Pope Gelasius I, The Letters of Gelasius I (492-496): Micro-manager and Pastor of the Church of Rome (Adnotationes) [Bilingual ed.] 9782503552996, 2503552994

Citation preview

Adnotationes is a series of scholarly commentaries on important Early Christian and Patristic texts and authors, filling a gap in current scholarship. The commentaries will focus on one author and a particular work. In order to provide a comprehensive study of this one text, the focus will be on the theological or philosophical ideas the author has been developing, as well as the sources and the influence, the place a particular work has within the oeuvre, questions of terminology, style, rhetoric, composition, and text transmission, and the broader theological, historical, and social contexts in which the work took shape or that are reflected in it. As a rule, the commentary volume does not reproduce the original text but may provide a modern translation if deemed helpful. Contributors to the series are specialists on a specific author or work, qualified to write standard commentaries which not only summarise past and current research, but also constitute a major contribution to scholarship in their own right. The series welcomes contributions in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish.

ADNOTATIONES Commentaries on Early Christian and Patristic Texts

SERIES EDITORS Mathijs Lamberigts and Joseph Verheyden

EDITORIAL BOARD

Pauline Allen, Jean-Marie Auwers, Kristoffel Demoen, Volker-Henning Drecoll, Susanna K. Elm, Johan Leemans, Paul Mattei, Lorenzo Perrone, Markus Vinzent

THE LETTERS OF GELASIUS I (492-496) Pastor and Micro-Manager of the Church of Rome

Introduction, translation and notes by Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen

H

F

© 2014, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, me­ chanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2014/0095/184 ISBN 978-2-503-55299-6 Printed on acid-free paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii PART 1: INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Chapter 1: Life in late fifth-century Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An African Pope?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius’ epistolary corpus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The papal archive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rome and its bishops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 5 8 11 14

Chapter 2: Pastoral care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Displaced persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Violent conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Failure of the justice system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown of the structures of dependence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aristocrats and slaves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 20 23 24 26 28

Chapter 3: Persecuting heretics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Acacian schism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second phase of the Acacian schism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The papal legation of Vitalis and Misenus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius’ role in the schism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The absolution of Misenus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The end of the schism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31 31 32 34 35 38 41 42



Table of Contents

Pelagianism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Manicheism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 The Lupercalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Chapter 4: Leading the universal church. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appeals to Rome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clerical appointments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management of church patrimonies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasian decretals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Roman liturgy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49 52 53 56 57 61

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 PART 2: TEXTS IN TRANSLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Preface to the Translations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Section 1: The Preeminence of Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Book of Pontiffs. Gelasius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pope Gelasius to Anastasius Augustus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69 71 73 73

Section 2: Acacius and the eponymous schism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blessed Gelasius to the bishops of the East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 83 83 109 115

Section 3: The papal scrinium at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to the managers of the city . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Vincomalus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127 128 139 139 139 139

Section 4: Decretals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Decree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141 143 143 157

Section 5: Clerical and social abuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pope Gelasius to the bishops of Sicily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blessed Pope Gelasius to John of Spoleto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171 172 172 173 173



Table of Contents

Fragment 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Secundinus of Visinum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 3* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Bishops Justus and Probus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 7*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Bishop Geruntius of Valva. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 14*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Bishop Bellator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 8*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishops Respectus and Geruntius. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 20*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Bishops Cresconius, John, and Messala. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 22*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synodal statement on the dispute between Faustus and Eucharistus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

177

Section 6: Papal intervention in legal cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 5* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishops Justus and Constantine. . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 16*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Mercurius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 21*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To Bishop Siracusius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 9* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to the comes (teia). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179 181 181 181 181 182 182 182 182

Section 7: Murders of bishops. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishop John. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishops Majoricus and John. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pope Gelasius to Philip and Cassiodorus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pope Gelasius to Bishops Majoricus, Serenus, and John. . .

185 187 187 188 188 189 189 190 190

Section 8: Upper and lower classes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishops Martyrius and Justus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishops Herculentius, Stephen, and Justus. . . .

191 193 193 194 194



173 173 174 174 175 175 175 175 176 176 177 177 177

Table of Contents

Letter 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishops Rufinus and Aprilis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pope Gelasius to Bishops Crispinus and Sabinus. . . . . . . . . Letter 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to the comes zeja . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 4*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishop Felix.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pope Gelasius to Bishop John of Sora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pope Gelasius to Bishop Senecio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Herculentius, bishop of Potentia. . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Queen Heraleuva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

195 195 195 195 196 196 197 197 197 197 198 198 198 198 199 199

Section 9: Displaced persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to his most beloved brother Rusticus. . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to the noblewoman Firmina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fragment 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gelasius to Bishops Siracusius, Constantius and Laurence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

201 203 205 205 206 206 207 207

Section 10: Against pagan practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Letter against Andromachus (Tract 6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Select Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Primary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 Secondary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Index of Biblical References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 General Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241



ABBREVIATIONS

* Letters edited by Löwenfeld (see below). ** Letters edited by Ewald (see below). ACO CCSL CJ CPG

CPL CSEL CTh

Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. by E. Schwartz, Berlin, 1914-; ed. by J. Straub, Berlin, 1971. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, Turnhout, 1953-. Codex Justinianus ed. by P. Krüger, in Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 2, 4th edn., Hildesheim, 1989. Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ed. by M. Geerard (Corpus Christianorum), 5 vols and Supplementum, ed. by M. Geerard J. Noret, 2nd edn., Turnhout, 19741998. Clavis Patrum Latinorum, ed. by E. Dekkers (CCSL), 3rd edn., Turnhout, 1995. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna, 1866-. Codex Theodosianus, ed. by P. Krüger, T. Mommsen, P. M. Meyer, 3 vols., 13th edn., Berlin; repr. Hildesheim, 1990. Trans. by C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, Princeton, NJ, 1952.



Abbreviations

Ewald

Frend

GCS Jaffé

HE LP

Löwenfeld Mansi MGH AA NBA OCD PL PLRE 2

P. Ewald, “Die Papstbriefe der Britischen Sammlung 2.”, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für Ältere Deutsche Geschichtskunde zur Beförderung einer Gesammt­ ausgabe der Quellenschriften Deutscher Geschichte des Mittelalters, 5 (1880), pp. 503-596. Rise of the Monophysite Movement = W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge, 1972. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Berlin, 1891-. Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. by P. Jaffé, S. Löwenfeld, F. Kaltenbrunner, P. Ewald, 2 vols., rev. edn., Leipzig, 1885-1888. Historia ecclesiastica. Liber pontificalis, ed. by L. Duchesne, C. Vogel, Le Liber pontificalis, 3 vols., 2nd edn., Paris, 1955-1957; ed. by T. Mommsen, Liber pontificalis, Gestorum Pontificum Romanorum, Berlin, 1898. Trans. by R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) (Translated Texts for Historians, 6), 2nd edn., Liverpool, 2000. Epistolae pontificum Romanorum ineditae, ed. by S. Löwenfeld, Leipzig, 1895; repr. Charleston, SC, 2010, pp. 1-12. Sacrorum conciliorum noua et amplissima collectio, ed. by G. D. Mansi, 16 vols., Florence, 1759-1771; repr. Graz, 1960-1961. Monumenta Germaniae historica auctores antiquissimi, Berlin, 1826-. Opere di Sant’Agostino, Nuova biblioteca Agostiniana, Rome, 1965-. Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. by S. Hornblower, P. Spawforth, 3rd edn, Oxford, 1999. Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, ed. by J.-P. Migne, 221 vols., Paris, 1844-1864. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed. by A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale, J. Morris, vol. 2, AD 395-527, Cambridge, 1980.



Abbreviations

SChr Tanner TDST Thiel

Sources chrétiennes, Paris, 1943-. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils = N. Tanner and G. Alberigo, eds., trans., 2 vols., London, Washington, DC, 1990. Textus et documenta. Studia theologica, Rome, 1932-. Epistulae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, ed. by A. Thiel, 2nd edn., Braunsberg, 1867; repr. Hildesheim, 2004.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Our work on Gelasius I formed part of a three-year research project entitled “Crisis Management in Episcopal Letters (410-590 CE)”, which was generously funded by the Australian Research Council from 2010 to 2012. Bronwen Neil wrote Part 1, the introductions to the translations, and translated the first document from the Book of Pontiffs; Pauline Allen made all the other translations, with suggestions from Anna Silvas, and wrote the notes together with Bronwen Neil. Geoffrey Dunn, George Demacopoulos, Matt Briel, and Kristina Sessa offered generous access to their work prior to publication. We thank our research associate Sandra Sewell for her invaluable help in proofreading, and Wendy Mayer for assistance with the glossary. Thanks to the library staff at McAuley campus of Australian Catholic University for cheerful help with even the most obscure requests, and to Trish Darcy, who assisted with the indices and other thankless tasks. As always, Dinah Joesoef in the Centre for Early Christian Studies has offered gracious assistance, advice, management of the photocopier, and counselling when needed. The series editors and Bart Janssens at Brepols have helped smooth the path to publication. To our respective families, sine qua non, we are grateful for the many times they spared us to complete this work.



PART 1: INTRODUCTION

PREFACE

Gelasius I, bishop of Rome at the end of the turbulent fifth century, rose through the ranks of the Roman clergy under Popes Simplicius and Felix III to become one of the most famous but least understood of the late-antique popes. Under the protection of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric, an Arian, Gelasius insisted on the condemnation of Acacius, former patriarch of Constantinople, as the condition for union between Rome and Constantinople. He wrote a lengthy tract against the practice of a pagan rite in Rome, and addressed a stern letter to the Byzantine emperor Anastasius on the spiritual and canonical disciplinary autonomy and the authority of the bishop of Rome. This letter led to Gelasius’ fame as the classic proponent of the “two swords” or “two powers” theory, meaning the double and separate authority of the priesthood and the emperor in the spiritual and temporal spheres. He issued a lengthy index of books that could be read and those that could not. The letters of Gelasius are thus best known as precursors of medieval canon law. However, out of more than 100 extant letters and fragments, only a third deal with doctrine and clerical discipline. In this volume we seek to redress this imbalance by translating Gelasius’ letters on various problems of his time, such as displaced persons, persecution, ransoming captives, papal property management, servants, slaves, slave-owners, the ordination of lower classes, the role of the papal scrinium, preferential treatment of upper classes, violent deaths of bishops, and the celebration of the Lupercalia. This approach rounds out the existing portrait of Gelasius and contributes to a new history of the late-antique papacy, allowing us to reject the commonly-held view that Gregory the Great was a stand-alone micro-manager without precedent.



introduction

It is the purpose of this introduction to place Gelasius’ innovative episcopacy within its context in ecclesial, dogmatic, pastoral and historical terms. The first chapter is devoted to Gelasius’ life and times, with a survey of his epistolary corpus and a brief sketch of the socio-historical context in which he and his pontificate were located. In Chapter 2, we assess his pastoral care-giving and management of various crises, including displaced persons, violent conflict, failure of the justice system, and crises in the structures of dependence. In Chapter  3 we consider Gelasius as a theologian and opponent of heresy, with an introduction to his role in the Acacian schism, as well as his opposition to the heresies of Pelagianism and Manicheism, and to pagan festivals. The focus of Chapter 4 is Gelasius’ understanding and representation of himself as the heir of St Peter. His judging of appeals to Rome, interference in clerical appointments, and management of church property are examined as aspects of his claim to apostolic authority. In the final chapter we look at how Gelasius imposed church discipline, especially through his decretal letters. Finally, we assess how typical Gelasius was of late-antique bishops in the roles he performed and the way he performed them. In Part 2, in ten sections, we present an annotated translation of 36 selected letters and several fragments, as well as the tract on the Lupercalia, illustrating this remarkable pope’s actions as pastor and micromanager of the church of Rome.



