romanistica costantiniana VIII, Convegno internazionale, Napoli: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 695–741. Barsanti C., 2008b, Ravenna: gli arredi architettonici e liturgici negli edifice di età teodericiana, [in:] Rex Theodericus. Il Medaglione d’oro di Morro d’Alba, a cura di C. Barsanti, A. Paribeni, S. Pedone, Roma: Espera, 185–202. Batiffol P., 1899, De quelquees homélies de S. Jean Chrysostome et de la version gothique des écritures (1), “Revue Biblique Internationale” 8, 568–569. Bauman R. A., 1974, Impietas in principem. A study of treason against the Roman Emperor with special reference to the first century A.D., Munchener Beitrage zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 67, München: Beck. Bellomo M., 2002, Società e diritto nell’Italia medievale e moderna, Roma: Il Cigno Edizioni. Bertolini O., 1956, “Gothia” e “Romania”, [in:] I Goti d’occidente. Problemi, 29 marzo–5 aprile 1955, Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo III, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 13–33. 235

Bertolini O., 1970, “Il Liber Pontificalis”, [in:] La storiografia altomedievale, I, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi aull’Alto Medioevo, 387–456. Bianco M. G., 2003–2005, Problematiche teologiche nei secoli romanobarbarici, “Romanobarbarica” 18, 169–193. Bidagor R., 1935, La sucesión intestada de los Clerigos en favor de la Iglesia, segun las decretales de Greg. IX y sus precedentes, “Analecta Gregoriana” 8, 53–60. Blockley R. C., 1992, East Roman foreign Policy: Formation and Conduct from Diocletian to Anastasius, Leed: Cairns. Blumenkranz B. B., 1960, Juifs et Chrétiens dans le monde occidental, 430–1096, Paris: La Haye. Blumenkranz B. B., 1963, Les auteurs chrétiens latins du Moyen ege sur les juifs et le judaisme, Paris-La Haye: Mouton & CO. Bolzani P., 1994, Teodorico e Galeata. Un’antologia critica, Ravenna: Essegi. Bovini G., 1977, Das Grabmal Theoderichs des Großen (Übersetzung aus dem Italienischen), Ravenna: Longo. Bradley D. R., 1993, In altum laxare vela compulsus. The “Getica” of Jordanes, “Hermes” 121, 211–236. Bratož R., “Felice III”, Enciclopedia dei Papi, Treccani.ivol. Bratož R., “Gelasio I”, Enciclopedia dei Papi, Treccani.ivol. Brennecke H. C., 2000, Imitatio – reparatio – continuatio. Die Judengesetzgebung im Ostgotenreich. Theoderichs des Großen als reparatio imperii?, ZACh 4, z. 1, 133–148. Brion M., 1935, Théodoric, roi des Ostrogoths, 454–526, Paris: Payot (reprint Paris: Tallandier 1979). Brion M., 1936, Theoderich. König der Ostrogoten, Frankfurt. Brown T. S., 1993, Everyday life in Ravenna under Theoderic: an example of his “tolerance” and “prosperity”?, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 1, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 77–99. Brown T. S., 2007, The Role of Arianism in Ostrogothic Italy: the evidence from Ravenna, [in:] S. J. Barnish, F. Marazzi (ed.), The Ostrogoths from the migration period to the sixth century: an ethnographic perspective, San Marino: The Boydell Press, 417–441. Burczak K., 2005, Prawo azylu w ustawodawstwie synodów galijskich V–VII wieku, Lublin: KUL. Burgess R., 2001, The Gallic Chronicle of 511: A New Critical Edition with a Brief Introduction. Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul, Revisiting the Sources, 236

edd. R. W. Mathisen and D. Shantzer, Aldershot: Universidad Complutense of Madrid. Burns T. S., 1978, Ennodius and the Ostrogothic Settlement, “Classical Folia” 32, 153–168. Burns T. S., 1980, The Ostrogoths: kingship and society, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Burns T. S., 1982, Theodoric the Great and the Concepts of Power in Late Antiquity, “Acta Classica” 25, 99–118. Burns T. S., 1991, A history of the Ostrogoths, Indiana University Press: Bloomington. Cameron A., Long J., 1993, Barbarians and politics at the Court of Arcadius, Los Angeles-Oxford: Berkley. Canella T., 2004, Gli “Actus Silvestri”: l’invenzione di un’identità statale cristiana, “Annali di storia dell’esegesi” 21, 289–302. Capizzi C., 1969, L’imperatore Anastasio I (491–518). Studio sulla sua vita, la sua opera e la sua personalità, Roma: Ponvol. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. Capizzi C., 2000, Il monofisismo di Anastasio i e il suo influsso sullo scisma laurenziano, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 79–110. Capo L., 2009, Il Liber pontificalis, i Longobardi e la nascita del dominio territoriale della Chiesa Romana, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Cappelletti G., 1866, Le chiese d’Italia della loro origine sino ai nostri giorni, II, Venezia: ed. G. Antonelli. Cappelli A., 1998, Cronologia, cronografia e calendario perpetuo, Milano: Hoepli Editore. Caravita G., 1993, Teoderico. I Goti a Ravenna V–VI secolo, Rimini: Luisè Editore. Cardini F., 2009, Cassiodoro il Grande. Roma i barbari e il monachesimo, Milano: Editoriale Jaca Book. Carile A. (ed.), 1995, Teoderico e I Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre–2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo. Caruso A. (ed.), 2001, Flavio Magno Aurelio Cassiodoro, Per il buon governo della società (da Variae), Roma: Vivere in. Caruso A., 1998, Cassiodoro. Nella vertigine dei tempi di ieri e di oggi, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore. Caspar E., 1931, Theoderich der Große und das Papsttum: Die Quellen zusammengestellt nach den Ausgaben der Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 237

Caspar E., 1933, Geschichte des Papsttums. Von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, 2. Bd.: Das Papsttum unter byzantinischer Herrschaft, Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Casson L., 1994, Travel in the Ancient World, London: Hopkins University Press. Cecchelli C., 1960, L’arianesimo e le chiese ariane d’Italia, [in:] Le chiese nei regni dell’Europa Occidentale e i loro rapporti con Roma sino all’800, 7–13 aprile 1959, Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo VII, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 747–774. Cecchelli M., 2000, Interventi edilizi di papa Simmaco, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 111–123. Cessi R., 1919, Lo scisma laurenziano e le origini della dottrina politica della Chiesa di Roma, “Archivio R. Società Romana di Storia patria” 42, 71–96. Charanis P., 1939a, Church and States in the Later Roman Empire. The Religions Policy of Anastasius the Firts (491–518), Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Charanis P., 1939b, The Religious Policy of Anastasius the First, 491–518, Madison-Wisconsin. Chauvot A., 1995, Les migrations des Barbares et leur conversion au christianisme, [in:] J.-M. Mayeur, (+) C. Pietri, L. Pietri i inni, Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos jours, vol. 2: Naissance d’une Chrétienté (250–430), Paris: Desclée, 861–879. Mayeur J.-M., Pietri Ch., Pietri L. et all. (ed.), 1995, Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos jours, t. 2: Naissance d’une Chrétienté (250–430), Paris: Desclée. Cherra D., 2008, Ritratti della storia gotica, [in:] Rex Theodericus. Il Medaglione d’oro di Morro d’Alba, a cura di C. Barsanti, A. Paribeni, S. Pedone, Roma: Espera, 27–34. Chevallier R., 1988, Voyages et déplacements dans l’Empire Romain, Paris: Armand Colin. Christensen Søby A., 2002, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths. Studies in a Migration Myth, Museum Tusculanum Press. Chrysos E. K., 1986, Antikaisar, [in:] N. N. Stratou (ed.), Byzantium. Tribute to Andreas N. Stratos I, vol. I: History, Art and Archeology, Athens, 73–82. Cipolla C., 1892a, Per la leggenda di re Teoderico in Verona, “Archivo Storico Italiano” 11, 7–98. Cipolla C., 1892b, Ricerche intorno all’”Anonymus Valesianus II”, “Bolletino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano” 11, 7–98. 238

Claude D., 1978a, Zur Königserhebung Theoderichs des Grossen, [in:] Festschrift für Heinz Löwe zum 65. Geburtstag, Cologne: Böhlau, 1–13. Claude D., 1978b, Universale und partikulare Züge in der Politik Theoderichs, “Francia” 6, 19–58. Claude D., 1993, Theoderich d. Gr. und die Europäischen Mächte, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 1, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 23–43. Collins R., 1991, Dónde estaban los arrianos en el año 589?, [in:] Concilio III de Toledo. XIV Centenario (1989), Toledo: Arzobispado D. L, 211–222. Cracco Ruggini L., 1959, Ebrei e orientali nell’Italia settentrionale fra il IV e il VI secolo, SDHI 25, 186–308. Cracco Ruggini L., 1980, Pagani, ebrei e cristiani: odio sociologico e odio teologico nel mondo antico, [in:] Gli Ebrei nell’alto medioevo, 30 marzo–5 aprile 1978, Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo XXVI, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 13–101. Croke B., 2005, Jordanes and the immediate Past, “Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte” 54, 473–494. Davis R., 1989, Introduction, [in:] The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, Liverpool University Press, II–XLI. De Francovich G., 1970, Il Palazzo di Teodorico a Ravenna e la cosiddetta “architettura di potenza”. Problemi d’interpretazione di raffigurazioni architettoniche nell’arte tardoantica e altomedievale, Roma: De Luca editore. De Grimoard Beauvoir A. F. L. S., 1846, Histoire de Théodoric le grand, roi d’Italie, conduite jusqu’á la fin de la monarchie Ostrogotique, vol. 2, Paris: Téchener. De Maria S., 2004, Il sito, le ricerche, le nuove scoperte. Cinque anni di studi e scavi nella villa di Teoderico a Galeata, [in:] Nuove Ricerche e scavi nell’area della villa di Teoderico a Galeata. Atti della Giornata di Studi Ravenna 26 marzo 2002, a cura di S. de Maria, Bologna: Ante Quem, 21–48. De Visscher F., 1963, Le droit des tombeaux romains, Milano: Giuffrè. Deliyannis D. M., 2010a, Ravenna in Late Antiquity, Cambridge University Press. Deliyannis D. M., 2010b, The Mausoleum of Theoderic and the Seven Wonders of the World, “Journal of Late Antiquity” 3/2, 365–383. Delmaire R., 2004, La législation sur les sacrifices au IVe s. Un essai d’interprétation, “Revue Historique de Droit français et étranger” 82, 319–333. Demougeot E., 1978, Bedeutet das Jahr 476 das Ende des Römischen Reiches im Okzident, “Klio” 60, 371–381. 239