CHAPTER 1: LIFE IN LATE FIFTH-CENTURY ROME

An African Pope? Although Gelasius is an important figure for those who have wished to see in him an early proponent of papal primacy,1 more recent studies have focussed on Gelasius’ sense of social responsibility for the people

See especially the studies of E. Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums 2.Das Papsttum unter byzantinischer Herrschaft, Tübingen, 1933; A. Κ. Ziegler, “Pope Gelasius Ι and His Teaching on the Relation of Church and State”, in Catholic Historical Review, 27.2 (1941-1942), pp. 412-447; F. Dvornik, “Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius Ι”, in Βyzantinische Ζeitschrift, 44 (1951), pp.  111-116; W. Ensslin, “Auctoritas und potestas: Ζur Zweigewaltenlehre des Papstes Gelasius Ι.”, in Historisches Jahrbuch, 74 (1955), pp.  661-668; W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn., London, 1962; W. Ullmann, Gelasius I. (492-496): Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter (Päpste und Papsttum, 18), Stuttgart, 1981; A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche. Bd. 2/1. Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Rezeption und Widerspruch (451-518), 2nd edn., Freiburg, Basel, Vienna, 1986; trans. by P. Allen, J. Cawte, Christ in Christian Tradition 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604), part 1. Reception and Contradiction. The Development of the Discussion about Chalcedon from 451 to the Beginning of the Reign of Justinian, London, UK, Louisville, KY, 1987, pp. 292-305; M. V. Anastos, “Constantinople and Rome: A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches”, in Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), ed. M. V. Anastos (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 717), Farnham, 2001, ch. VIII, pp. 1-19, F. K. Haarer, Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, ARCA (Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 46), Cambridge, 2006. A radical reappraisal of Gelasius’ claims for leadership of the universal church is now offered by G. E. Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity, Philadelphia, 2013. 1



introduction

and rituals of the city of Rome.2 The interesting question of his ethnic origins remains unresolved. Was he from Africa, as the early sixthcentury redactor of the Liber pontificalis claimed?3 This statement, although from a near-contemporary witness, has been questioned in modern scholarship, with some pointing to Gelasius’ profession of loyalty in his letter to Emperor Anastasius as evidence that he was born in Rome. In seeking to justify his disobedience to the emperor’s wishes over the Acacian schism, Gelasius insisted on his loyalty, writing: “[…] as one Roman born, I love the Roman emperor”.4 Thiel points out that Gelasius may have been referring in this statement to his citizenship, rather than Roman birth.5 It is even possible that Gelasius had African parentage but was raised in Rome. There is no good reason to question the testimony of the LP, in which case this pope shared his origins with Victor I (c. 195) and Miltiades (310-314).6 Naturally, we make no claims for the colour of their skin, although some have claimed with little evidence that Gelasius was black.7 The many similarities between the Gelasian corpus and Augustine of Hippo’s use of letters to make personal interventions on behalf of the needy suggest that Gelasius’ approach to episcopal government was distinct from that 2 J. Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work: Gelasius I (492-496)”, in Journal of Religious History, 8 (1975), pp. 317-332, and more recently, N. McLynn, “Crying Wolf: The Pope and the Lupercalia”, in Journal of Roman Studies, 98 (2008), pp. 161-175; K. Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antiquity: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere, Cambridge, 2012; B. Neil, “The Letters of Gelasius I: A New Model of Crisis Management?” in The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, ed. by G. D. Dunn, Farnham, forthcoming. For reviews of research up to 1990, see F. W. Bautz, “Gelasius I.”, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 2, ed. by F. W. Bautz, Hamm, 1990, pp. 197-199. 3 LP 1, p. 255: natione Afer; “African by birth”. See our translation of the LP entry on Gelasius in Part 2, Section 1, below. 4 Ep. 12.1, Thiel, p. 350: ‘sicut Romanus natus Romanum principem amo’. 5 Thiel, p. 285 and p. 350 n. 5. Three late manuscripts read Romae natus: two from the Pseudo-Isidorean Collection: Vaticanus 630, saec. XI; Vaticanus 1340, saec. XII; and one from the Gallic Collection: Remensis S. Remigii, then Jesuit. Parisinus 569; now Philippicus MDCCXLI, saec. VIII or IX: see sigla in Thiel, pp. xxxvii-xxxviii. 6 Miltiades was the first Roman bishop to discover Manicheans in the city, according to LP 1, p. 168. See also the mention of Manicheans in the entries for Siricius, Anastasius, Symmachus, and Hormisdas. 7 E.g. M. Browne, “The Three African Popes”, in The Western Journal of Black Studies, 22.1 (1998), pp. 57-70, argues that all three African-born popes were black, as were Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine. However, contemporary portraits of Augustine from Late Antiquity indicate that this was not the case. Unfortunately no contemporary portraits of Gelasius have survived.



Life in late fifth-century Rome

of previous bishops of Rome, a difference which may be properly attributed to his African origins.8 Gelasius’ family background is an open question: the name of his father Valerius, given in LP, is inconclusive. The fact that Gelasius was the chosen successor of the aristocrat Felix, having served as his deacon, seems to suggest noble origins. Felix III, born in Rome, son of Felix, priest of the titulus of Fasciola, came from a clerical family, and was “the first demonstrably aristocratic pope”.9 He was the candidate chosen by Basilius, head of the senatorial order, the first intervention of this kind that we know of in the history of papal elections. Nor was it the last: in 498, the election of Gelasius’ archdeacon Pope Symmachus, who had the support of the senate and probably of Gelasius, was disputed by another priest, Laurence; violent riots and murder on the streets of Rome ensued.10 In any case, we know that Gelasius was deacon under Felix III and probably before that, under Simplicius. While serving as deacon under Felix III, Gelasius wrote at least one letter in the pope’s name,11 an indication that he was being trained to follow in Felix’ footsteps. Koch goes further, suggesting that Gelasius acted as the ghost writer for much of the correspondence issued by Felix and his predecessor Simplicius.12 Even though almost a century separates the two bishops, there are some strong arguments for a similar approach, as noted by Neil, “The Letters of Gelasius I: A New Model of Crisis Management?”, forthcoming. 9 J. Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476-752, London, New York, 1979, p. 235. On Felix as the probable great-great-grandfather of Pope Gregory I, see J. Moorhead, “On Becoming Pope in Late Antiquity”, in Journal of Religious History, 30.3 (2006), pp. 279-293 (280). 10 LP 1, pp.  260-261; see discussion of T. Sardella, “Simmacho”, in Enciclopedia dei Papi, 1, Rome, 2000, pp. 464-473, esp. 470; T. Sardella, “Lorenzo, antipapa”, in Enciclopedia dei Papi, 1, Rome, 2000, pp. 473-475. Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, p.  32 and pp.  212-246, identifies the causes of the Laurentian schism as primarily domestic, rather than theological or political. See also P. Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought), Cambridge, 1997, pp. 203-206; E. Wirbelauer, Zwei Päpste in Rom. Der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498-514): Studien und Texte (Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt, 16), Munich, 1993. 11 Felix, ep. 14 to Fravitta (or Flavitas) of Constantinople (488-489), Thiel, pp. 266-269: see discussion of Thiel, p. 17 and p. 285; R. Bratož, “Gelasio”, in Enciclopedia dei Papi, 1, Rome, 2000, pp. 458-462 (458-460). 12 H. Koch, Gelasius im kirchen-politischen Dienste seiner Vorgänger, der Päpste Simplicius (468-483) und Felix ΙΙΙ. (483-492). Ein Beitrag zur Sprache des Papstes Gelasius I. (492-496) und früherer Papstbriefe (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, 6C), Munich, 1935. 8



introduction

This was common practice in the papal curia: compare the notaries of Vigilius13 and the papal librarian Anastasius’ involvement in the correspondence of Nicholas I (858-867).14 Gelasius’ prose style was characterised by the piling up of subordinate clauses, elaborate hypotheticals, and legalistic terminology, presented in a sententious tone that may infuriate the modern reader. In spite of this, we have chosen to maintain these features of Gelasius’ prose in our translations, for the sake of capturing the voice of the author as nearly as possible.

Gelasius’ epistolary corpus Gelasius was one of the most prolific letter-writing bishops of late antiquity, publishing 102 extant letters during his relatively short pontificate of less than five years. Forty letters survive in full, and 49 in fragments, some of them as brief as two or three lines.15 Of earlier bishops of Rome, only Leo the Great outranks him in productivity, with 143 letters from a 21-year pontificate. The majority of Gelasius’ letters concern matters of clerical discipline and church management, 34 in all. Along with his many letters, Gelasius wrote six lengthy tracts on various subjects: four on the Acacian schism, one on Pelagianism, and one on the pagan feast of the Lupercalia.16 Unfortunately the letters are not served well by modern editions: the majority occur only in the late-nineteenth-century edition of Thiel, and a handful in the catalogue made by Ewald in 1880 from the Collectio Britannica (marked by a double asterisk throughout this volume).17 Löwenfeld made up some of the gaps left by Ewald by his N. Ertl, “Diktatoren frühmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe”, in Archiv für Urkundenforschung, 1 (1937), pp. 56-132 (67-70). 14 B. Neil, Seventh-century Popes and Martyrs. The Political Hagiography of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Studia Antiqua Australiensia, 2), Turnhout, 2006, pp. 14-17. 15 A brief summary is provided by G. A. Pentiti, M. C. Spadoni Cerroni, Epistolari cristiani (secc. I-V). Repertorio bibliografico, parte seconda. Epistolari latini (secc. IV-V), Rome, 1990, pp. 111-113. 16 The six tracts are 1. Gesta de nomine Acacii seu Breviculus historiae Eutychianistarum (CPL 1670); 2. De damnatione nominum Petri et Acacii (CPL 1674); 3. De duabus naturis in Christo adversus Eutychem et Nestorium (CPL 1673); 4. Tomus de anathematis vinculo (CPL 1672); 5. Dicta beatissimi Gelasii papae adversus Pelagianam haeresim (CPL 1669); 6. Adversus Andromachum (CPL 1671), Thiel, pp.  510-607. Tract 6 is translated in Part 2, Section 10 below. 17 Thiel, pp. 85-483, and pp. 483-509; Ewald, pp. 505-526. 13



Life in late fifth-century Rome

1885 edition of 22 letters from the British Collection (marked within by a single asterisk).18 The ascription of certain letters within it to Gelasius or Pelagius I is still disputed.19 Four Gelasian letters are preserved in the Avellana Collection, edited by Guenther in 1895, as well as one letter addressed to him by the bishops of Dardania.20 Several letters preserved in the Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) have been edited by Schwartz in the first ACO series. Letter 42 (Libri recipiendi et non recipiendi) underwent a slightly more modern edition by von Dobschütz.21 Translations into modern languages are conspicuous by their absence. An English translation of Letter 12 appears in an appendix to Demacopoulos’ recent book, The Invention of Peter.22 The Gelasian tracts have fared better: Tract 6, “Against Andromachus”, also preserved in the Avellana Collection, has been edited and translated in French and English, and an annotated Italian translation of “On Two Natures” has recently appeared.23 The syntactic complexities and conservative nature of Gelasian style have been studied by Bagan, who concluded that Gelasian syntax is “highly artificial and indicative of the fact that he must have been thoroughly trained in the Classical traditions of the most conservative

18 Löwenfeld, pp.  1-12. All of Löwenfeld’s letters come from the earlytwelfth-century manuscript Mus. Brit. Addit. 8873. 19 E.g. Gelasius, frg. 3 to Dulcius the defensor, Thiel, pp. 484-485; cf. ch. 2, n. 59 below. On Pelagius I’s letter corpus, see B. Neil, “De Profundis: The Letters of Pelagius I”, in Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. by B. Neil, P. Allen, Cambridge, 2015. 20 Gelasius: Collectio Avellana 95, 99, 100, 101, ed. by O. Guenther, 2 vols. (CSEL, 35), Prague, Vienna, Leipzig, 1895. All of these concern the bishops of Dardania, and their response to the Roman condemnation of Acacius. Collectio Avellana 80 is a letter to Gelasius from the Dardanian bishops. Collectio Avellana 103 is the Roman synod of May 495, translated in Part 2, Section 3 below. This sixth-century collection consists mostly of papal correspondence, including almost all of the 150 letters of Pope Hormisdas (514-523). 21 Libri recipiendi et non recipiendi, ed. by E. Von Dobschütz (Texte und Untersuchungen, 38), Leipzig, 1912. See its translation in Part 2, Section 4 below. 22 Gelasius, Ep. 12, trans. M. Briel, in Demacopoulos, Invention of Peter, pp. 173-180. 23 Adversus Andromachum, ed. and trans. by G. Pomarès, Gélase Ier, Lettre contre les Lupercales et dix-huit Messes du Sacramentaire Léonien (SChr, 65), Paris, 1959; Tract 6, trans. M. Briel, in Demacopoulos, Invention of Peter, pp. 181-189; Epistola de duabus naturis, ed. and trans. by R. Ronzani, Lettera sulle due nature (Biblioteca patristica), Bologna, 2011.



introduction

rhetorical schools”.24 Put simply, Gelasius preferred Ciceronian usages to those of Late Latin, although he did adopt some usages which belonged chiefly to Silver or Late Latin. Gelasius also made good use of biblical citations, his most frequently-cited scriptural source being the Gospel of Matthew, as will be seen from a quick glance at the biblical index at the end of this volume. Gelasius followed previous fifth-century popes in basing his claim to authority on the Petrine commission as it appears in Matthew (Matt.16:18-19), which is cited on four occasions. This may partly explain his preference for the Matthean Gospel, with twelve other passages quoted from this book, while the Gospels of Luke and John are cited only six times altogether, and Mark not at all. Indeed, the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters are cited more frequently than either Luke or John. Most interesting is the allusion to the book of Revelation, when Gelasius refers to the Antichrist as “rehearsing with his two horns” (cf. Apoc. 13:11: ‘et habebat cornua duo similia agni’), in Ep. 9.3, evidence that the Revelation of John had been accepted as a canonical book at this time. Among the apocryphal scriptural books listed in the index of books in Letter 42 are the gospels of Andrew, Thomas, the apostle Peter and another apostle Peter, Matthias and James the Lesser.25 This letter provides us with valuable information about the range of writings that were vying for canonical status in the church of Gelasius’ day. Far more frequently than any Roman bishop before him, Gelasius involved himself in crises of the kinds we have discussed in our recent volume, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity.26 In his personal dealings with Gallic prisoners-of-war and asylum seekers, victims of famine, and victims of crisis, Gelasius was breaking new ground for a bishop of Rome. This is not to say that he was a revolutionary challenger of the status quo. He respected traditional ties of obligation, as his letters on the status of slaves demonstrate. However, his many letters of personal recommendation, even on behalf of a Jew on one occasion, demonstrate the new approach. His involvement in the financial management of church property is also quite novel. His attempts to impose 24 P. V. Bagan, The Syntax of the Letters of Pope Gelasius I, Diss. Catholic University of America, Washington DC, 1945, p.  218. See also E. V. Wölfflin, “Der Papst Gelasius als Latinist”, in Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 12 (1902), pp. 1-10. 25 See Ep. 42.4, translated in Part 2, Section 4. 26 P. Allen and B. Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410-590 CE). A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 121), Leiden, 2013.



Life in late fifth-century Rome

a fourfold division of church income on churches in Italy and Sicily, and his appeals to imperial law, show that his interventions were more than ad hoc or ad hominem. The new focus on financial management and personal recommendations for people in need is also evident in the epistolary corpus of Pope Symmachus (498-514), formerly Gelasius’ archdeacon.27

The papal archive From the epistolary evidence presented in Part 2 of this volume, we can discern a major shift occurring at the end of the fifth century in the production, function and preservation of papal letters. A broadening of their scope is first signalled in the letters of Gelasius’ predecessor Felix III, when he wrote to Emperor Zeno commending the papal legate, Terentianus, in the context of the Acacian controversy. This is the first surviving letter on behalf of any individual other than clergy involved in religious controversies or disciplinary enquiries.28 This innovation is linked with more frequent election of senatorial candidates to the papacy, from Felix III onwards.29 The preservation of so many of Gelasius’ letters, including letters of recommendation, was due to the development of the papal archive (scrinium), where documents were copied and kept. Unfortunately, the papal archives from the fifth and sixth centuries survive only in fragmentary form, and most have to be pieced together from recipients’ copies or from special collections like the Collectio Avellana.30 By the fifth century, keeping order in the archives was the duty of the notary and his deputy, the primicerius and secundarius, respectively. The notaries first appear in the reign of Pope Fabian (236-250), under the charge of seven subdeacons, one for each region of the Roman church. The first notaries were charged with collecting the acts of the martyrs

Thiel, pp. 641-729. Felix III, ep. 5, Thiel, p. 242 (dated 483). 29 See Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 276-277; and Moorhead, “On Becoming Pope”, p. 290. 30 T. F. X. Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy”, in Teodorico il Grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, Milan, 1990, ed. by O. Capitani, Spoleto, 1993, pp. 395-423 (397). 27

28



introduction

in their entirety.31 The primicerius notariorum is first mentioned in the LP entry for Pope Julius (337-352) as the official responsible for church documents such as bonds, deed, donations, exchanges, transfers, wills, declarations and manumissions.32 Other early mentions of the papal archives occur in a letter of Innocent I (401-417),33 and in the LP entry for Celestine (422-432).34 The notaries of the papal archive were among the pope’s closest advisors and were often used as envoys, due to the knowledge they had gained in the course of producing papal documents, particularly letters on sensitive subjects. At the end of Gelasius’ Letter 30, the copyist identifies himself as a secretary (notarius) from the archive.35 There is also an interpolation in LP to the effect that Gelasius’ five books against Nestorius and Eutyches,36 and two books against Arius, “are preserved today in the archive of the church library”.37 In the time of Hormisdas (514-523), whose collection of papal decretals will be discussed below,38 it seems likely that the papal archives and the papal 31 LP 1, p.  94: ‘Hic regiones dividit diaconibus et fecit VII subdiaconos qui VII notariis inminerent, ut gestas martyrum in integro fideliter colligerent.’ “He divided the regions by deacons and appointed seven subdeacons who would supervise seven notaries, so that they might collect the deeds of the martyrs faithfully into one .” 32 LP 1, p. 205. 33 Innocent, ep. 13 to Rufus, bishop of Thessaloniki, PL 21, 516B-517A: ‘Omnem sane instructionem chartarum in causa archivorum cum presbytero Senecione, viro admodum maturo, fieri jussimus. Itaque et ex priore nostra epistola, et ex his chartulis bene recensens, quid agere debeas recognosce.’ “I have ordered every documentary instruction for the sake of archives to be made with the priest Senecio, a man of sufficient maturity. Therefore, look back carefully at our earlier letter, and at these documents, and work out what you ought to do.” 17 June 412. 34 LP 1, p. 230: ‘Hic fecit constitutum de omnem ecclesiam [sic], maxime et de religione, quae hodie archivo ecclesiae detenentur recondite.’ “ issued a decree about the whole church and especially (one) about religious life, which are kept safe today in the church archive.” Trans. R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) (Translated Texts for Historians, 6), 2nd edn., Liverpool, 2000, p. 35, modified. 35 Ep. 30, Thiel, p. 447: ‘Sixtus notarius sanctae Romanae ecclesiae jussu domini mei beatissimi papae Gelasii ex scrinio edidi.’ “I Sextus, notary of the holy church of Rome, on the order of my lord the most bless Pope Gelasius, have made a copy of this from the archives.” 36 Supporters of Nestorius in the church of Syria eventually broke away from Rome and Constantinople after the Council of Chalcedon. On Eutyches, see Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. 37 T. Mommsen, ed., Liber pontificalis, Gestorum Pontificum Romanorum, Berlin, 1898, p. 117: ‘qui hodie bibliotheca ecclesiae archivo reconditi tenentur’. On Gelasius’ campaign against Arianism, see Part 1, Chapter 3. 38 See Part 2, Section 4, “Decretals”.



Life in late fifth-century Rome

chancery were housed in the monastery of St Anastasius.39 The library of Pope Agapitus (535-536) was transferred from its original place40 to Gregory I’s new abode in the Lateran palace in 590.41 From popes between Gelasius and Gregory I, the surviving contents of the papal scrinium are uneven, there being nothing from Popes John I (523-526), Silverius (536), John III (561-574) or Benedict II (575-579), and only one letter each from Felix IV (526-530), Boniface II (530-532) and John II (532-535). The reasons for such losses are unclear, but the turbulence caused by the Lombard invasions of northern Italy probably took its toll on papal record-keeping. However, even before the pontificate of Gregory I, whose 854 letters were conserved in two collections, a systematic change in preservation practices occurs with the collection of 96 letters of Pelagius I (556-561). Institutional changes mirror the increasing importance accorded to papal correspondence. By the early eighth century, the most important officers in the papal retinue (the seven iudices de clero) were the chief secretary (primicerius notariorum), who supervised the notaries and the papal library and archives,42 and his deputy (secundicarius or scriniarius).43 These offices were modelled on imperial dignitaries.44 The change to a different epistolary model, or 39 This is implied in Dionysius Exiguus’ preface to Julian, cardinal of the basilica of St Anastasius, where he commends the cardinal for his zealous care of such matters: PL 67, 231A-B; Thiel, p. 286. See also ep. 148 to Hormisdas from Dionysius Exiguus, Thiel, pp. 986-987, the preface to his translation of the Greek canons into Latin. 40 Moorhead, “On Becoming Pope”, p. 282 n. 20, notes the uncertain location of the original site: “It has been suggested that the library was a building still to be seen on the south side of the Clivus Scauri, diagonally opposite Saints John and Paul and adjacent to the home of Gregory, although this is by no means certain.” 41 The transfer is witnessed by an inscription in the new library: H.-I. Marrou, “Autour de la bibliothèque de Pape Agapit”, in Mélanges d’archéologie et d’ histoire de l’École française de Rome, 48 (1931), pp. 125-169 (167); cf. E. Giuliani, C. Pavolini, “La ‘Biblioteca di Agapito’ e la Basilica di S. Agnese”, in The Transformation of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity, ed. by W. V. Harris (Journal of Roman Archeology Supplementary Series, 33), Portsmouth, RI, 1999, pp. 85-107 (103-106). 42 LP 1, p. 205. On the increasing importance of the notaries from the fifth century see T. F. X. Noble, “Literacy and the Papal Government in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages”, in The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, ed. by R. McKitterick, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 82-108 (84-85). 43 Gregory I, Reg. 8.16, ed. by D. Norberg (CCSL, 140A), Turnhout, 1982, pp. 534-535. The secundicarius is named the scriniarius in the retinue of the Syrian pope Constantine (708-715): LP 1, p. 389. 44 Cf. the reconstruction of P. Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages, 2nd edn., London, 1993, pp. 114-122, where he attributes to Gregory I the extension of the collegiate system of Roman administration to two new colleges, one of lay regional notaries



introduction

at least to the preservation practices of the Lateran archive, appears to have fully taken place by the pontificate of Gregory I. It is hinted at in the correspondence of Felix III but emerges clearly only in the letters of Gelasius. Like Gregory’s many letters, those of Gelasius are rich in the minutiae of micro-management. The trend increased in the sixth century, when the majority of bishops were elected from aristocratic families who were accustomed to acting as patrons on behalf of their many clients.45