Dębiński A., 1995, Sacrilegium w prawie rzymskim, Lublin: KUL. di Berardino A. (ed.), 2008, I canoni dei concili della Chiesa antica, SEA 106, vol. 2, cz. 1: I concili latini, Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum”. Diaz P. C., Valverde R., 2007, Goths confronting Goths: Ostrogothic political relations in Hispania, [in:] S. J. Barnish, F. Marazzi (ed.), The Ostrogoths from the migration period to the sixth century: an ethnographic perspective, San Marino: The Boydell Press, 353–376. Diesner H.-J., 1967, Die Auswirkungen der Religionspolitik Thrasamunds und Hilderichs auf Ostgoten und Byzantiner, Berlin: Akademie. Dolcini C., 1991, Ecclesia S. Vicinii. Per una storia della diocesi di Sarsina, [in:] Studia Ravennatensia 4, ed. M. Mengozzi, Cesena, 4–14. Downey G., 1959, The Tombs of the Byzantine Emperors at the Church of Holy Apostles in Constantinople, JHS 79, 27–51. Du Cange et al., 1883–1887, “Coena”, Glossarium mediæ et infimæ latinitatis, Niort: L. Favre. Electronic version: http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/COENA# COENA-4 (1 I 2012). Du Cange et al., 1883–1887, “Jugum Terre”, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, Niort: L. Favre. Electronic version: http://ducange.enc.sorbonne.fr/ IUGUM#IUGUM-4 (1 I 2012). Duchesne L., 1877, Etude sur le Liber Pontificalis, Paris: Ernest Thorin. Dumézil B., 2008, Chrześcijańskie korzenie Europy. Konwersja i wolność w królestwach barbarzyńskich od V do VIII wieku, trans. P. Rak, Kęty: Antyk. Durliat J., 1988, La salaire de la paix sociale dans les royaumes barbares (Ve–VIe siècles), [in:] H. Wolfram, A. Schwarcz (ed.), Anerkennung und Integration. Zu den wirtschaftlichen Grundlagen der Völkerwanderungszeit 400–600, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 21–72. Duval Y., 1988, Auprès des Saints corps et âmes: l’inhumation “ad sanctos” dans la chrétienté d’Orient et d’Occident du IIIe au VII siècle, Paris: Études Augustiniennes. Dvornik F., 1955, Emperors, Popes, and General Councils, DOP 6, 3–23. Dvornik F., 1958, The Idea of the Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Cambridge Mass. Eicke H., 1938, Theoderich. König, Ketzer und Held, Die Welt der Germanen 12, Leipzig: Quelle, Meyer. Emmendingen K. M., 1888, Theoderich der Grosse bis zur Eroberung Italiens, Freiburg: Universitäts-Buchdruckerei von Chr. Lehmann. Engler A., 1998, Theoderich der Große: Der Gotenkönig und seine Zeit, Verlagsgesellschaft Berg. 240

Ensslin W., 1940, Rex Theodericus inlitteratus?, HJb 60, 391–396. Ensslin W., 1951, Papst Johannes I als Gesandter Theoderichs des Grossen bei Kaiser Justinos I, ByZ 44, 127–134. Ensslin W., 1955, Auctoritas und Potestas: zur Zweigewaltenlehre des Papstes Gelasius I, HJb 74, 661–668. Ensslin W., 1959, Theoderich der Große, München: F. Bruckmann (ed. 2). Ferri S., 1956, Per la storia del mausoleo di Teodorico, [in:] I Goti d’occidente. Problemi, 29 marzo–5 aprile 1955, Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo III, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 57–64. Filarska B., 1983, Początki architektury chrześcijańskiej, Lublin: KUL. Gaddoni W., 1989, Das Mausoleum des Theoderich, Bologna: University Press. Galonnier A., 1997, Anecdoton Holderi ou Ordo generis Cassiodorum, éléments pour une étude de l’autenticité boécienne des Opuscula sacra, Louvain-Paris: Peeters. Gamauf R., 1999, Ad statuam licet confugere. Untersuchungen zum Asylrecht im römischen Prinzipat, Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Gangemi F., 2008, “Memoria regis”. Il mausoleo di Teoderico, [in:] Rex Theodericus. Il Medaglione d’oro di Morro d’Alba, a cura di S. de Maria, C. Barsanti, A. Paribeni, S. Pedone, Espera Archeologia 2. Collana diretta da G. De Rossi, Roma: Espera, 169–184. Garollo G., 1879, Teoderico: Re dei Goti e degl’Italiani Firenze: Tipogr. della Gazzetta d’Italia. Garzya A., 1995, Teoderico a Bisanzio, [in:] A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre–2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo, 341–351. Gasparri S, 1993, Le tradizioni germaniche nell’Italia dei Goti, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 201–226. Gatto L., 1992–93, Ancora sull’edilizia e l’urbanistica nella Roma di Teodorico, Contributi allo studio dei rapporti culturali tra mondo romano e mondo barbarico, “Romanobarbarica” 12, 311–380. Geertman H., 2004, Hic fecit basilicam: studi sul “Liber Pontificalis” e gli edifici ecclesiastici di Roma da Silvestro a Silverio, a cura di Sible de Blaaw, coordinamento redazionale, Christina E. van der Laan, Leuven-Paris-Dudley: Peeters. Giardina A., 2006, Cassiodoro politico, Roma: L’Erma Bretschneider. 241

Giovandito A., 1993, Teodorico il Grande e i suoi Goti in Italia a. 454–526 d.C, Novara: Europia. Goffart W., 1972b, From Roman Taxation to Mediaeval Seigneurie: Three Notes (Part I), “Speculum” 47/2, 165–187. Goffart W., 2005, Jordanes’s Getica and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia, “Speculum” 80/2, 379–398. Goffart W., 2011, Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418–584: The Techniques of Accommodation, Princeton University Press. Goltz A., 1995, Religionem imperare non possumus – Die Religionspolitik Theoderichs des Großen gegenüber Juden, Heiden und Häretikern. Magisterarbeit am Fachbereich Geschichtswissenschaften der Freien Universität Berlin, Berlin. Goltz A., 2002, Das Bild der barbarischen “Kaisermacher” in der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung des 5. Jahrhunderts, “Mediterraneo Anticol” 5, 547–572. Goltz A., 2008, Barbar – König – Tyrann. Das Bild Theoderichs des Großen in der Überlieferung des 5. bis 9. Jahrhunderts, Berlin: De Gruyter. Gorce D., 1925, Le voyages, l’hospitalité et le port des lettres dans le monde chrétien des IV et V siècles, Paris: Librairie Auguste Picard. Goubert P., 1956, Autour du voyage à Byzance du pape S. Jean I, “Orientalia Christiana Periodica” 24, 346–359. Grossi V., 2000, L’autorità magisteriale della sede romana al tempo di papa Simmaco (498–514), [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 421–442. Gryson R. (ed.), 1980, Scholies ariennes sur le concile d’Aquilée, SCh 267, Paris: Cerf, 144–161. Haacke W., 1939, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma, Analecta Gregoriana 20, Roma: PUG. Haller J., 1951, Das Papsttum: Idee und Wirklichkeit, vol. 1, Stuttgart: Port Verlag. Harper R. I., 1961, The Relationship Between Theodoric, the Ostrogoth, and the papacy, A.D. 490-A.D. 526, Emory University. Haug W., 1971, Die historische Dietrichsage. Zum Problem der Literarisierung geschichtlicher Fakten, ZDA 100, 43–62. Heather P. J., Matthews J., 1991, The Goths in the fourth century, Liverpool University Press. Heather P., 1992, Goths and Romans, 332–489, Oxford Clarendon Press. Heather P., 1995, Theoderic, king of the Goths, “Early Medieval Europe” 4/2, 145–73. 242

Heather P., 1997, The Goths, Oxford: Blackwell. Heather P., 2005, I Goti. Dal Baltico al Mediterraneo la storia dei barbari che sconfissero Roma, Genova: Edizioni Culturali Internazionali. Heather P., 2010, Empires and barbarians. The fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe, Oxford University Press. Heather P., 2013, The Restoratiion of Rome. Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders, Oxford University Press. Heidenreich R., Johannes H., 1971, Das Grabmal Theoderichs zu Ravenna, Wiesbaden: Steiner. Hodgkin T., 1897, Theodoric the Goth, the barbarian champion of civilization, New York: G. P. Putnam’s sons. Hunter J., 1969, The Gothic Bible, [in:] Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, 338–362. Ilski K., 1995, Biskupi Mezji i Scytii IV–VI w., Poznań: UAM. Ilski K., 1999, Religijna przesłanka jedności państwa w ”De fide catholica” (CTh XVI, 1, 2) i jej kontekst historyczny, [in:] L. Mrozewicz, K. Ilski (ed.), Aetas Imperatoria (Scripta minora III), Poznań: UAM, 463–479. Iluk J., 1985, Grzywny sepulkralne w świetle italskich epitafiów z okresu cesarstwa rzymskiego, Gdańsk: UG. Iluk J., 1993, “De sepulcris violatis” w tradycji chrześcijańskiej późnego Cesarstwa Rzymskiego, [in:] Słupskie Studia Historyczne, Słupsk: Akademia Pomorska, 15–31. Iluk J., 2011, Rzymskie i wczesnobizantyjskie złoto w barbarzyńskich skarbcach i sakiewkach (IV–VI wiek n. e.), PS 15/33, 63–82. Jänecke W., 1928, Die drei Streitfragen am Grabmal Theoderichs, Heidelberg, 3–24. Jankowiak M., 2011, Trzeci sobór powszechny w Konstantynopolu (680–681). Od soboru do akt soborowych i z powrotem, USS 10, 9–88. Janus L. von, 2010, Briefe des Ostgotenkönigs Theoderich der Große und seiner Nachfolger: Aus den “Varia” des d. C., Hrsg. von L. Janus., Eingel., übers. u. komm. von P. Dinzelbacher, Heidelberg: Mattes Verlag. Johnson M. J., 1988, Toward a History of Theoderic’s Building Program, DOP 42, 73–96. Jones A. H. M., 1962, The constitutional position of Odoacer and Theoderic, JRS 52, 126–130. Jones A. H. M., Martindale J. R., Morris J., 1971, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I: AD 260–395, Cambridge University Press (PLRE I). 243

Jones G. F., 1952, Dietrich von Bern as a Literary Symbol, PMLA 67/7, 1094–1102. Johnson A. C. et all. (ed.), 1961, Ancient Roman Statutes, Austin: University of Texas. Jundziłł J., 1999, Rzymianie a morze, Bydgoszcz: WSP. Juster J., 1914, Les Juifs dans l’Empire Romain. Leur condition juridique, économique et sociale, I–II, Paris: Librairie P. Geuthner. Kakridi C., 2005, Cassiodors “Variae”. Literatur und Politik im ostrogotischen Italien, Leipzig: De Gruyter Saur. Kasprzak D., 2008, Duszpasterze V wieku. Studium porównawcze myśli pasterskiej św. Piotra Chryzologa i Salwiana z Marsylii, Kraków: Unum. Kelly J. N. D., 2001, Złote usta. Jan Chryzostom – asceta, kaznodzieja, biskup, trans. K. Krakowczyk, Bydgoszcz: Homini. Kelly J. N. D., 2006, Encyklopedia papieży, trans. T. Szafrański, Warszawa: PIW (ed. 2). Kirschbaum E., 1957, Les fouilles de Saint Pierre de Rome, Paris: Plon. Klingshirn W., 1994, Caesarius of Arles: the Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Fourth Series 22, Cambridge University Press. Koch H., 1935, Gelasius in kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner Vorgänger, der Päpste Simplicius (468–483) und Felix III. (483–492). Ein Beitrag zur Sprache des Papstes Gelasius I. (492–496), Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung, z. 6, Munich. Koczwara S., 2000, Wokół sprawy Akacjusza, Lublin: KUL. Kokowski A., 2007, Goci – od Skandzy do Campi Gothorum, Warszawa: TRIO. König I., 1986, Theoderich der Große und die Kirche S. Stefano zu Verona, “Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift” 95, 132–142. König I., 1997, Aus der Zeit Theoderichs des Großen Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar einer anonymen Quelle, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Koranyi K., 1963, Powszechna historia państwa i prawa, vol. 2, Warszawa: PWN. Kosiński R., 2010a, Kilka uwag o Henotikonie i domniemanym zwrocie w polityce religijnej cesarza Zenona, [in:] Sz. Olszaniec, P. Wojciechowski (ed.), Społeczeństwo i religia w świecie antycznym. Materiały z ogólnopolskiej konferencji naukowej (Toruń, 20–22 września 2007 r.), Toruń: UAM, 433–451. Kosiński R., 2010b, The Emperor Zeno. Religion and politics, trans. M. Fijak, Cracow: Historia Iagiellonica. Kosiński R., 2010c, Dzieje Akacjusza, patriarchy Konstantynopola w latach 472–489, USS 9, 63–97. 244

Krieger R. A., 1991, Untersuchungen und Hypothesen zur Ansiedlung der Westgoten, Burgunder und Ostgoten, Bern-Frankfurt a.M.-New York-Paris: Peter Lang. La Rocca C., 1993, Una prudente maschera “antiqua” la politica edilizia di Teoderico, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 451–490. Lacam G., 1984, La fin de l’Empire Romain et le monnayage or en Italie de 455 à 493, vol. 2, Lucerne: A. H. Baldwin. Lafferty S. D. W., 2013, Law and Society in the Age of Theoderic the Great. A study of the Edictum Theoderici, Cambridge University Press. Laidlaw R., 2008, Theodoric: “imitation of an emperor”: the story of Theoderic Amalo, the barbarian who wanted to be Roman, Edinburgh: Polygon. Lamma P., 1968a, La politica dell’imperatore Anastasio I (491–518 ), [in:] Oriente e Occidente nell’alto medioevo. Studi storici sulle due civilità, Padova: Antenore, 27–57. Lamma P., 1968b, Teoderico nella storiografia bizantina, [in:] Oriente e Occidente nell’alto medioevo. Studi storici sulle due civilità, Padova: Antenore, 187–195. Lancaster W. J., 1896, Theodoric the Goth in Italy, Oxford-London: The Newdigate Poem. Last H., 2013, Die Außenpolitik Theoderichs des Großen, Norderstedt: BoD on Demand. Lebeau P., 1963, Hérésie et Providence chez Salvien, NRTh 85, 160–175. Lecrivain C., 1888, Le sénat romain depuis Dioclétien à Roma et à Constantinople, Paris: E. Thorin. 2002, a cura di S. de Maria, Bologna: Ante Quem, 85–98. Leszka M. B, Leszka M. J., 2011, Zarys dziejów Konstantynopola w latach 337–602, [in:] M. J. Leszka, T. Wolińska (ed.), Konstantynopol Nowy Rzym. Miasto i ludzie w okresie wczesnobizantyńskim, Warszawa: PWN, 42–101. Leszka M. B., 1993, Patriarcha Akacjusz wobec uzurpacji Bazyliskosa 475–476 roku, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, “Folia Historia” 48, 71–78. Leszka M. B., 2000, Rola duchowieństwa na dworze cesarzy wczesnobizantyńskich, Łódź: UŁ. Levi I., 1895, Saint Césaire d’Arles et les Juifs d’Arles, “Revue d’Études Juives” 30, 294–298. Licandro O., 2013, Edictum Theoderici. Un misterioso caso librario del Cinquecento, Roma: L’ERMA di BRETSCHNEIDER. Liebeschuetz J., 1990, Barbarians and Bishops: Army, Church and State in the Age of Arcadius and Chrysostom, London: Clarendon Press. 245

Lienhard J. T., 1978, The “Arian” Controversy. Some Categories Reconsidered, ThS 48, 415–437. Litewski W., 1998, Słownik encyklopedyczny prawa rzymskiego, Kraków: Universitas. Llewellyn P. A. B., 1976, The Roman Church during the Laurentian Schism: Priests and Senators, ChH 45/4, 417–427. Llewellyn P. A. B., 1977, The Roman Clergy during the Laurentian Schism (498–506). A Preliminary Analysis, “Ancient Society” 8, 245–275. Longosz S., 1983, Wulfila. Propagator kultury chrześcijańskiej w starożytnej Mezji i Tracji, VoxP 4/3, 126–159. Loschiavo L., 1996, Summa codicis Berolinensis, Frankfurt a. M.: V. Klostermann. Löwe H., 1953, Theoderich der Große und Papst Johann I, HJb 72, 83–100. Löwe H., 1956, Von Theoderich dem Großen zu Karl dem Großen das Werden des Abendlandes im Geschichtsbild des frühen Mittelalters, Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchges. Luiselli B., 1995, Teoderico e gli Ostrogoti. Tra romanizzazione e nazionalismo Gotico, [in:] A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre–2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo, 297–312. Przedruk w ”Romanobarbarica” 13 (1994/1995), 75–98. Maas M., 1992, Ethnicity, orthodoxy and community in Salvian of Marseilles, [in:] J. Drinkwater, H. Elton (ed.), Fifth-Century Gaul: a crisis of Identit?, Cambridge University Press, 275–284. MacCormack S. G., 1990, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Transformation of the Classical Heritage), University of California. Malaspina E., 2003–2005b, La “civitas” romana nell’ottica delle nazioni barbariche, “Romanobarbarica” 18, 31–46. Malewska H., 1972, Przemija postać świata, Warszawa: IW PAX. Manasse G. C., 1993, Le mura Teodericiane di Verona, [in:] Teoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 1, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 633–644. Manfredini A. D., 1986, “Ad ecclesiam confugere”, “ad statuas confugere” nell’età di Teodosio I, [in:] Atti dell’Accademia Romanistica Costantiniana. VI Convegno Internazionale, Perugia: Università degli studi, 39–58. Maraval P., 1998, La réception de Chalcédoine dans l’Empire d’Orient, [in:] J.-M. Mayeur, Ch. (+) Pietri, L. Pietri i inni, Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos jours, vol. 3: Les Églises d’Orient et d’Occident (432–610), Paris: Desclée, 107–145. 246

Marcenaro M., 1993, Note sulla presenza Gota nella Liguria Marittima in età Teodericiana: la sinagoga di Genova e le epigrafi di Albenga, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 743–753. Martindale J. R., 1980, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. II: AD 395–527, Cambridge University Press (PLRE II). Martínez Pizarro J., 1995, Writing Ravenna. The Liber Pontificalis of Andreas Agnellus, University of Michigan. Mathisen R. W., 1997, Barbarian and Bishops and the Churches “in Barbaricis Gentyibus” During Late Antiquity, “Speculum” 72/3, 664–697. Mączyńska M., Wędrówki Ludów. Historia niespokojnej epoki IV i V wieku, PWN Warszawa: PWN 1996. M. Mączyńska, 2013, Światło z popiołu. Wędrówki ludów w Europie w IV I V wieku, Warszawa: Trio. McCormick M., 1986, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Lete Antiquity. Byzantium and the Early Medieval West, Cambridge University Press. McLintock D., 1987, Dietrich und Theoderich – Sage und Geschichte, [in:] D. McLintock (ed.), Geistliche und weltliche Epik des Mittelalters in Österreich, Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 446, Göppingen: Kümmerle, 99–106. Meli M., 1991, La genesi del motivo dell’Esilio, “Romanobarbarica” 11, 297–314. Milewski I., 2011, Zsyłki biskupów katolickich w afrykańskim państwie Wandalów w relacji Wiktora z Wity, VoxP 31/56, 517–525. Montanari G., 2002, Elementi per una ricerca storico-teologica sull’Arianesimo a Ravenna, [in:] Ravenna: l’iconologia: saggi di interpretazione culturale e religiosa dei cicli musivi, Ravenna: Longo Editore Ravenna, 27–50. Montesano M., 2000, Cristianizzazione e lotta al paganesimo nell’età di papa Simmaco, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 360–369. Moorhead J., 1978b, The Laurentian Schism: East and West in the Roman Church, ChH 47/2, 125–136. Moorhead J., 1983,The Last Years of Theoderic, “Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte” 32/1, 106–120. Moorhead J., 1984a, The Decii under Theoderic, “Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte” 33/1, 107–115. Moorhead J., 1984b, Theoderic, Zeno and Odovaker, ByZ 77, 261–266. Moorhead J., 1992, Theoderic in Italy, Oxford University Press. 247