Rome and its bishops Fifth-century Rome was a city under siege from many directions. Its crises included threats to its religious, civil and political security, as well as an ongoing identity crisis with the permanent move of the imperial residency to Ravenna.46 The Hun expansion towards the East was contained by Byzantine payment of tribute to Attila in the 440s, but the policy of containment ended with accession of Emperor Marcian in 450, and Attila’s forces turned westward. In the early 450s, the Huns attacked northern Italy, forcing Milan to surrender, and capturing the wealthy cities of Aquileia and Altinum in 452. Attila’s advance on Rome was narrowly averted by a senatorial delegation led by Leo I. The city was not so lucky in 455, when the Vandal king Geiseric besieged the city, and left with all its portable wealth and thousands of slaves. The death of Valentinian III in 455 ended the relative stability of Theodosius I’s dynasty. Three “shadow emperors” ruled in quick succession until 461, with the imperial residency alternating between Rome and Ravenna

and the other of defensores ecclesiae, both of which were headed by a primicerius and his deputy, the secundicerius. 45 Allen, Neil, Crisis Management, show how bishops of both the western and eastern churches fulfilled this role through letters in the fifth and sixth centuries. See the Appendix of that volume for a full list of correspondence from the episcopacies of Zosimus to Pelagius II. See also Pentiti, Spadoni Cerroni, Epistolari cristiani (secc. I-V), passim, for the fifth-century papal correspondence, where the bishops of Rome are listed alphabetically. 46 See B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford, 2006; Llewellyn, Rome in the Dark Ages; F. Lombardi, Roma, chiese, conventi, chiostri. Progetto per un inventario 313-1925, Rome, 1993; C. Pietri, Roma christiana. Recherches sur l’ église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixtus III (311-440), 2 vols., Rome, 1976.



Life in late fifth-century Rome

until c. 457.47 In August 475, Nepos, declared western emperor in 474 by the Byzantine emperor Zeno, was deposed and sent into exile by Flavius Orestes, although Zeno continued to recognise Nepos as western emperor until the latter’s death in 480. He was replaced by the teenage son of Orestes, Romulus Augustulus, causing a constitutional crisis which was only resolved when Romulus was deposed and expelled from Ravenna by the Gothic general Odovacer, in 476, who proclaimed himself “leader of Italy”. With the forced departure of the figurehead Romulus, the western Roman empire found itself under Gothic rule, and Zeno was forced reluctantly to recognise the fait accompli.48 After a bloody civil war that lasted from 492 to 493, Theodoric replaced Odovacer as “king of Italy”. LP states that Gelasius was bishop “in the time of King Theodoric and Emperor Zeno”, subtly suggesting the difficulty of the path that he was required to navigate between Gothic and Byzantine rulers. Along with contemporaries like Boethius and Procopius, Gelasius considered the Goths “barbarians”, although this term did not carry modern overtones of barbarity.49 Gelasius’ correspondence, or rather the lack of it, from his election on 1 March 492 to 494, suggests that he was heavily caught up in managing the fallout from Theodoric’s war with Odovacer.50 Gelasius allegedly delivered the city of Rome from danger of famine, although this charitable act is not attested in his letters.51 An influx of refugees from northern Italian cities, especially Ravenna, along with See A. Gillett, “Rome, Ravenna, and the Last Western Emperors”, in Papers of the British School at Rome, 69 (2001), pp. 131-167. 48 See Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. 49 Gelasius, ep. 6.1, Thiel, p. 325 (cited in Latin below in ch. 3, n. 72); the word ‘barbari’ is also used in a descriptive sense in frg. 9, and frg. 35, Thiel, p. 488 (prae omnibus barbarorum) and p. 502 (vel a barbaris vel a Romanis). This is also the interpretation of Amory, People and Identity, p. 199; cf. S. D. W. Lafferty, “Italy in the Twilight of the Empire: The Decline of Roman Law and Culture under Theodoric the Great (c. 493-526)”, in Canadian Journal of History/Annales canadiennes d’ histoire, 45.3 (2010), pp. 457-483 (464 n. 21); S. D. W. Lafferty, “Law and Society in Ostrogothic Italy: Evidence from the Edictum Theoderici”, in Journal of Late Antiquity, 3.2 (2010), pp. 337-364 (344 n. 31). 50 In ep. 19 to Aeonius, bishop of Arles (23 August 494), Gelasius apologises that he could not inform the bishop of Gaul’s most important see of his accession until now because of “various difficulties”. See J. Moorhead, Theoderic in Italy, Oxford, 1992, pp. 27-28. This evidence contests the assertion of Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy”, pp. 397-398, that “the nature of his surviving correspondence shows clearly that local Roman and slightly wider Italian concerns actually captured the majority of the pope’s attention”. 51 LP 1, p. 255: ‘Hic liberavit a periculo famis civitatem Romanam.’ 47



introduction

stress on Roman food supplies caused by the fall of North Africa to the Vandals, put great pressure on the bishop of Rome to supply food for the Roman people from his own patrimonies. By the sixth century, total control of the Roman food dole (annona) had passed to the bishop.52 The dual episcopal roles of provider for the people and property manager obviously had the potential to create tension between the bishop and his people. A decade after Gelasius’ death, Pope Symmachus was accused of, among other crimes, mismanaging church property.53 Gregory I’s successor, Pope Severinus, made himself very unpopular by imposing exhorbitant prices on the grain he sold to the Roman people. In the following chapter, we will explore Gelasius’ role as crisis manager, a standard requirement for bishops of late antiquity, along with his pastoral care for the city of Rome and its inhabitants.

52 M. Humphries, “Italy, A.D. 425-605”, in Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors A.D. 425-600, ed. by Av. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby (The Cambridge Ancient History, 14), Cambridge, 2000, pp. 525-551 (542). 53 This accusation is recorded only in the anti-Symmachan document known as the Laurentian Fragment, composed in the early sixth century. The Laurentian Fragment is edited by LP 1, pp. 44-46, and translated by R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) (Translated Texts for Historians, 6), 2nd edn., Liverpool, 2000, pp. 103-105 (Appendix 2). See Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, p. 209.



CHAPTER 2: PASTORAL CARE

The role of the late-antique bishop in offering pastoral care has been treated in extenso by Allen and Mayer, who showed that this has been less “hands-on” than was previously supposed, with fourth- and fifth-century bishops such as John Chrysostom engaging in such care at a purely administrative rather than a personal level.1 The city of Rome, as we have seen, was beset by existing problems at the accession of Gelasius in March 492. The needs of the poor – and this included the clergy – for food, clothing and shelter now competed with the interests of the ruling class for the pope’s attention. This situation represents a transition from the practice of preceding bishops of Rome, especially Leo I. Here, as in matters of doctrine, we see Gelasius’ micro-managing style in action. The change of attitude is evident in Gelasius’ judgement of the case of Silvester and Faustinian, clerics of the Sicilian church of Grumentum (mod. Saponara, in the province of Messina). The two former slaves complained with tears that their liberty, granted by their master, was threatened by his heir Theodora, who had oppressed them with violence. She sought to remove their clerical rank and reclaim them as her slaves, even though their manumitter was still alive. Gelasius promised to look into their case,2 and recommends to a Gothic count (zeja) that he do the same.3 The Latin word zeja/teia is something of a crux, but

P. Allen, W. Mayer, “Through a Bishop’s Eyes: Towards a Definition of Pastoral Care in Late Antiquity”, in Augustinianum, 40 (2000), pp. 345-397. 2 Ep. 23 to Bishops Crispinus and Sabinus, Thiel, pp. 389-390. 3 Ep. 24, in 494-495 (headed Ad Zejam comitem), Thiel, p. 390 (translated in Part 2, Section 8 below). 1



introduction

seems to be the Gothic equivalent of a Roman comes.4 We can see here Gelasius attempting to use local patronage networks of the new Gothic leadership to enforce church discipline. These structures were no longer adequate, however.5 Outside Rome, some security was offered to the poor with the introduction of the quadraticum, a fourfold division of episcopal revenue that was first signalled in the letters of Felix III’s predecessor Simplicius.6 Five letters of Gelasius illustrate this innovation.7 A quarter of the church’s income he reserved for the bishops (cathedraticum), a quarter for the poor, a quarter for church buildings and the rest for the clergy. The clerical class emerges as a key recipient of papal aid, but the association of this group with elite background or particular wealth is problematic. The same applies to the class of religious men and women (monks and nuns), who may or may not have had personal wealth. LP claims that “he was a lover of the clergy and the poor, and increased the clergy”.8 The author of LP, a contemporary of Gelasius, tells us that he dedicated five new basilicae, churches dedicated to Mary, Nicander, Eleutherius, and Andreas on private estates on the outskirts of Rome, and one to the martyr-saint Euphemia in the nearby town of Tibur.9 The resonance of St Euphemia, guardian of the orthodox settlement of Chalcedon, would not have been lost on the people of Tibur in the context of the Acacian schism.10 However, Gelasius cautioned a fellow 4 Jaffé 728. Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 325 n. 58, plausibly suggested that zeja and teia were latinisations of the Gothic saio (used of a governor in Grumentum, i.e. the same location as the addressees of ep. 23), an official with powers equivalent to those of a Roman comes. Teia (emended to Zeja by Ewald and Löwenfeld, presumably to concur with ep. 24) is the addressee of ep. 9* (Jaffé 650) concerning the case of Eucharistus and Faustus in Volterra. We have not capitalised teia and zeja, to reflect our view that they were probably not proper names; whether or not Gelasius was aware of that fact is an open question. 5 See Chapter 2, “Failure of the justice system”. 6 Cf. Simplicius, ep. 1.2, Thiel, pp. 176-177 (475 CE). 7 Ep. 14.27, ep. 17, frg. 20 to Bishop Sabinus, frg. 23 and frg. 28. 8 LP 1, p. 255: ‘Hic fuit amator pauperum et clerum ampliavit.’ 9 LP 1, p.  255: ‘Hic dedicavit basilicam sanctae Eufimiae martyris in civitate Tiburtina et alias basilicas sanctorum Nicandri, Eleutheri et Andreae in via Lavicana, in villa Pertusa. Fecit autem basilicam sanctae Mariae in via Laurentina, in fundum Crispinis.’ “He dedicated the basilica of St Euphemia the martyr in the town of Tibur, and other basilicas of saints Nicander, Eleutherius, and Andreas on the Labican Way, on the Pertusan estate. He founded the basilica of St Mary on the Laurentian Way, on the farm of Crispin.” 10 See Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”.