Morrison C. (ed.), 2007, Świat Bizancjum, vol. 1: Cesarstwo Wschodniorzymskie 330–641, trans. A. Graboń, Kraków: WAM. Morton C., 1982, Marius of Avenches, the Excerpta Valesiana and the Death of Boethius, “Traditio” 38, 107–136. Mossakowski W., 2000, Azyl w późnym cesarstwie rzymskim (confugium ad statuas, confugium ad ecclesias), Toruń: UMK. Myszor W., 2001, Auksencjusz z Durostorum, [in:] C. V. Manzanares, Pisarze wczesnochrześcijańscy I-VII w., Warszawa: Verbinum, 37. Natali M., 2008, L’Italia degli Ostrogoti, [in:] Rex Theodericus. Il Medaglione d’oro di Morro d’Alba, a cura di C. Barsanti, A. Paribeni, S. Pedone, Roma: Espera, 41–47. Naumowicz J., 2000, Geneza chrześcijańskiej rachuby lat, Kraków: Tyniec Wydawnictwo Benedyktynów. Nautin P., “Gélase I”, DHGE, vol. 20, 284. Navarra L., 1974, Contributo storico di Ennodio, “Augustinianum” 14, 315–342. Neri V., 1995, La legittimità politica del regno Teodericiano nell “Anonymi Valesiani pars posterior”, [in:] A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre–2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo, 313–340. Neumann H., 1937, Theoderich der Große. Der Herr Italiens, Germanische Führergestalten 5, Langensalza u. a. Neumann W., 1979, Studien zu den Bildfeldern der Bronzetür von San Zeno Verona. Mit Aufnahmen von Jutta Brüdern, Frankfurt a. M. Niermeyer J. F., 1976, Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Noble T. F. X, 1995, Morbidity and Vitality in the History of the Early Medieval Papacy, “The Catholic Historical Review” 81/4, 505–540. Noble T. F. X., 1993, Theodoric and the Papacy, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 1, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 395–423. O’Donnel J., 1981, Liberius the Patrician, “Traditio” 37, 31–72. Olszaniec Sz., 1999, Julian Apostata jako reformator religijny, Kraków: Zakład Wydawniczy “Nomos”. Orlandi S., 1997, Salvo domino nostro, “Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome Antiquité” 109/1, 31–40. Ożóg M., 2010, Teodoryk Wielki a schizma laurencjańska, [in:] Kościół starożytny – Królestwo Chrystusa i instytucja, ed. zb., Lublin: Polihymnia, 191–199. 248

Ożóg M., 2011a, Stanowisko cesarzy bizantyńskich wobec rządów Teoderyka Wielkiego na Zachodzie, PS 15/33, 97–112. Ożóg M., 2011b, Veritas imaginum. Wizerunek władzy Teodoryka Wielkiego na przykładzie wybranych “numizmatów”, “Perspektywy Kultury” 5/2, 43–58. Ożóg M., 2012a, Arianizm Teoderyka Wielkiego, [in:] Ortodoksja, herezja, schizma w Kościele starożytnym, ed. zb., Lublin: Polihymnia, 105–121. Ożóg M., 2012b, Teoderyk Wielki a schizma akacjańska w świetle “Liber Pontificalis”, USS 11, 107–126. Ożóg M., Pietras H., 2011, Edykt Teoderyka, przepisy synodale a prawo azylu, PS 15/33, 85–96. Ożóg M., Pietras H., 2015, Il battesimo di Clodoveo e le sue possibili ripercussioni in Italia in luce del ‘Liber Pontificalis’, ossia sulla chiesa romana di S. Martino ai Monti, “Gregorianum” 93/1, 157–174. Palmer R. E. A., 1990, Studies of the Northern Campus Martius in Ancient Rome, “Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series” 80/2, 1–64. Paradisi B., 1987, Critica e mito nell’Editto Teodericiano, Studi sul medievo giuridico, Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo, Studi Storici, Roma, 139–188 (przedruk z ”Bollettino dell’Istituto di Diritto Romano” 68 (1965), 1–47). Pedone S., 2008, “C’era una volta un re”. Appunti sul mito di Teoderico nella letteratura e nell’arte, [in:] Rex Theodericus. Il Medaglione d’oro di Morro d’Alba, a cura di C. Barsanti, A. Paribeni, S. Pedone, Roma: Espera, 273–281. Perrone L., 1980, La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche. Dal concilio di Efeso (431) al secondo concilio di Costantinopoli (553), Testi e ricerche di Scienze religiose 18, Brescia: Paedeia Editrice. Petit P., 1955, Libanius et la vie municipale a Antioche aux IV siecle apres J.-C., Paris: Institut français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth. Pfeilschifter G., 1896, Der Ostgotenkönig Theoderich der Grosse und die katholische Kirche, Münster: Verlag von H. Schöningh. Pfeilschifter G., 1910, Die Germanen im Römischen Reich. Theoderich der Große, Mainz: Verlag von Kirchheim & Co. Pferschy B., 1989, Bauten und Baupolitik frühmittelalterlicher Könige, MIÖG 97, 259–328. Picotti G. B., 1956, Osservazioni su alcuni punti della politica religiosa di Teoderico, [in:] I Goti d’occidente. Problemi, 29 marzo–5 aprile 1955, Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo III, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 173–226.

249

Picotti G. B., 1958, I sinodi romani nello scisma laurenziano, [in:] Studi Storici in onore di Gioacchino Volpe per il suo 80É compleanno, vol. II, Firenze: Sansoni, 743–786. Pietras H., 2007a, Początki teologii Kościoła, Kraków: WAM (ed. 2). Pietras H., 2007b, Spór o wyznanie wiary w IV w., TPatr 4, 35–50. Pietras H., 2008, List Konstantyna do Kościoła Aleksandrii oraz List soborowy do Egipcjan (325) – falsyfikaty nieznane Atanazemu?, VoxP 28/52–2, 855–869 (Italian version: Lettera di Costantino alla Chiesa di Alessandria e Lettera del sinodo di Nicea agli Egiziani (325) – i falsi sconosciuti da Atanasio?, “Gregorianum” 89/3, 727–739). Pietras H., 2013, Sobór Nicejski (325). Kontekst religijny i polityczny. Dokumenty. Komentarze, Kraków: WAM (English version in press: Council of Nicea (325). Religious and Political Context, Documents, Commentaries, Roma: GBPress). Piétri Ch. L. (ed.), 1999, Prosopographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire, vol. 2: Italie 313–604, (Roma PCBE 2). Pietri Ch., 1981, Aristocratie et société cléricale dans l’Italie chrétienne au temps d’Odoacre et de Théodoric, “Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité”, 93/1, 417–467. Pietri Ch., 1997, Le Sénat, le peuple chrétien et les partis du cirque à Rome sous le pape Symmaque (498–514), “Collection de l’Ecole française de Rome” 234, 771–787. Pietri L., Fontaine J., 1998, Les débuts de la contre-offensive catholique en Gaule et en Espagne, Le royaume franc et la conversion de Clovis, [in:] J.-M. Mayeur, Ch. (+) Pietri et L.Pietri et alia (ed.), Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos jours, t. 3: Les Églises d’Orient et d’Occident (432–610), Paris: Desclée, 321–384. Pilara G., 2005, Ancora un momento di riflessione sulla politica italiana di Teoderico, re dei Goti, “Studi Romani” 53/3–4, 431–459. Piredda A. M., 2000, Papa Simmaco e Cesario di Arles, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 465–471. Pizzi A., 1994–95, Teoderico nella grande storiografia europea, “Romanobarbarica” 13, 259–282. Platner S. B., Ashby T., 1929, A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, London: Oxford University Press. Plezia M., 1969, Słownik łacińsko-polski, vol. 3, Warszawa: PWN. Pochwat J., 2011, Wprowadzenie, [in:] Św. Cezary z Arles, Kazania do ludu (1–80), ŹMT 57, Kraków: WAM, 7–32. 250

Ponchielli A., 1923, Commento all’Editto di Teodorico, Milano: Unione Tipografica. Prestel J., 1935, König Theoderich, Hillgers Deutsche Bücher 589, BerlinLeipzig. Pricoco S., 1995, Il monacheismo nell’età di Teoderico, [in:] A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre–2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo, 401–413. Prinzivalli E., 2004, L’arianesimo: la prima divisione fra i romani e la prima assimilazione dei popoli migranti, [in:] Cristianità d’occidente e cristianità d’oriente. Secoli VI–XI, vol. 1, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo LI, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 31–61. Prostko-Prostyński J., 1993, Alimericus Anticaesar (Teodoryk Wielki) w ”Historii Kościoła” Pseudo-Zachariasza Retora: Adnotacje z fragm. dovol. Teodoryka Wielkiego, “Studia Źródłoznawcze” 34, 15–28. Prostko-Prostyński J., 1994, Utraeque res publicae. The Emperor Anastasius I’s Gotic Policy (491–518), trans. P. Znaniecki, Poznań: UAM (ed. 1). Prostko-Prostyński J., 2000, Basiliskos: Ein in Rom anerkannter Usurpator, ZPE 133, 259–265. Prostko-Prostyński J., 2006, “Amicitiae populis per damna creverunt”. Kasjodor, senat rzymski i niektóre aspekty instalacji barbarzyńców w Italii pod koniec V wieku, [in:] D. A. Sikorski, A. M. Wyrwa (ed.), Cognitioni Gestorum. Studia z dziejów średniowiecza dedykowane Profesorowi Jerzemu Strzelczykowi, Poznań–Warszawa: DiG, 29–40. Pudliszewski J., 2009, Wstęp [in:] O rzeczach poświęconych (zmarłym) i kosztach pochówku oraz jak należy zorganizować pogrzeb. O grzebaniu zmarłych i budowie grobowca. O zbezczeszczonym grobie, Poznań: UAM, 7–10. Quaranta P., 2008, Teoderico a Roma: fonti e testimonianze archeologiche, [in:] Rex Theodericus. Il Medaglione d’oro di Morro d’Alba, a cura di C. Barsanti, A. Paribeni, S. Pedone, Roma: Espera, 67–80. Randers-Pehrson J. D., 1983, Barbarians and Romans. The Birth Struggle of Europe A. D. 400–700, University of Oklahoma Press. Rasi P., 1953, Sulla paternitá del c. d. Edictum Theoderici regís, “Archivio Giuridico” 145, 105–162. Rebillard E., 2009, The care of the dead in late antiquity, Cornel University Press. Redies M., 1997, Die Usurpation des Basiliskos (475–476) im Kontext der aufsteigenden Monophysitischen Kirche, “Antiquité Tardive” 5, 213–214. 251