Pastoral care

bishop that the cathedraticum should not be more than is prescribed by ancient custom. He advises Sabinus to keep the custom which is prescribed for all churches about collections made on the day of dedication of offerings.11 A letter to brother bishops in Sicily instructs them to distribute stipends to widows, orphans, paupers and clerics.12 Bishops were permitted to claim the remainder for themselves, so that they could offer to furnish the needs of travellers (peregrini) and captives. Only bishops had the power to direct the resources of the church. In Fragment 23 the patrimony of the church of Volterra was entrusted to the archdeacon Justin and the defensor ecclesiae Faustus. Gelasius gave detailed instructions for the repair and restoration of the church and its property, including slaves. Annual rents should be given to the bishop, and legal and other expenses paid first: the remaining revenue was to be divided into four (for the bishop, the clergy, fabric of the church, and the poor). Anything left over could be invested.13 We note here Gelasius’ use of the title “your pontiff” (pontificem vestrum) for his addressee – not a title he reserved for himself.14 If any bishops owned properties of the church and someone made a claim against them, he invoked the imperial law that permitted no appeals more than thirty years after the event.15 In Fragment 2 he advised the defensor ecclesiae Agilulph to continue to defend the estate (reculam) of the apostle Peter in Dalmatia. In the course of the many disasters which struck Rome during his pontificate, Gelasius was also compelled to adopt the role of crisis manager for both the city of Rome and its church. Apart from the adoption of long-term responsibility for famine relief (discussed in Chapter  1), bishops of Rome from Celestine onwards were forced to make sudden economic interventions in the form of rebuilding damaged churches, replacing stolen church furnishings, ransoming prisoners and raising tribute. Specific crises where we see Gelasius’ interventions include: population displacement; violent conflict, within the church and without;

Gelasius, frg. 20, Thiel, p. 495. Ep. 17, Thiel, pp. 381-382 (15 May 494). 13 See Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 331. 14 See Glossary. 15 Ep. 17.2, Thiel, p. 382. On the thirty-year law, see n. 71 below.

11

12



introduction

failure of the justice system; and crises in the structures of dependence.16 These will be addressed below.

Displaced persons Population displacement in this period was usually the result of religious dissent, or barbarian invasion, or both. It could also be the result of the poverty cycle and food shortages, which forced inhabitants of rural areas to seek employment and charity in cities. Displaced persons at the end of the fifth century included exiles, prisoners of war, refugees and asylum-seekers.17 With the Vandal invasion of North Africa from 429, the persecution of Nicene Christians as well as Manicheans and Donatists meant that bishops of Rome had to deal with a torrent of displaced persons.18 The influx of refugees from North Africa to Rome was a cause of grave concern to Leo the Great in the 440s, due to the burdens it imposed on the already-stretched resources of the city. Rome suffered a mass exodus of its richer citizens with the sieges of Alaric in 408-410 and Geiseric in 455, and the narrowly-averted invasion by Attila in 452. With its native population reduced by half to around 500 000, and the loss of the grain supply from North Africa, Rome’s food supplies had shrunk accordingly.19 16 We adopt the term coined by N. Purcell, “The Populace of Rome in Late Antiquity: Problems of Classification and Historical Description”, in The Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity, ed. Harris, pp. 135-161 (152). The phrase “structures of dependence” neatly encapsulates both the causes and consequences of a highly stratified social structure, although people in late antiquity remained oblivious to continuing generational poverty and the structural reasons for that phenomenon. 17 See the studies on those taken into captivity: in North Africa, C. Lepelley, “Liberté, colonat et esclavage d’après la lettre 24*: La juridiction épiscopale ‘de liberali causa’”, in Les lettres de saint Augustin, découvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications présentées au Colloque des 20 et 21 septembre 1982 (Études Augustiniennes), Paris, 1983, pp. 329-342; in Italy: G. D. Dunn, “The Validity of Marriage in Cases of Captivity: The Letter of Innocent I to Probus”, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis, 83.1 (2007), pp. 107-121; and in Gaul, W. Klingshirn, “Charity and Power: The Ransoming of Captives in Sub-Roman Gaul”, in Journal of Roman Studies, 75 (1985), pp. 183203. More generally, see B. Neil, P. Allen, “Displaced Peoples: Reflections from Late Antiquity on a Contemporary Crisis”, in Pacifica, 24.1 (2011), pp. 29-42. 18 P. Heather, “Christianity and the Vandals in the Reign of Geiseric”, in Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends and Pupils, ed. by J. Drinkwater, B. Salway, London, 2007, pp. 137-146. 19 On the population deficit in Rome, see C. Wickham, Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800, Oxford, 2005, p. 33. The apparent



Pastoral care

In the early 490s, the influx of refugees was renewed by the civil war between Odovacer and Theodoric, and it fell to the bishop of Rome to feed, clothe and house the new arrivals. In a letter to a Roman noblewoman, Gelasius laments the increase of immigrant mouths to feed.20 Without accusing Firmina or her family of profiting from the chaos of war, he requested that Firmina return some of her estates to the Roman church, estates that had been stolen by barbarians or by Romans. Adopting the rhetoric of civic evergetism, he maintains that her almsgiving for the feeding of the poor will be in her spiritual interest: “Think how much good work you will acquire, if the estates, which individuals donated for the good of their souls to the blessed apostle Peter, are given back by your aid and released to God.”21 Another financial responsibility of the Roman bishop was the ransoming of prisoners taken captive in barbarian raids on Rome. According to Prosper’s Chronicon, “many thousands” of prisoners were taken during the siege of Geiseric, chosen for their age and their skills.22 Although neither Prosper nor Gelasius claimed that he ransomed any prisoners himself, Gelasius is exceptional among bishops of Rome in mentioning the redemption of captives three times in his letters. The first example concerns an individual: he petitioned the bishop of Lyon to help Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia (466-496), who was about to come to Lyon to discover and redeem captives of his people in those parts.23 The second directive spike in the 450s may well have been due in part to an influx of refugees from North Africa. It is possible, as Wickham suggests, that Rome was forced to buy supplies of grain and oil from Geiseric for cash. 20 Gelasius, frg. 35, Thiel, p. 502: ‘Cujus tanta de provinciis diversis, quae bellorum clade vastatae sunt, Romam multitudo confluxit, ut vix ei Deo teste sufficere valeamus.’ “For such a multitude has converged on Rome from diverse provinces, which have been destroyed by the carnage of war, that we are hardly able to manage it, with God as our witness.” 21 Ibid. ‘Conspicitis ergo, quantum boni operis acquiratis, si beato Petro apostolo praedia, quae pro sua quisque anima contulit, vestro post Deum praesidio liberata reddantur.’ On the common trope of alms earning spiritual interest for the giver, see R. D. Finn, Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire. Christian Promotion and Practice (313450), Oxford, 2006; and in the Roman context, see Neil’s chapter on Pope Leo I, in P. Allen, B. Neil, W. Mayer, Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities (Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte, 28), Leipzig, 2009, pp. 171-208. 22 Prosper Tiro, Epitoma chronicon edita primum a. CCCXXXIII continuata ad a. CCCCLV 1375, ed. by T. Mommsen, Chronica minora saec. IV-VII, vol. 1 (MGH AA, 9), Berlin, 1892, p. 484 (455 CE). Cf. Leo, serm. 78.4, ed. by A. Chavasse, 2 vols. (CCSL, 138A), Turnhout, 1973, pp. 496-497, where he refers to the Christian duty to redeem captives. 23 Gelasius, ep. 13, Thiel, p. 359.



introduction

is more general: Gelasius instructed the bishops of Sicily to distribute church funds to the needy (i.e. widows, orphans, paupers and clerics), and claim the remainder for themselves, so that they could offer largesse to travellers and captives.24 The third instance pertains to the ransoming of barbarian captives: Bishop Serenus seems to have redeemed barbarian captives and to have suffered violence from his clergy as a result.25 Displaced persons sometimes found themselves seeking asylum in churches. The custom of ecclesial sanctuary was enforced by a constitution issued in 431, which charged those who violated it with the crime of sacrilege.26 Nevertheless, the law was often violated, as four fragmentary letters of Gelasius show.27 Those who were reported to have forced someone out of a church’s sanctuary were deemed unworthy of entering it.28 The right of sanctuary did not apply to runaway slaves, however: a slave who fled to a church in fear of his master would be given back if the master guaranteed under oath that the slave would not be punished.29 An exception was made for Christian slaves in the service of Jewish masters, where their faith was threatened: in the case of a Christian slave who had been forcibly circumcised by his Jewish master and had subsequently taken refuge in the church of Venefrana, Gelasius instructed the local bishops to investigate the truth of the slave’s claims, “so that we do not deny the rights of a legitimate master”.30

Gelasius, ep. 17.1, Thiel, p. 382: ‘Reliquum sibi episcopi vindicent, ut, sicut antea diximus, peregrinorum atque captivorum largitores esse possint.’ 25 Frg. 13, Thiel, p. 490; cf. n. 90 below. 26 CTh 9.45.4 of 23 March 431 (trans. C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, Princeton, NJ, 1952, p. 265); issued again in Greek in CJ 1.12.3, p. 65. See the discussion of A. Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere, Naissance du droit d’asile dans les églises (IVe-milieu du Ve s.), (De l’archéologie à l’histoire) Paris, 1994, pp. 218-220. 27 Gelasius, frgs. 39, 40, 42, and 43. 28 Gelasius, frg. 39 to Bishop Epiphanius, Thiel, p. 504; frg. 40 to Bishops Victor, Constantine, Martyrius, Felicissimus, Serenus and Timothy, Thiel, pp. 504-505. 29 CTh 9.45.5, issued on 28 March 432; a later version appeared in CJ 1.12.4, p. 66; cf. Gelasius, ep. 14. frg. 41 to Bishop Boniface, Thiel, pp. 505-506. See Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere, pp. 237-259, on the limits applied to refuge in churches sought by slaves and plebeians. 30 Gelasius, frg. 43 to Bishops Siracusius, Constantius and Laurence, Thiel, p. 507: ‘nec servus hac objectione mentitus competentis jura dominii declinare contendant’. On the circumcision of slaves by Jews cf. Constitutio Sirmondiana 4; CTh 5.9-10; trans. Pharr, p. 479. 24



Pastoral care

Violent conflict Violence against members of the clergy seems to have been a relatively frequent occurrence at the end of the fifth century. Letters 36-39 concern the murder of bishops in Calabria. Gelasius condemned the church of Squillace in Calabria for the double killing of its bishops, and refused to give it another priest.31 The priest Celestinus was convicted of killing his relative and bishop, and was deprived of office.32 More violence against clergy is addressed in the case against Brumarius, a spectabilis vir, accused of physically attacking Bishop Proficius with no reason, and then spreading serious slanders against the bishop.33 The bishops Justin and Stephen are advised to seek a confession from the accused; if he does not confess, the bishops should invoke the judgement of the province. This appears to mean that they should invoke the powers of secular law. A letter to Justus of Larinum (mod. Larino Vecchio in Samnium) and Probus (bishop of an unnamed city in Apulia) responds to the complaint of a priest that he was thrown out of his church on Easter day.34 Gelasius also handed down judgement on a group he calls “the Dionysians”,35 who brought ruin to the church of Vibo, a town in Bruttium. They are to be kept away from the Eucharist, and the bishops are ordered not to neglect anything that can be done against them through secular laws. The invocation of secular power for the protection of bishops occurs in a group of three fragmentary letters. Fragment 11 describes how Bishop Serenus of Nola was attacked by such contumelies that he was forced to come to the court of Theodoric.36 Two clerics of Nola, Felix and Peter, had appealed to Theodoric, claiming that force had been used against them, but Gelasius insists that they were the ones who had inflicted serious injury and loss on Bishop Serenus, after he had redeemed barbarian captives by proper authority.37 Addressing Theodoric with breathtaking boldness, Gelasius insisted that the laws of Roman emperors Gelasius, ep. 37 to Bishops Majoricus and John, Thiel, pp. 450-452. Gelasius, ep. 38 to Phillip and Cassiodorus, Thiel, p. 452. 33 Gelasius, frg. 14 to Bishops Justus and Stephen, Thiel, pp. 490-491. 34 Ep. 3*, Löwenfeld, p. 3 (end of 493-January 494). 35 Gelasius, ep. 39 to Bishops Majoricus, Serenus and John, Thiel, p. 453. The identity of the “Dionysians” in the late-antique context is unknown. 36 Gelasius, frg. 11 to Bishops Gerontius and John, Thiel, p. 489. 37 Gelasius, frg. 13 to Bishops Quinigesius and Constantinus, Thiel, p. 490: ‘et auctoritate promerita contra civilitatem redemptis sibi barbaris suprascriptum episcopum suum gravibus injuriis et dispendiis affecerunt’. 31

32



introduction

(principes Romani) should be observed concerning the reverence due to the apostle Peter.38 His petition seems to have been successful: Theodoric sent the rebel clerics Felix and Peter of Nola back to Gelasius for trial.39

Failure of the justice system By the fifth century, there were two justice systems running in parallel, the secular courts and those run by bishops (audientia episcopalis).40 The Roman legal system had become so saturated with cases of abuse and exploitation that secular legal appeals often seemed useless, especially for the poorer citizens. The bishop’s court was meant to ease the pressures on the secular courts by taking over as many cases as could be settled by voluntary participation. However, there were severe limitations on its capacity to function, as Augustine lamented at the beginning of the century.41 These included time pressures on the bishop; the need for 38 Gelasius, frg. 12 to Theodoric, Thiel, pp. 489-490: ‘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.’ Sirm. 6; trans. Pharr, p. 479: clerics are not permitted to litigate in a secular court; cf. Leo, ep. 159 to Nicetas, which makes the same ruling. 39 Frg. 13, Thiel, p. 490. 40 For secondary literature on the bishop’s court in the fourth to sixth centuries, and the failure of the secular justice system, see in chronological order: W. Selb, “Episcopalis audientia von der Zeit Konstantins bis Novelle XXXV Valentinians III”, in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 84 (1967), pp. 162-217; C. Lepelley, “Liberté, colonat et esclavage”, pp. 340-342; M. R. Cimma, L’Episcopalis audientia nelle costituzioni imperiali da Constantino a Giustiniano, Turin, 1989; J. Lamoreaux, “Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 3 (1995), pp. 143-167; K. Raikas, “Audientia Episcopalis: Problematik zwischen Staat und Kirche bei Augustin”, in Augustinianum, 37 (1997), pp.  459-481 (476-477); P. Garnsey, C. Humfress, Evolution of the Late Antique World, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 72-77; L. Dossey, “Judicial Violence and the Ecclesiastical Courts in Late Antique North Africa”, in Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. by R. W. Mathisen, Oxford, 2001, pp. 98-114; J. D. Harries, “Resolving Disputes: The Frontiers of Law in Late Antiquity”, in Law, Society and Authority, pp. 68-82; N. Lenski, “Evidence for the audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine”, in Law, Society and Authority, pp. 83-97; K. Uhalde, Expectations of Justice in the Age of Augustine, Philadelphia, 2007, pp. 29-43; C. Humfress, “Bishops and Law Courts in Late Antiquity: How (Not) to Make Sense of the Legal Evidence”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19.3 (2011), pp. 375-400, with a comprehensive bibliography at p. 376 n. 5. 41 Augustine, epp. 9*, 11*, 20*.6-7, and 24*.1, in NBA, 23A (asterisks on Augustine’s letters indicate the recently discovered Divjak letters, ed. by L. Carrozzi, Sant’ Agostino, Le lettere, Supplemento (1*-29*), [Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana, 23a], Rome, 1992). The first of these relates to Bishop Alypius’ court in Thagaste.



Pastoral care

voluntary participation in the ecclesiastical process; and the lack of legal enforcement of episcopal decisions.42 Gelasius encouraged other bishops to look after the law suits of widows and orphans with zeal.43 The intercession of priests in Gelasius’ name was not denied to those who requested it, in civil court cases (negotiis).44 To judge from the (admittedly limited) surviving evidence, Gelasius took only limited action against social abuses resulting from failures of the legal system. Usury, for instance, does not arise as an issue in the surviving Gelasian sources, in contrast to the contemporaneous writings of eastern bishops and even of Leo I of Rome fifty years earlier.45 On at least two occasions, Gelasius intervened in cases of social abuses against women. An honourable woman accused a deacon who had “sought out for indecent crimes” ( frg. 16). The deacon was convicted on various charges, including magic. Letter 40 addresses the tearful petition of Olibula, a religious woman, who was being deprived of her share of her parents’ estate by her sisters and their husbands. The local audientia episcopalis had clearly failed this woman. Gelasius instructs Bishop John of Spoleto to see to it that Olibula could serve God with a quiet mind, having received the portion of the wealth that she is owed. Gelasius upheld a relatively enlightened attitude to violence against women in ruling that rape was committed against a girl who was abducted before she was betrothed, as “that law of previous princes declared”.46 This was in line with the previous ruling of Leo in cases of consecrated virgins who were raped by Vandal invaders in

Neil, “Conclusions”, in Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty, p. 227. Gelasius, frg. 31 to Bishops Gerontius and Peter. 44 Gelasius, frg. 30 to Bishops Leontius and Peter. 45 Unusually for a western bishop, Leo I condemned usury by clerics and lay persons: Leo, ep. 4.3, ed. by H. Wurm, “Decretales selectae ex antiquissimis Romanorum pontificium epistulis decretalibus praemissa introductione et disquisitione critice editae”, in Apollinaris, 12 (1939), p. 91. 46 Frg. 47 to unknown recipient, Thiel, p. 508: ‘Lex illa praeteritorum principum ibi raptum dixit esse commissum, ubi puella, de cujus ante nuptiis nihil actum fuerit, videatur abducta.’ Quoted from the eleventh-century canon jurist Gratian, in Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2, Question 154, Article 7, Reply to Objection 4: “Hence Pope Gelasius says [*Can. Lex illa, xxvii, qu. 2; xxxvi, qu. 1]: ‘This law of bygone rulers stated that rape was committed when a maiden, with regard to whose marriage nothing had so far been decided, was taken away by force.’”Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New York, 1947, in http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/ summa/SS/SS154.html#SSQ154A7THEP1. 42 43



introduction

Mauretania.47 However, Gelasius refused to uphold comes Hostilius’ allegations of rape against an unnamed cleric who had been allowed to marry his alleged victim, a young woman who was perhaps Hostilius’ ward.48 A surprising number of Gelasius’ letters deal with abuses by the clergy, most commonly the theft of private property. A certain Festus complained to the pope that Urbanus, former bishop of Fulgina, had stolen property from him and frequently beat him.49 Festus had been unwilling to present his case before the judges. In Fragment 26 to bishops Maximus and Clerus, Gelasius insists that they hand back alienated property, which is of no use to the church. Theft of sacred vessels by bishops was an ongoing problem. Letter 7* to the bishop of Valva50 discussed the charge that Bishop Potentinus stole a paten for his own use. Gelasius appointed Avus, defensor of the Roman church, to look into the matter. John of Pisa is advised to restore a stolen chalice to the church from which his predecessor took it ( frg. 27).

Breakdown of the structures of dependence The crises discussed above led to a further, related crisis: the disruption of traditional structures of dependence. Not until the end of the fifth century did the “neighbourhood churches” (tituli) in Rome pass from private ownership into the hands of the bishop.51 This development put bishops in a stronger position to manage their extensive properties and their revenues, as well as to defend the interests of the needy and especially the clergy, who were considered a special category of “the poor”. Many of Gelasius’ letters deal with such matters. Gelasius used the office of defensor ecclesiae to manage crises in the structures of dependence in 47 Leo I, ep. 12, chs 8 and 11, PL 54, 653-655. Leo’s letter is discussed by WardPerkins, The Fall of Rome, pp. 13 and 23. 48 Gelasius, ep. 73** to Hostilius, Ewald, pp. 562-563. See the discussion of Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 136-137. 49 Gelasius, ep. 20*, Löwenfeld, pp. 10-11. 50 Löwenfeld, p.  4 n. [a], suggests that the place name is corrupted, while Ewald, p. 513 n. 1, believes it is near Salerno. 51 On the tituli, post-Constantinian foundations in Rome that numbered 29 by the end of the fifth century, see Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 231-232, and on the increased oversight of private estate churches by Roman bishops from the end of the fifth century, ibid., pp. 166-172.