Régerat P., 1997, La conversion d’un prince germanique au IVe siècle: Fritigern et les Goths, [in:] M. Rouche (ed.), Clovis, histoire et mémoire, vol. 1, Paris: Presses del’Univercité de Paris-Sorbona, 171–184. Reichert H., 1987, Lexikon der altgermanischen Namen, 1. Teil: Text, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Reier H., 1934, Theoderich der Große. Heldische Geisteshaltung im Spiegel römischer Geschichtsschreibung, Reden und Aufsätze zum nordischen Gedanken 9, Leipzig. Reydellet M., 1981, La Royauté dans la littérature latine de Sidoine Apollinaire à Isidore de Séville, École Française de Rome Palais Farnèse. Reydellet M., 1995, Théoderic et la “civilitas”, [in:] A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre– 2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo, 285–296. Richards J., 1979, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages (476–752), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rohr C., 1998, Nationalrömisches Bildungsgut im Reich der Ostgoten. Zur Rezeption von Q. Aurelius Symmachus bei Ennodius, “Römische Historische Mitteilungen” 40, 29–48. Rohr C., 1999, La tradizione culturale tardo-romana nel regno degli Ostrogoti – il panegirico di Ennodio a Teoderico, “Romanobarbarica” 16, 261–284. Rohr C., 2002, Das Streben des Ostgotenkönigs Theoderich nach Legitimität und Kontinuität im Spiegel seiner Kulturpolitik. Beobachtungen zu imperialen Elementen im Theoderich-Panegyricus des Ennodius, [in:] P. Walter, M. Diesenberger (ed.), Integration und Herrschafvol. Ethnische Identitäten und soziale Organisation im Frühmittelalter, Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 227–231. Rota S., 1998, Su un passo del panegirico a Teoderico di Ennodio di Pavia. Il tema del princeps e sacerdos (§ 80), [in:] Incontri di popoli e di culture tra V e IX secolo. Atti delle V Giornate di studio sull’età romanobarbarica. Benevento, 9–11 giugno 1997, a cura di M. Rotili, Napoli, 139–146. Rouche M., 1996, Clovis, Paris: Fayard. Saitta B., 1986, “Religionem imperare non possumus”. Motivi e momenti della politica di Teoderico il Grande, “Quaderni Catanesi di studi classici e medievali” 8, 63–88. (Przedruk w: Studi in memoria di Mario Condorelli, vol. 3, Milano: Giuffre 1988, 297–318). Saitta B., 1988, Teoderico di fronte a Franchi e Visigoti (a proposito della battaglia di Vouillé), [in:] Cultura e società nell’Italia medievale. Studi per Paolo Brezzi, vol. II, Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per Medio Evo, 737–750.

252

Saitta B., 1990, “Custodia Legum Civilitatis Est Indicium”. Teoderico L’Amalo e La Civiltà Romana, “Antigüedad y cristianismo” 7, 391–403. Saitta B., 1993, La civilitas di Teoderico. Rigore amministrativo, “tolleranza” religiosa e recupero dell’antico nell’Italia ostrogota, Studia Historica 128, Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Saitta B., 1999, The Ostrogoths In Italy, “Revista de ideas y formas políticas de la Antigüedad Clásica” 11, 197–216. Saitta B., 2000, L’episcopato cattolico in età ostrogota, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 399–420. Salamon M., 2010, Ku nowej tożsamości. Plemiona germańskie na Wschodzie w III–VI w., [in:] M. Salamon, J. Strzelczyk (ed.), Wędrówka i etnogeneza w starożytności i średniowieczu, Kraków: Historia Iagiellonica, 157–171 (ed. 2). Salaville S., 1920a, “Hénotique”, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. 6/2, Paris, 2153–2178. Salti S., Venturini R., 2001, Das Leben des Theoderichs, Ravenna: Edizioni Tipolito Stear. Sardella T., “Ormisda”, Enciclopedia dei Papi, Treccani.ivol. Sardella T., 1996, Società,Chiesa e Stato nell’età di Teodorico. Papa Simmaco e lo scisma laurenziano, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore. Sardella T., 2000, Simmaco e lo scisma laurenziano dalle fonti antiche alla storiografia moderna, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 11–37. Scardigli P., 1967, La conversione dei Goti al Cristianesiomo, [in:] La conversione al cristianesimo nell’Europa dell’alto medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo XIV, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 47–86. Scardigli P., 1973, Die Goten: Sprache und Kultur, trans. B. Vollmann, München: Beck. Schäfer C., 2001, Probleme einer multikulturellen Gesellschafvol. Zur Integrationspolitik im Ostgotenreich, “Klio” 83, 182–197. Schäferdiek K., 1977, Germanenmission, RACh 10, 502. Schäferdiek K., 1979, Wulfila. Vom Bischof von Gotien zum Gotenbischof, ZKG 90, 107–146. Schäferdiek K., 2002, Der vermeintliche Arianismus der Ulfila-Bibel. Zum Umgang mit einem Stereotyp, ZACh 6, 320–329. Schmidt L., 1933, Die Ostgermanen, München. 253

Schönfeld M., 1911, Wörterbuch Der Altgermanischen Personen– und Völkernamen, Nach der Überlieferung des klassischen Altertums bearbeitet von M. Schönfeld, Heidelberg: C. Winter. Schulten A. (ed.), 1922, Ora Maritima et Periegesis seu Descriptio Orbis Terrarum [in:] Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, vol. 1, Barcelona: A. Bosch. Schulz B., 1911, Das Grabmal Theoderichs zu Ravenna und seine Stellung in der Architekturgeschichte, Würzburg. Schwarcz A., 1992, Die Goten in Pannonien und auf dem Balkan nach dem Ende des Hunnenreiches bis zum Italienzug Theoderichs des Großen, MIÖG 100, 50–83. Schwarcz A., 1993, Die Restitutio Galliarum des Theoderich, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 787–798. Schwarcz A., 1999, Cult and Religion Among the Tervingi and the Visigoths and their Conversion to Christianity, [in:] The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century, An Ethnographic Perspective, Woodbridge: Boydell, 447–459. Schwarcz A., 2004, Beato Petro devotissimus ac si catholicus. Überlegungen zur Religionspolitik Theoderichs des Großen, MIÖG 112, 36–52. Schwartz E., 1934, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische Klasse 10.4, München. Seppelt F. X., 1931, Der Aufstieg des Papsttums: Geschichte der Päpste von den Anfängen bis zum Regierungsantritt Gregors des Großen, Leipzig: J. Hegner. Seston W., 1957, Hypothèse sur la date de basilique constantinienne de SaintPierre de Rome, ”Cahiers Archéologique” 2, 153–159. Settia A. A., 1993, Le fortificazioni dei Goti in Italia, [in:] Teoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 1, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 101–131. Shanzer D., 1996-97, Two Clocks and a Wedding; Theodoric’s Diplomatic Relations with the Burgundians, “Romanobarbarica” 14, 225–255. Simonetti M., “Aussenzio di Durostorum”, NDPAC, 662. Simonetti M., “Euzoio di Antiochia”, NDPAC, 1876. Simonetti M., 1975, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, SEA 11, Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum”. Simonetti M., 1976, L’arianesimo di Vulfila, “Romanobarbarica” 1, 297–323. 254

Simonetti M., 1980, L’incidenza dell’arianesimo nel rapporto fra Romani e barbari, [in:] Passagio dal mondo antico al. medio evo da Teodosio a San Gregorio Magno, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 45, Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 367–379. Sirago V. A., 1998, Amalasunta La Regina, Milano: Jaca Book. Sitek B., 2003, Infamia w ustawodawstwie cesarzy rzymskich, Olsztyn: UWM. Sivan H., 1995, The making of an arian goth: Ulfila reconsidered, RBen 105, 280–292. Somekh A., 1995, Teoderico e gli Ebrei di Ravenna, [in:] A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre– 2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo, 137–149. Soraci R., 1974, Ricerche sui «conubia» tra Romani e Germani nei secoli IV–Vl, Catania: Muglia (ed. 2). Sörries R., 1983, Die Bilder der Orthodoxen im Kampf gegen der Arianismus. Eine Apologie der orthodoxen Christologie und Trinitätslehre gegenüber der arianischen Häresie, dargestellt an den ravennatischen mosaiken und Bildern des 6. Jahrhunderts. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des germanischen Homöertums, Europäische Hochschulschrifen Reihe 23, Theologie 186, Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Sotinel C., 1998, Rome et l’Italie de la fin de l’Empire au Royaume Gothique, [in:] J.-M. Mayeur, (+) C. Pietri, L. Pietri i inni, Histoire du christianisme des origines a nos jours, vol. 3: Les Églises d’Orient et d’Occident (432–610), Paris: Desclée, 279–319. Speigel I., 1980, Die Synode von Heraclea 515, AHC 12, 48–61. Stein E., 1949, Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. 2: De la disparation de l’empire d’occident à la mort de Justinien (476–565), édition française par Jean-Rémy Palanque, Paris: Desclée De Brouwer. Strzelczyk J., 1984, Goci – rzeczywistość i legenda, Warszawa: PIW. Strzelczyk J., 1997, Apostołowie Europy, Warszawa: PAX. Strzelczyk J., 2005, Wandalowie i ich afrykańskie państwo, Warszawa: PIW (ed. 2). Suchy L. (ed.), 1998, Santuario di San Michele sul Gargano, Edizioni de Santuario. Sundwall J., 1975, Abhandlungen zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Römertums, Manchester: Ayer Publishing. Szymusiak J. M., 1965, Grzegorz Teolog, Poznań: Księgarnia Św. Wojciecha. Szymusiak J. M., Starowieyski M. (ed.), 1971, Słownik Wczesnochrześcijańskiego Piśmiennictwa, Poznań: Księgarnia Św. Wojciecha. 255

Śrutwa J., 1999, “Reguła wiary” papieża Hormizdasa (z 515 roku) jako kościelny przykład dokumentu doskonałego, [in:] Studia z dziejów Kościoła w starożytności, Lublin: KUL, 173–179. Tabarroni G., 1999, Scienza e tecnica nel mausoleo di Teoderico, “Ravenna Studi e Ricerche” 6/2, 125–134. Teillet S., 1984, Des Goths à le nation gothique. Les origines de l’idèe de nation en Occident du Ve au VIIe siècle, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Tessier G., 1964, Le Baptême de Clovis, Paris: Gallimard. Thompson E. A., 1956, The Date of the Conversion of the Visigoths, JEH 7, 1–11. Townsend W. T., 1933, The So-Called Symmachian Forgeries, “The Journal of Religion”, 13/2, 165–174. Townsend W. T., 1936, The Henotikon Schism and the Roman Church, “The Journal of Religion” 16, 78–86. Townsend W. T., 1937, Councils Held under Pope Symmachus, ChH 6/3, 233–259. Udovitch A. L., 1981, Time, the Sea and Society: duration of commercial voyages on the southern shores of the Mediterranean during the high Middle Ages, Princeton University. Ullmann W., 1981, Gelasius I (492–496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter, Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. Vacca S., 1993, Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur: genesi e sviluppo storico dell’assioma fino al Decreto di Graziano, Roma: PUG, 33–78. Vaccari P., 1956, Concetto ed ordinamento dello stato in Italia sotto il governo dei Goti, [in:] I Goti d’occidente. Problemi, 29 marzo–5 aprile 1955, Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo III, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 585–594. Valenzano G., 1993, La basilica di San Zeno in Verona. Problemi architettonici, Ars et fabrica 1, Firenze: Neri Pozza. Várady L., 1984, Epochenwechsel um 476 Odoaker, Theoderich d. Gr. und die Umwandlungen: Anhang, Pannonica, Budapest-Bonn: Akadémiai Kiadó, R. Habelt. Vasina A., 1995, Teoderico e le città Italiche, [in:] A. Carile (ed.), Teoderico e i Goti tra Oriente e Occidente. Congresso internazionale, Ravenna 28 settembre–2 octobre 1992, Ravenna: Longo Angelo, 119–136. Vera D., 1993, Proprietà terriera e società rurale nell’Italia gotica, [in:] Theoderico il Grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 133–166. Verzone P., [1968], The art of Europe: the Dark Ages from Theodoric to Charlemagne, trans. Pamela Waley, New York: Crown Publishers. 256

Vetter G., 1938, Die Ostgoten und Theoderich, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte 15, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Veyne P., 2008, Quando l’Europa è diventata cristiana (312–394): Costantino, la conversione, l’impero, Milano: Garzanti (traduzione di Emanuele Lana, oryginał: Quand notre monde est devenu chrétien (312–394), Paris: Éditions Albin Michel «Idées» 2007). Viscido L., 1987, Studi sulle Variae di Cassiodoro, Calabria: Letteraria Editrice. Vismara G., 1956, Romani e Goti di fronte al diritto nel regno Ostrogoto, [in:] I Goti d’occidente. Problemi, 29 marzo–5 aprile 1955, Settimane di studio del centro Italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo III, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 409–463. Vismara G., 1967, Edictum Theoderici. Ius Romanum Medii Aevi I, 2 b aa a, Milano. Vismara G., 1987, Scritti di storia giuridica, vol. 1: Fonti del diritto nei regni Germanici, Milano: Giuffrè. Vismara G., 1993, Il diritto nel regno dei Goti, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 275–315. Vismara G., 2000, Scritti di storia giuridica, vol. 9: Tra antichità e medioevo, Milano: Giuffrè. Vitiello M., 2004, Teoderico a Roma. Politica, amministrazione e propaganda Nel’”adventus” dell’anno 500. Considerazioni sul’ “Anonimo Valesiano I”, “Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte” 53/1, 73–120. Vitiello M., 2005a, Momenti do Roma ostrogota: aduentus, feste, politica, Stuttgart: F. Steiner 2005. Vitiello M., 2005b, Motive Germanischer Kultur und Prinzipien des gotischen Königtums im Panegyricus des Ennodius an Theoderich den Großen, “Hermes” 133, 100–115. Vitiello M., 2006a, “Cassiodoriana”. Gli Excerpta Valesiana, l’aduentus e le laudes del principe Teoderico, “Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des deutschen archäologischen Instituts” 36, 113–134. Vitiello M., 2006b, “Nourished at the Breast of Rome”: The Queens of Ostrogothic Italy and the Education of the Roman Elite, “Rheinisches Museum für Philologie” 149, 388–412. Vitiello M., 2008, Cassiodorus anti-Boethius?, “Klio” 90, 461–484. Vitiello M., 2009, “Per il bene di Roma”. I privilegi di Teoderico, da Cassiodoro alla Constitutio Pragmatica, “Latomus” 68, 146–163. 257

Wiemer H.-U., 2007, Theoderich der Große und das ostgotische Italien. Integration durch Separation, [in:] M. Meier (ed.), Sie schufen Europa. Historische Portraits von Konstantin bis Karl dem Großen, München: C.H. Beck, 156–175. Wilczyński M., 2001a, Germanie w służbie zachodniorzymskiej w V w. n.e. Studium historyczno-prosopograficzne, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej. Wilczyński M., 2001b, Przenikanie Germanów do kręgów rodzinnych zachodnorzymskiej arystokracji wojskowej i rodowej w V w. n.e., Sprawozdania z czynności i posiedzeń PAU, vol. LXIV (2000), Kraków: PAU, 82–86. Wilczyński M., 2005, Polityka religijna germańskich wodzów foederatii na terenach cesarstwa zachodniorzymskiego, [in:] Religia i polityka w świecie antycznym, Ostróda: Muzeum w Ostródzie, 253–267. Wilczyński M., 2011, Królestwo Swebów – regnum in extremitate mundi, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego. Wipszycka E., 1999, Źródła normatywne świeckie, [in:] E. Wipszycka (ed.), Vademecum historyka starożytnej Grecji i Rzymu, vol. 3: Źródłoznawstwo czasów późnego antyku, Warszawa: PWN, 585–617. Wirbelauer E., 1993b, Zwei Päpste in Rom. Der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498–514). Studien und Texte, München: Tuduv. Wirbelauer E., 2000, Simmaco e Lorenzo. Ragioni del conflitto negli anni 498–506, [in:] Il papato di san Simmaco (498–514). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi, Oristano 19–21 novembre 1998, Cagliari: Pontificia facoltà teologica della Sardegna, 39–51. Wiśniewski R., 2011, Narodziny kultu relikwii i jego najwcześniejsze świadectwa, [in:] R. Wiśniewski (ed.) Początki kultu relikwii na Zachodzie, AKME. Źródła starożytne, vol. 2, Warszawa: UW, 11–42. Wojda J., 2006, Communion et foi: les trois premiers voyages des papes de Rome à Constantinople (484–555). Étude historique et théologique, Siedlce: Iwonex. Wolfram H., 1960, Constantin als Vorbild für den Herrscher des hochmittelalterlichen Reiches, MIÖG 68, 226–243. Wolfram H., 1979, Geschichte der Goten, München: Beck. Wolfram H., 1990, Einleitung oder Überlegungen zur Origo gentis, [in:] Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern: Berichte des Symposions der Kommission für Frühmittelalterforschung, 27. bis 30. Oktober 1986, Wien: Stift Zwettl, Niederösterreich, 19–33. Wolfram H., 1993, Das Reich Theoderichs in Italien und seinen Nebenländern, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 1, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 3–21. 258

Wolfram H., 1994, Origo et religio. Ethnic Tradition and Literature in Early Medieval Texts, “Early Medieval Europe” 3, 19–38. Wolfram H., 1996, Germanie, trans. R. Darda, Kraków: Universitas. Wolfram H., 1997, The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples, trans. T. Dunlap, Los Angeles-London: Berkeley. Wolfram H., 2001, Die Goten. Von den Anfängen bis zur Mitte des sechsten Jahrhundert, Vierte Auflage, München: Beck. Wołodkiewicz W., 2006, Promulgacja Kodeksu Teodozjana [sic!] na posiedzeniu senatu miasta Rzymu, Palestra 1–2. Electronic version: http://www.palestra.pl/ index.php?go=artykul&id=779 (10 IV 2012). Wołodkiewicz W., 2009, Europa i prawo rzymskie. Szkice z historii europejskiej kultury prawnej, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska. Wood I., 2007, Theoderic’s monuments in Ravenna, [in:] S. J. Barnish, F. Marazzi (ed.), The Ostrogoths from the migration period to the sixth century: an ethnographic perspective, San Marino: The Boydell Press, 249–263. Woods D., 1994, The baptism of the Emperor Valens, “Classica et Medievalia” 45, 211–221. Zakrzewski K., 1933, Rewolucja Odoakra, PAU – Rozprawy Wydziału Historyczno-Filozoficznego, Seria II, vol. 64/2, Kraków: PAU. Zecchini G., 1993, L’Anonimo Valesiano Il: Genere storiografico e contesto politico, [in:] Theoderico il grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, Milano 2–6 novembre 1992, vol. 2, Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 809–818. Ziegler A. K., 1942, Pope Gelasius I and his Teaching on the Relation of Church and State, “Catholic Historical Review” 27, 412–437. Zieliński T., 1999, Religia Cesarstwa Rzymskiego, Toruń: Adam Marszałek. Zimmermann H. J., 1972, Theoderich der Große – Dietrich von Bern: Die geschichtlichen und sagenhaften Quellen des Mittelalters, Bonn: Phil. Diss. [s.n.]. Zink G., 1950, Les Légendes héroiques de Dietrich et d’Ermrich dans les littératures germaniques, Lyon: Durand. Zulueta F. de, 1932, Violation of sepulture in Palestine at the beginning of the Christian era, JRS 22, 184–197. Zwolski E., 1968, Uwagi o Jordanesie, historyku Gotów, “Studia Źródłoznawcze” 13, 137–145. Zwolski E., 1984, Kasjodor i Jordanes. Historia gocka, czyli scytyjska Europa, Lublin: KUL. Żurek A., 2002, Św. Cezary z Arles, OŻ 17, Kraków: WAM. 259

Index of People A Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople  28, 45, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 67, 68, 71, 77, 116, 125, 126, 132, 133, 143 Adrian II, pope  15 Aetius Flavius, presbyter  28, 261 Agapitha, Basil’s wife  194 Agapitus, patrician  45, 168–172 Agrippina, Roman Empress  185 Alaric II, King of the Visiogoths  85, 112, 113, 121, 133, 138, 197 Albinus (Avienus)  110 Albinus, patrician  110 Amalaberga (Amalabirga), Amalafrida’s daughter  85, 88, 133 Amalafrida (Amalafrigda), Theoderic’s sister  85, 86, 133 Amalaric, King of the Visigoths  121, 138 Amalasuntha, Theoderic’s daughter  139, 147, 160, 161, 176 Amantius 170 Ambrose, bishop of Milan  32, 36 Ammianus Marcellinus, historian  26, 29, 201 Amory Patrick  18, 29, 42, 64, 87, 120, 127 Anastasius I, Emperor  9, 12, 51, 52, 64, 65, 72–77, 79, 83, 89, 90, 97, 105, 114, 115, 125–128, 130–132, 134, 135, 137, 143, 182 Anastasius II, pope  12, 51, 71, 72, 74, 79, 90, 182 Anastasius the Librarian (Bibliothecarius) 14