Pastoral care

Italy and beyond. The office of defensor plebis or defensor civitatis was founded by Valentinian I in 368 so that the poor of each city would have an advocate against oppression.52 Even at the beginning of the fifth century Augustine of Hippo lamented the lack of suitable candidates for the office.53 Its ecclesiastical counterpart was the defensor ecclesiae, instituted first in Rome (367-368) and later in North Africa (after an appeal by the African bishops in 407) to act on behalf of the poor and clergy in legal cases.54 The first instance of the office of defensor ecclesiae in papal letters appears in Innocent’s letter to Laurence,55 where Innocent claimed that he had successfully removed heretical Photinians from Rome using the defensores ecclesiae. During the pontificate of Felix III, a defensor was sent as legate to Constantinople in the course of the Acacian schism.56 Gelasius recommended the appointment of a fourth defensor for the people of Frumenta, at their request,57 and ordered a trial in the presence of Laurence, defensor of the Roman church, to investigate the calumnies brought against the deacon Agnellus of Verulana.58

CTh 1.29.1-8, vol. 1, pp. 64-66. On the fifth-century development of this office, see R. M. Frakes, Contra potentium iniurias: The Defensor Civitatis and Late Roman Justice (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, 90), Munich, 2001, pp. 165-193. 53 Ep. 22.2*, NBA, 23A, pp.  192-194 (194) (6  March 420): ‘quia scilicet defensores desunt qui eos ab improbitate personarum potentiorum, a quibus conteruntur, utcumque tueantur et leges pro eis latas adversus eos, a quibus contemnuntur[…]’; cf. Augustine, ep. 20*.6, NBA, 23A, pp. 164-166, where a defensor eccelesiae is named as part of the company of the corrupt Antoninus of Fussala. See discussion of F. Jacques, “Le défenseur de cité d’après la Lettre 22* de saint Augustin”, in Revue des Études augustiniennes, 32 (1986), pp. 56-73. 54 Collectio Avellana 6, Guenther, p.  349; Reg. eccl. Cathag. Excerpta 87, ed. by C. Munier (CCSL, 149), Turnhout, 1974, p.  215. See C. Humfress, “A New Legal Cosmos: Late Roman Lawyers and the Early Medieval Church”, in The Medieval World, ed. by P. Lineham, J. L. Nelson, London, New York, 2001, pp. 557-575. 55 Innocent I, ep. 41, PL 20, 607-608. Probably Laurence of Siena: see the discussion of G. D. Dunn, “Innocent I’s Letter to Lawrence: Photinians, Bonosians, and the Defensores Ecclesiae”, in Journal of Theological Studies ns, 63 (2012), pp. 136-155. Cf. C. Humfress, on the defensor ecclesiae, in Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2007, pp. 262-263. 56 LP 1, p. 252. Although the defensor was unnamed in LP, we can identify him as Tutus, on whom see Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. 57 Frg. 6 to Bishop Sabinus, Thiel, p. 486. 58 Frg. 15 to Bishops Rufinus and Justus, Thiel, pp. 491-492. 52



introduction

Other defensores who are identified by name in the Gelasian corpus are Dulcius,59 Avus, Faustus, and Anastasius.60

Aristocrats and slaves Gelasius penned several letters of recommendation to bishops and the aristocracy on behalf of those with no protectors. He ordered two bishops to help two young clerics who had no relations and had been robbed of their property by their guardian, the deacon Olympius.61 Gelasius recommended the widow Antonina to the care of Bishops John, Bassus, and Alexander.62 He petitioned Januarius, a nobleman, to help and defend the poor. Not only the nobility but also royalty are enlisted to aid the poor. In a letter to the mother of the Gothic king Theodoric, he asks the queen to help the poor “for the sake of salvation and the increase of prosperity”.63 It seems that Gelasius’ letters to her son, the king, had gone unanswered. Gelasius also wrote letters of recommendation for Jewish converts, as in the case of the nobleman Telesinus.64 The Gelasian epistolary corpus reveals an expanded focus on individuals of various social backgrounds who requested aid from the bishop. Like Augustine, Gelasius was greatly concerned with the breakdown of structures of dependence between slaves and their masters. As head of the Roman church, he was also the owner of many church slaves. Slaves and their children were not allowed to inherit property, and slaves of the church did not get special treatment, as the case of the contractor (conductor) Ampliatus shows. Ampliatus, a slave of the church, had left property in Dalmatia to his children. Gelasius insists that the “stolen” 59 Frg. 3 to Dulcius the defensor, Thiel, pp. 484-485, which was reassigned by Ewald, p. 542 n. 6 to Pelagius (ep. 16** = Jaffé 949) on the basis of manuscript evidence that was not available to Thiel, the names Pelagius and Gelasius often being confused by scribes. Amory, People and Identity, p. 356, accepts Pelagian authorship. 60 On Avus, see ‘Failure of the justice system’ above; on Faustus and his successor Anastasius, see below. 61 Frg. 32 to Anastasius and frg. 33 to Fortunatus, Thiel, pp. 500-501. Cf. CTh 3.17.1, and 3.30.1-2 on the responsibility of tutores not to exploit their wards. 62 Frg. 1 to Bishops John, Bassus and Alexander, Thiel, pp. 483-484 (end 493494 January). 63 Frg. 36 to Hereleuva, Thiel, p. 502. Translated in Part 2, Section 8. 64 Frg. 45 to Bishop Quinigesius, Thiel, p.  508. Thiel’s rubric ( Judaeorum quemdam conversum probatae fidei et integritatis episcopo commendat) implies that Telesinus was a convert to Christianity but there is no evidence for this in the text apart from the past tense of videri in the first sentence: ‘Vir clarissimus Telesinus, quamvis Judaicae credulitatis esse videbatur’.



Pastoral care

property which Ampliatus left to his children is to be reclaimed by the church, while maintaining that care for the poor is the pontiff’s responsibility.65 Gelasius ordered Bishop Honorius to void the will made by Ampliatus: the status quo had to be maintained. One of the major threats to the traditional structures of dependence involved the liberation of slaves for service in the clergy.66 Letters 20-24 concern the ordination of slaves and soldier-settlers (originarii). Following the precedent set by Popes Innocent I and Leo I,67 and Valentinian III in Novella 35,68 Gelasius ruled against the ordination of such persons. Most of the slave-owners in these disputes were women (Placidia, Maxima and Theodora). In Letter 16 Gelasius repeated the proscription against ordaining “any illiterate or bondsman”, in a form letter to be sent out to all new bishops.69 The agents of a nobleman, Amandianus, complained that some of his bondsmen had been ordained – some as clerics, some as deacons – without their master’s permission. The letter to Bishops Martyrius and Justus starts in a reproving tone:70 “It is explained in both ancient canons and in a novella, with the support of a synod, that bondsmen should not be girt with the girdle of the heavenly army. I do not know whether you are seized by ignorance or will, so that it seems that none of the bishops is excluded from this crime.” Frg. 28.2 to Honorius, bishop of Salona, Thiel, pp. 499-500. On slavery in the ancient world and the Christian response to it in the New Testament and in late antiquity, see W. W. Buckland, The Roman Law of Slavery, Cambridge, 1908; repr. 1970; P. Müller, Der Brief an Philemon (Meyers Kritischexegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 9.3), Göttingen, 2011, pp. 54-67 and the lit. there cited; A. Serfass, “Slavery and Pope Gregory the Great”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 14.1 (2006), pp. 77-103; G. Depeyrot, “Economy and Society”, in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, ed. by N. Lenski, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 2012, pp. 226-254 (231-233). 67 Innocent, ep. 2.14, PL 20, 477A-478A; Leo, ep. 4.1, Wurm, p. 85, 3-10. 68 Nov. Val. 35, interpretation, trans. Pharr, p. 548. “The law also orders that no person of ignoble birth status, an inquilinus, a slave, or a colonus shall undertake the office of a cleric or be received in the monasteries, lest he may be able to evade his due condition through this pretext. The law also commands that clerics shall not presume to engage in trade to any extent whatever.” 69 Ep. 16.1, Thiel, p. 381: ‘ne […] illiteratum vel obnoxium[…]ad sacros ordines permittat accedere’. 70 Ep. 20, Thiel, p.  386: ‘Et antiquis regulis et novella synodali explanatione comprehensum est, personas obnoxias coelestis militiae cingulo non praecingi. Sed nescio, utrum ignorantia an voluntate rapiamini, ut ex hac culpa nullus pene episcoporum videatur extorris.’ Martyrius and Justus were probably the bishops of Acherontinus and Terracina respectively (Thiel, p. 386 n. 1). 65

66



introduction

In this instance, the thirty-year law (tricennalis lex) could be applied, which stipulated that crimes could only be prosecuted for up to thirty years after their occurrence.71 Gelasius also prescribed that property that had been held by a bishop for thirty years could then be sold.72 A similar decree pertains to the ordination of two slaves of the noblewoman Placidia, who were ordained when their mistress was absent.73 One is to be given back but his brother can remain because his ordination to the priesthood precludes his being returned to his mistress.74 Likewise, two originarii of the noblewoman Maxima were rejected from holy offices.75 Gelasius advised Bishop Felix to deal with the slave-owner Claudius (vir spectablis) concerning certain bondsmen who had been ordained clerics.76 The priest Genitor was instructed to return Septimus, one of two slaves ordained without his mistress’ knowledge, to his owner.77 This firmness even applied to Christian slaves of Jews. A slave with the unfortunate name of Judas, not wanting to serve a Jewish master who had recently had him circumcised, sought refuge in a church, claiming that he had been a Christian since infancy.78 Gelasius appoints three bishops to investigate the case, to verify that Judas was not attempting to impugn the rights of his legitimate master.79 By the time of Gregory the Great (590-604) no Christian could be forced to serve a Jewish master if it imperilled their salvation.80 Like other bishops of Rome and North Africa – especially Leo I and Augustine of Hippo –81 Gelasius is not concerned to challenge the status quo. CTh. 4.14, pp. 194-196; Canon 17 of Chalcedon, ed., trans. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, pp. 95 and 95* (trans), with pre-history of the thirtyyear statutes on p. 95* n.1; Valentinian III’s Novella 27, trans. Pharr, p. 538-539; cf. Nov. Val. 31 and 35. 72 Ep. 17.2, Thiel, p. 382. 73 Ep. 21 to Herculentius, Stephen and Justus, Thiel, p. 388. 74 Ibid., Thiel, p. 388: ‘quia propter sacerdotium non jam potest retolli’. 75 Ep. 22 to Bishops Rufinus and April, Thiel, p. 389. 76 Ep. 4* to Bishop Felix, Löwenfeld, pp. 2-3. End 494-beg. 495. 77 Ep. 10* to Bishops Herculentius and Stephen, Löwenfeld, p.  6. End 494Aug. 495. 78 Frg. 43 to bishops Siracusius, Constantius and Laurence, Thiel, p. 507. 79 On the circumcision of slaves by Jews cf. Constitutio Sirmondiana 4; CTh 5.910; trans. Pharr, p. 479. 80 Gregory I, Reg. 2.45 (CCSL, 140), p. 137. See the discussion of Serfass, “Slavery and Pope Gregory the Great”, p. 99. 81 See Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty, pp. 147-150, 198, 203, 227-228. 71