Anicius Probus Faustus (Faustus Niger)  51 Anthemius, Emperor  38 Anthemius, praefectus praetorio 151 Anthony, bishop of Pula  118 Arcadius, Emperor  35, 36, 140, 158, 185, 186, 187, 199, 200, 208 Argolicus, prefect of Rome  202 Arigernus, comes  100, 101, 104, 202, 203 Arius  24, 30, 33, 42, 174 Asclepiodotus, consul  153 Athalaric, King of the Ostrogoths  139, 140, 160, 183 Athanaricus, commander of Gothorum 26 Athanasius of Alexandria  25, 27–29, 35 Audefleda, Clovis’s daughter  51 Auxentius of Durostorum  32 Auxentius, predecessor Ambrose  33, 34, 36 Aurigenus 118 Ausbüttel Frank  18, 20 Avitus of Vienne  133 B Barnes Timothy  23 Basil of Caesarea  208, 209 Basil, Agapitha’s husband  194 Basil, senator  202 Basil, Theodore’s father  85, 87 Basiliskos, usurper  47, 82 Bedeulf, majordom  100, 101, 104 Belisarius  41, 184 Bellomo Manlio 180 261

Beremud, Eutharic’s grandfather 138 Blandus, presbyter  135, 143 Blumenkranz Bernhard  151, 154, 158, 160, 203 Boethius, philosopher  218 Boniface, pope  78 Bracke Wouter  145, 146, 147, 150, 155, 156–158, 162, 166 Butila, priest  120 C Caecina Decius Maximus, consul 168 Caesarius of Arles  43, 112, 120, 161 Caesarius of Nazianzus  121, 201 Canella Tessa  152, 159 Capo Lidia 16 Caravita Gregorio  18, 38, 40, 147 Cardini Franco  49, 180 Caruso Antonio  47, 147, 158, 174 Caspar Erich  19, 64, 73, 76, 103, 133 Cassiodorus, historian, senator  12, 14, 17, 48, 52, 80, 83, 84, 86- 88, 96, 113, 114, 117, 119, 139, 140, 141, 144–148, 160, 161, 166, 176, 179, 218 Castorius, Felix father  175 Cecchelli Margherita  18, 20, 38, 110 Celerus, consul  113, 212 Cessi Roberto  16, 20, 85, 148, 155, 156 Clothilda, wife of King Clovis  112 Clovis (Lodoin), King of the Franks  51, 71, 110–112, 115, 143, 144, 217 Conditaria 94 Conon, pope  15, 105 Constans, Emperor  204, 205, 207 Constantine the Great, Emperor  23, 81, 109, 110, 150, 159, 174, 198, 206, 212 262

Constantius, bishop  119 Constantius, Emperor  35, 159, 199, 201, 205, 207 Constantius, pope John’s father  165 Cresconius, bishop  72 D Dalmatius, consul  206 Damasus, pope  31 Delmaire Roland  186, 196, 199, 204, 206, 212 Demetrius, praefectus 134 Dignissimus, presbyter  105, 106 Dioscorus, deacon  135, 143 Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria  131 Duchesne Louis Marie  14–16, 45, 61, 126 Dumézil Bruno  33, 39, 40, 81, 154, 157–161, 167 Durliat Jean  86, 93 Dvornik Francis  19, 142 E Ecclesius of Ravenna  168 Emilianus, bishop  118 Engler Aulo 18 Ennodius, historian, bishop  33, 39, 40, 67, 69, 76, 86, 90, 113, 114, 118, 121, 125, 126, 133, 134, 147, 179, 182, 218 Ensslin Wilhelm  18, 20, 39, 87, 106, 147, 168 Epiphanius, bishop of Salamina  68, 69 Ereleuva (Eusebia), Theoderic’s mother  9, 39 Eudoxius  27, 28 Eulalius, antipope  78 Euphemius, bishop of Constantinople  65, 136 Eusebius of Cesarea  28, 34, 81, 200 Eusebius of Fanum  168

Eusebius of Nicomedia  23, 25 Eusignius 35 Eusosius 30 Eustorgius, bishop of Milan  117 Eutharic, Amalasuntha’s husband  138–141, 146–148, 156, 157, 163, 219 Eutropius, historian  187 Eutyches, archimandrite  54, 57, 73, 131 Evagrius Scholasticus  52, 54, 55, 58–60, 68, 127 Evagrius, praefectus praetorio 150 Evantius (=Venantius)  125, 126, 133–134 Evodius, consul  35 F Fascius 188 Faustus Niger  51, 53, 105 Felix III, pope  11, 12, 45, 46, 54, 59–61, 63, 68, 142, 216 Felix IV, pope  11, 12, 15, 175 Felix, deacon  135 Felix, pope’s father  45 Favius Avienus the Younger  97 Flavius Agapitus, consul  169 Flavius Rufius Postumius Festus  89 Flavius Theodorus, Basil’s son  87, 170 Florentinus 206 Fortunatus of Catania  125, 126, 133 Fortunatus, pope’s father  73 Fravitas, Acacius’ successor  56 Fredegar, historian  84 Fritigern, king of the Visigoths  26, 29 Fulgentius of Ruspe  80, 81, 133, 190 Fulgentius, archdeacon  80, 133, 190 G Gainas, Goth  36–38 Galla Placidia  78

Gasparri Stefano 181 Gatto Lodovico  81, 87, 88, 162 Geertman Herman  15, 16, 143 Geiseric, King of the Vandals  39 Gelasius, pope  9, 12, 20, 38, 39, 51, 63–69, 74, 109, 216 Gennadius Avienus, consul  97 Germanus, bishop of Capua  11, 35, 42 Germanus, unknown  72, 118, 136 Glaphyrus, patrician  110 Goffart Walter  18, 86, 111 Goltz Andreas  18, 19 Gordian III, Emperor  106 Gordianus, presbyter  105 Gratian, Emperor  140, 208, 212 Gregory I, pope  176, 203 Gregory of Nazianzus  201 Gregory of Nyssa  208 Gregory of Tours  41, 167 Grossi Vittorino  20, 51, 55 Gudila, bishop  117, 118 Gudila, majordom  100, 101, 104 Gundobad, King of the Burgundians  69, 133 H Harper Irwin 19 Heliodorus, praefectus 134 Hermias Sozomenos  37 Herminefred (Herminifred), King of the Thuringians  85, 86, 88, 133 Hilarius, monk  122, 123 Hilarius, notarius  126, 134 Hilarius, pope  38 Hilderic, King of the Vandals  173 Honorius, Emperor  35, 78, 140, 151, 158, 159, 186, 187, 192, 200 Hormisdas, pope  12, 54, 125–137, 143, 144, 217, 218 Huneric, King of the Vandals  39 263

I Inportunus  87, 168, 170, 171 Isidore of Seville  157 J Januarius of Salona  118 John Chrysostom  37, 185, 187 John Talaios of Alexandria  55, 59, 67, 68 John of Verona  151 John, bishop of Constantinople  126, 134, 136, 141 John, bishop of Ravenna  67 John, bishop (presbyter?)  135, 143 John, deacon  106, 108 John, chandler  118 John I, pope  12, 20, 41, 87, 99, 136, 155, 158, 159, 160, 165, 167, 168–176, 182, 218 Jordanes, historian  12, 14, 17, 26, 36, 46, 48–50, 52, 82–86, 88, 111, 113, 133, 138, 139, 148, 179, 218 Jovinian, a functionary in the Curia 194 Julian the Apostate, Emperor  199, 200, 207 Julian, unknown  118 Justin I, Emperor  40, 90, 135–136, 138–139, 143–144, 147, 154, 158–160, 163, 165–166, 169, 172–176, 181–182, 217–219 Justina, Empress  32 Justinian, Emperor  41, 90, 137, 140, 174, 184, 198, 213 Justus, Hormisdas father  125 K Koczwara Stanisław  65, 134 Kokowski Andrzej  210 Kosiński Rafał  21, 39, 54, 55, 76 264

L Lacam Gay  65, 66 Lafferty Sean  158, 180, 181, 188–193, 195, 196, 198, 204, 212, 214 Lamma Paolo  18, 21, 72, 183 Lampadius, consul  175 Laurence, antipope  15, 16, 66, 73–75, 78–81, 89–91, 95, 99, 102, 105–108, 111, 115–116, 190, 192, 194, 197, 219 Laurence, bishop of Milan  69, 76, 97, 99 Laurence, presbyter  210 Leo I, Emperor  9, 140, 215 Leo I, pope  57, 94, 132, 136, 137, 190 Liberius, pope  216 Liberius, praefectus praetorio 85–87, 93 Licandro Orazio  180, 181 Löwe Heinz 20 Luiselli Bruno  39, 40, 43, 161, 171 M Maburtius, consul  175 Macedonius, patriarch  72, 136 Majorian, consul  140 Malaspina Elena  48, 118 Marcel of Ancyra  57 Marcellinus Comes  17, 38, 45–47, 49, 63, 73, 96, 115, 125, 163, 170 Marcellinus, bishop  97, 99 Marcian, emperor  131 Marcus Aurelius, Emperor  210 Marinianius, consul  153 Marius of Aventicum  47, 53, 96 Martin of Tours  110 Martindale John  97, 139 Maxentius, Emperor  200 Maximus, consul  165 Misenus, bishop  59–60, 66

Mommsen Theodor  14–15, 60, 64, 66, 85, 87, 95–97, 102, 145–146, 149, 155–156 Montesano Marina  20, 121, 133 Mundonus, Hun  111–112 N Naumowicz Józef  92, 94 Nautin Pierre 63 Nestorius  56, 131 Noble Thomasi 19, 64, 74, 103, 154 O Odoacer, King of Italy  9, 45–53, 60–61, 69, 72, 86–87, 95, 182, 215 Odoin, general  85, 87 Olibrius, consul  165 Orestes, consul  46, 175 P Paradisi Bruno  179–180, 184, 211 Paulinus, consul  78 Paulus Diaconus  39–40, 46–47, 49, 51–52, 84, 94, 166, 177 Paulus (Sentences of)  214 Peregrinus, bishop  134 Peter, defensor 67 Peter Mongos  54–55, 59, 66–68, 77, 143 Peter of Altinum  89, 94–96, 102, 106 Peter the Fuller  58, 68, 132 Peter, notary  135 Peter, bishop of Alexandria  31, 45, 54, 58, 116, 125–126, 132 Peter, bishop of Ravenna  99, 118, 120, 146, 156, 158 Peter, pope Anastasius father  71 Pfeilschifter Georg  17, 19, 80 Philostorgius, historian  23, 25, 30 Photinus, deacon  71

Picotti Giovanni  20, 42, 59, 76–77, 94, 102, 114, 174, 176, 203 Pietras Henryk  7, 13, 24–25, 29, 33, 57, 71, 185, 190 Pilara Gianluca  122, 143, 166 Pithou Pierre 179 Pitza, commander  111–113, 115–116 Pollio, subdeacon  134 Pompeius, consul  96 Pretextatus, senator  202 Prinzivalli Emanuela  23, 26 Probinus, consul  49, 89, 105, 194 Procopius of Caesarea  12, 53, 113, 147, 172–173, 183–184 Prosperus Hauniensis  96 Prostko-Prostyński Jan  11, 21, 47, 49–50, 68, 72, 76, 86–87, 90, 93, 120, 139–140 Ps-Fredegarius  84, 112 Ps-Gregorius 212 Ps-Theodore 209 Ps-Zacharias 90 Q Quaranta Paula  84, 119 R Rasi Piero 179 Reydellet Marc  50, 69, 76, 86, 119, 183 Romeo, messanger  41 Romulus Augustulus, Emperor  46, 140, 184, 215 Romulus, legendary Roman hero 186 Rouche Michel  49, 69, 71, 85–86, 110, 113–114 Rufinus, extortionist  36 Rufius Avienus Faustus  97, 101 Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus  96, 97, 100 265

S Sabinian, commander  111–112, 115 Sabinus of Campania  113, 168 Saitta Biaggio  42, 67, 69, 76, 113, 118, 120, 151, 154, 180, 182–183, 194, 203 Sardella Teresa  20, 73, 75, 77–79, 91–92, 94–95, 106, 108, 115, 125 Septimus Severus, emperor  204 Severus, bishop of Vence  120, 136 Sidonius Appolinarius  180 Sigismund, King of the Burgundians  69, 85, 133 Silvan, presbyter  60 Simeon, monk  60 Simplicius, pope  61, 63, 68 Socrates Scholasticus  24–30, 32, 38, 174, 187 Somekh Albert  152, 156 Sotinel Claire  38, 72, 90–91, 94, 149, 197 Stein Ernest  19, 51, 53–54, 73, 112, 127, 137, 147, 150, 168, 203 Stephen, church estate holder  118 Strzelczyk Jerzy  7, 17, 25, 29–30, 39, 51, 148, 180 Sylvester, pope  93, 110 Symmachus, imperial emissary  144 Symmachus, Jewish man  159–161, 174 Symmachus, pope  12, 15–16, 17, 20, 42, 66, 71, 73–81, 89–96, 99–111, 113, 115–117, 121, 125, 144, 190, 192–195, 197, 203, 215, 217–218 Symmachus, senator  125, 170–172, 176

Theodemir, Theoderic’s father  9, 39 Theodoret of Cyrrhus  25, 27–30, 33, 37, 200 Theodoric II, King of the Visigoths  179–180, 189, 195, 209 Theodoros Anagnostes  42, 72, 74, 90, 172 Theodosius I, Emperor  31–32, 35–37, 56, 140, 142, 151, 153, 185–186, 192, 196, 199, 208, 212 Theodosius II, Emperor  128, 140, 180, 200, 207 Theophanes, historian  90, 108, 127–129, 132–133, 163, 169, 172 Thorismud, King of the Visigoths  138 Thraustila, Thrasarics’s father  111 Thrasamund, King of the Vandals  40, 85, 86, 133 Thrasaric, Thraustilis’ son  111 Tiberius, Emperor  185, 204 Timothy Ailuros, bishop of Alexandria  54–55, 57, 132 Timothy III, bishop of Constantinople  132, 136 Timothy Salophakialos  55, 57 Titianus, prefect  205 Titus, Emperor  113 Trajan, Emperor  80, 88, 110 Tribigild, Gothic comes 36 Trivanes, head-chamberlain  146, 155, 158

T Tacitus, historian  185 Teius, dignitary  64 Theodahad, King of the Ostrogoths 85

V Vacca Salvatore  75, 102, 117 Vaccari Pietro  184, 203 Valentinian I, Emperor  35, 56, 78, 159, 185–186, 196, 199, 208, 212

266

U Unscila, Arian bishop  119 Unulf 50 Usener Hermann 87

Valerius, Gelasius’ father  63 Várady Laszlo  18, 20 Vasina Augusto 117 Venantius (=Evantius), presbyter  125, 126, 133–134 Venantius consul  113 Veteric, Eutharic’s father  138 Victor Aquitanus  96–97 Victor Tunnunensis  17, 46, 51, 54–55, 68, 74, 96, 127, 137, 163 Victor Vitensis  39 Vismara Giulio  179–180, 183–184, 189, 191, 209, 210–211, 213 Vitalian, commander  127–128, 130–132, 135, 163, 217 Vitalis, bishop  59–60 Vitalis, deacon  125–126, 133–134 Vitiello Massimiliano  11, 46, 50–52, 80–82, 84, 86–87, 92, 114, 141, 145–146, 148, 160, 172, 183

W Warmington Brian  145, 152 Winniczuk Lidia  83, 84, 145, 150, 155 Wipszycka Ewa 180 Wirbelauer Eckhard  20, 75, 92, 93 Wojda Jacek  59, 60, 72, 127, 130, 132, 135, 136, 143 Wolfram Herwig  8, 59, 80, 86, 112, 113, 127, 139 Wulfila (Ufilas), bishop and missionary  23–34, 36, 167 Z Zeno, Emperor  46–55, 59, 60, 63, 64, 68, 72, 75, 82, 89, 105, 115, 140, 182, 206, 215, 216 Zenophilus, consul  206 Zieliński Tadeusz 201 Zwolski Edward  83, 84

267

Index of Places A Adrianopol 30 Aeolian (Liparia) Islands  176, 194 Africa  39, 63, 85, 141, 173 Agde (Agatha)  112, 121, 189, 190 Albano 125 Alexandria  25, 30, 45, 54–59, 67, 68, 91, 92, 94, 116, 125, 126, 132, 142, 143 Altinum  89, 94, 95, 102, 106 Amiternum 203 Antioch  23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 54, 56, 57, 58, 68, 132 Anzio 78 Aquila 203 Aquitaine 96 Arezzo 122 Arles (Arelate)  43, 112, 120, 161, 189 Aventicum 96 B Belgrade (Singidunum)  9, 52, 215 Bern 19 Bithynia 56 Brutios 68 Burgundy  10, 68, 86, 116, 133, 161 Byzantium  21, 40, 60, 75, 85, 115, 116, 219 C Caesarea  28, 48, 113, 147, 172, 173, 200 Campania  96, 125, 168 Capua  71, 135, 142 Carcassone 113 Carre 200

Catania 133 Chalcedon  37, 54, 55, 57, 58, 65, 78, 127, 130–133, 136, 137, 142, 215 Constantinople  9, 10, 13, 23, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 45, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55–60, 65, 68, 72, 74, 76–79, 87, 90, 99, 105, 115, 126, 131, 132, 134–138, 142, 143, 147, 161, 163, 165, 166, 169–171, 174, 176, 208, 212–213, 215, 217, 218 Croatia 118 Cyrrhus  27, 33, 37, 200 D Danube  26, 111, 112 Durostorum 32 Dyrrachium 137 E Emilia Romagna  118 Ephesus  55–57, 137, 142 Europe  128, 144, 179 F Fanum (Fano)  168 G Galeata  122, 123 Genoa  153, 155 Greece  45, 54, 67, 125, 126, 132, 172, 182 H Heraclea  59, 60, 127, 128, 130, 131, 137, 142

269

I Istria 118 Italy  9, 10, 19, 20, 38, 41, 46–50, 52, 53, 59, 61, 64, 66, 69, 72, 78, 79, 82–84, 86, 90, 92, 94, 113, 115, 122, 137, 141, 150, 151, 162, 167–170, 180–184, 189, 191, 195, 198, 215–216, 218 J Jerusalem  33, 104, 113 L Lateran  16, 95 Lucania 68 M Marche 168 Margus 111 Meaux 157 Mefontis 125 Mesopotamia 200 Milan  21, 32, 35, 36, 76, 99, 117, 120, 154, 155, 179 Myra 190 N Nepi 78 Nicaea  25, 30, 55–57, 137, 142 Nicomedia 23 Nike  24, 25, 28, 36 Nocera 197 Nola 68 O Orange 189 P Pannonia 111 Paris  25, 179 Philippopolis 27 Poitiers 113 270

Provence 120 Pula 118 R Ravenna  9, 21, 40, 47, 50, 52, 74–76, 78, 79, 88, 89, 94, 98, 99, 101, 107, 115, 118–120, 122, 125, 126, 137, 143, 145–148, 153, 155, 156, 161–163, 165, 168, 172, 175, 176, 192, 198, 215, 219 Rimini  24, 25, 28, 36, 91, 94 Rome  7, 9–10, 13, 14, 29, 38, 39, 41, 45, 49, 54, 55–58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 74, 76, 78–81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89–95, 99–100, 103–105, 107–110, 113, 116, 119, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 130, 132, 133, 137–139, 141–146, 154, 156, 170, 182, 184, 192, 197, 198, 202, 203, 205, 206, 211–213, 216, 217 Ruspe  80, 133 S Salona 118 Samnium 175 Sardinia 40 Sarsina 118 Senigalla 12 Scythia  128, 129 Seleucia 28 Sicily  68, 194 Singidunum (Belgrade)  9, 52, 215 Sirmium  24, 27, 28, 111 Spain 138 T Thessaloniki  71, 171 Thrace 29 Ticinum  88, 125, 126 Toledo (Toletum)  190 Toulouse 113 Tours  41, 110, 167

Trastevere 103 Trento 120 Tuscia 165 V Vatican City  95 Vence 120 Verona  15, 88, 145, 146, 151, 162, 163

Via Cornelia  206 Via Salaria  78 Via Trivana  110 Vienne 133 Vouillé 113 Vulcano 194

271