CHAPTER 3: PERSECUTING HERETICS

Arianism One of Gelasius’ persisting challenges was the kind of Christianity that his Gothic overlords had chosen to adopt, Arianism. The term “Arianism” is used here to distinguish the Nicene Christianity of the mainstream church from the homoean Christianity adopted by followers of Arius, an Alexandrian priest (313-316). First condemned at the council of Nicaea in 325, the sect was given a huge boost by the support of Constantius II (337-361), which only the concerted efforts of Athanasius of Alexandria and several eastern councils could counter. It remained largely a western problem in the fifth and sixth centuries, with the advent of the Germanic tribes into Gaul, Italy, North Africa and Spain. Although Gelasius generally did not refer to it, he once remarked that the bishops of Rome had not obeyed the “barbarian heretic” (barbarus haereticus), Odovacer, the Arian general who had effectively ruled Italy for thirteen years until 493. Gelasius was in this instance making a contrast between his predecessor Felix III and the heretical Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, who had submitted to the will of the Byzantine emperor Zeno, author of the Henotikon.1 Philip Amory agreed with T. F. X. Noble that Theodosius’ status as an Arian was not so worrying to Gelasius as the anti-Chalcedonianism espoused in the Henotikon, and that it was partly Theodosius’ reluctance to force Gelasius to adhere to Anastasius I’s position in the Acacian schism that made him a non-threat to Ge Ep. 26.11 to the bishops of Dardania (Jaffé 664), Thiel, pp. 392-413 (409); on the Henotikon, see the next section on the Acacian schism. Cf. Amory, People and Identity, p. 200, who interprets this letter as Gelasius comparing Odovacer, although a heretic, favourably with Zeno. 1



introduction

lasius’ ideal of a papal monarchy.2 It is unfortunate that Gelasius’ “two books against Arius” have been lost,3 as they may have moderated Amory’s assertion that “ecclesiastical sources such as the papal letters reveal virtually no reaction to the Arianism of the new ruler and many of his followers”.4 Caspar noted that Arian churches seem to have been tolerated in Italy and even in Rome.5 The church of St Agatha of the Goths was founded in Rome by the Arian consul Ricimer in the second half of the fifth century.6 However, the truce lasted only until the end of the Acacian schism in 519.7 The violent disputes between Arians and Christians in Ravenna later in the sixth century show that the situation deteriorated rapidly after Rome and the Goths lost their common foe, the Byzantine emperor and his patriarch. The church of St Agatha in the Subura was returned to catholic use by Gregory I in 591 or 592.8

The Acacian schism The major ecclesiological and dogmatic challenge of Gelasius’ pontificate was the continuing Acacian schism, which had begun with Felix III’s excommunication of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople in 484. The origins of the schism lay in imperial politics and the unfinished business of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which had failed to find a solution to a complex Christological problem (the nature of the union of human and On Gelasius’ response from 489-498 to Theodoric’s identity as an Arian, see Amory, People and Identity, pp. 196-203; on Symmachus, pp. 203-206; on Hormisdas’ response, pp. 206-216; Noble, “Theodoric and the Papacy”, pp. 400-402. 3 As recorded in LP 1, p. 255: ‘item duos libros adversus Arrium’. 4 Amory, People and Identity, p. 196. 5 Caspar, Geschichte, p. 74. 6 Ricimer, magister utriusque militiae, was consul in 459 and died in 472. An inscription recording the dedication by him was found in the apse. See LP 1, p. 313 n. 8. 7 Amory, People and Identity, p. 215 and n. 95, cites the letter of a clergyman, Trifolius, to the senator Faustus, condemning theopaschism as evidence of the resurgence of Arianism, considered a “contemporary evil” in 519-520. Epistula ad beatum Faustum senatorem contra Ioannem Scytham monachum, preserved in the Collectio Veronensis, ed. by E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-historische Klasse Abteilung NF, 10/4), Munich, 1934, pp. 1-160 (115-116). 8 LP 1, p. 312. Control over the revenues of St Agatha in Subura is given to an acolyte named Leo in March 594 (Gregory I, Reg. 4.19, CCSL, 140, p. 237). In 593, Gregory (Reg. 3.19, CCSL, 140, p. 165) indicated his wish to dedicate to St Severinus another Arian church, near the house of Merulana in the third region. 2



Persecuting heretics

divine natures in Christ) that could satisfy all the interested parties: the churches of Constantinople, Rome, Egypt, Syria and Palestine. Many Alexandrians stayed loyal to their patriarch Dioscorus (444-451), who was deposed at the Council of Chalcedon and died in exile. The successor of Cyril of Alexandrian, his main source of inspiration was the archimandrite of Constantinople, Eutyches, whose extreme interpretation of Cyril’s statement “one incarnate nature of God the Word” had also been condemned at Chalcedon. However, Eutychian “one-nature” (miaphysite) Christology could not be easily stamped out by the catholics. After the outbreak of hostilities in Palestine and Egypt, in the course of which the Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria, Proterius, was killed and replaced by the anti-Chalcedonian Timothy Aelurus,9 Emperor Leo I (457-474) lost no time in composing a questionnaire that was sent to all metropolitans of the East and West together with some prominent eastern monastic figures. This document of 457 or 458, known as the Codex encyclius,10 asked the metropolitans to convene their suffragans and report on their reception of Chalcedon and the validity or otherwise of the consecration of Timothy Aelurus.11 While most bishops expressed their agreement with the events of 451 and responded negatively to the case of Timothy Aelurus, the overriding sentiment in the letters was their belief in the imperial church and the pre-eminence of the Council of Nicaea in 325.12 Acacius too, patriarch of Constantinople (471-489), had initially condemned the Eutychian heretics, led by Timothy Aelurus. The lead-up to the Acacian schism began when the usurper Basiliscus, an army general, seized the imperial throne in 475. Basiliscus promptly reversed Zeno’s religious policy of support for the Chalcedonian bishop of Alexandria, Timothy Salofaciolus, and recalled Timothy Aelurus to Alexandria from his sixteen-year exile.13 Under See Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, for the complex history of the post-Chalcedonian period; for Rome’s role in these events, see the most recent volume by P. Blaudeau, Le Siège de Rome et l’Orient (448-536). Étude géo-ecclésiologique (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 460), Rome, 2013. 10 Codex encyclius, ACO 2, part 5, Berlin, 1936, pp. 9-98. 11 See Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2, part 1, pp. 195-235. 12 See further Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2, part1, pp. 204-211. 13 See P. Blaudeau, “Timothée Aelure et la direction ecclésiale de l’Empire postchalcédonien”, in Revue des études byzantines, 54 (1996), pp. 107-133; idem, “Rome contre Alexandrie? L’interprétation pontificale de l’enjeu monophysite (de l’émergence de la controverse eutychienne au schisme acacien 448-484)”, in Adamantius, 12 (2006), pp. 140-216. 9



introduction

pressure from Basiliscus, the patriarch Acacius seems to have changed his mind about Timothy Aelurus. Basiliscus published his new policy in his Encyclical of 475, and the unfortunate Timothy Salofaciolus was driven into exile. Aelurus travelled to Constantinople to petition the emperor for a new council which would overturn the decisions of Chalcedon. However, Zeno’s return from exile and the overthrow of Timothy Aelurus’ patron in August 476 cut short his comeback. Zeno’s Antencyclical of 476 reversed the anti-Chalcedonian policy of Basiliscus. Four years after being ejected from Alexandria, Timothy Salofaciolus was restored permanently to the see of Alexandria. With Zeno’s attention focused on these matters, the deposition of Romulus Augustulus from Ravenna in early September 476 passed almost without notice in the East. When the Gothic general Odovacer sent him the imperial regalia, claiming recognition of his rule, Zeno had little choice but to endorse the new leader with the title “ruler of Italy” (dux Italiae).

Second phase of the Acacian schism The unfolding controversy consumed most of Pope Simplicius’ attention, judging by his 20 surviving letters, spanning the eight years from November 475 until his death. All but three14 concern the controversies arising from the strong anti-Chalcedonian sentiment of the sees of Alexandria and Antioch. Simplicius’ first four letters on the subject belong to the second phase of the Acacian schism, when Zeno was ousted by the general Basiliscus in January 475. In the first place,15 Simplicius admonished the patriarch Acacius to petition Basiliscus to remove the usurper Timothy Aelurus from the Alexandrian see. Then he condemned Peter Mongus of Alexandria.16 On the papal condemnation of Peter the Fuller, we are not as well informed. Acacius apparently wrote to Simplicius in 477, asking him to condemn the bishop of Antioch.17 Simplicius’ reply is unfortunately not preserved, but it seems from Felix’ Letter 11 and Gelasius’ Tract 1

Gelasius, ep. 1 (Jaffé 611), ep. 14 (Jaffé 636), and ep. 21 (Jaffé 653). Simplicius, ep. 2 (9 January 476); ed. Thiel, pp. 177-179 (Jaffé 572). 16 Simplicius, ep. 19, Thiel, fragment, pp. 212-213 (15 July 482). (Jaffé 588). 17 On this letter of Acacius, see R. Kosinski, “Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch”, in Byzantinoslavica, 68/1-2 (2010), pp. 49-73 (65-66). 14 15



Persecuting heretics

that his request was granted.18 Two letters which pertain to the pontificate of either Simplicius or Felix III illustrate this condemnation;19 the papal author of the letters cannot be identified with any certainty because Peter the Fuller held the patriarchate three times (470-471; 475-476; 485-488) over a period which spanned the pontificates of both Simplicius and Felix. The first, addressed to Peter the Fuller from the Roman synod, states that he is guilty of the heresies of Valentinus, Mani, Arius, Sabellius, Apollinaris and Eutyches, and also of the pagan error of polytheism. The synod also demanded the removal of the phrase that Peter the Fuller had added to the Trisagion hymn, where “who was crucified for us” (qui crucifixus es pro nobis), was added to the line “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal […] have mercy on us”, in reference, as it believed, to the Trinity. Peter had probably intended the additional clause to have a christological interpretation.20 In a second letter attributed spuriously to Felix, Peter is anathematised and deposed from the see of Antioch.21

The papal legation of Vitalis and Misenus Fourteen of Felix III’s surviving fifteen letters are devoted to the Acacian schism, as well as a decretal and the Acts of two Roman synods.22 The Acts of the first synod, allegedly held in March 483, petitioned Zeno on behalf of the Alexandrian catholics to correct the injuries to the faith that had wrongly been allowed by Acacius. The Chalcedonian bishop John Talaia had been ejected from the see of Alexandria in 482, in favour of Peter Mongus. In Letter 2, Felix accused Acacius of obstinate Acts of the Roman Council of 485, Felix, ep. 11.2, Thiel, p. 254, and in Gelasius, Gesta de nomine Acacii 12, Thiel, p. 518. Both of these sources are also preserved in the Collectio Avellana: ep. 70, Guenther, pp.  155-161, and ep. 99, Guenther, pp. 440-453, respectively. 19 On the authenticity of Felix III’s ep. 3 and ep. 4, see the note by P. Coustant, Epistolae romanorum pontificum, Paris, 1721; reprint Farnborough, 1967; reproduced in fn. 2 of PL 58, 903D, where he attributes them instead to Simplicius. Their date is unknown; both also survive in Greek. 20 See further Kosinski, “Peter the Fuller”, pp. 69-72. 21 The letter to Peter the Fuller is preserved under Felix’ name in Collectio Avellana 71 (in Latin and Greek), Guenther, pp.  162-169. Theodore Lector in his Ecclesiastical History asserted that the Trisagion addition dated to Peter’s first episcopate, in 470-471: see Kosinksi, “Peter the Fuller”, p. 62. On the forged letter of Felix and eight other forged letters from the Collectio Avellana in which Peter the Fuller is condemned, see Blaudeau, Le Siège, pp. 49-73. 22 PL 58, 893-978; Thiel, pp. 222-284. 18



introduction

silence on this matter, and encouraged him to spur the emperor to restore John Talaia and to reject the heretic Peter Mongus. Both of these letters were delivered to Constantinople by the papal legates, Bishops Vitalis of Tronto and Misenus of Cuma.23 Their mission was compromised by the arrival in Constantinople of John Talaia, who had gained the support of Felix III. The unfortunate legates were held under house arrest until they changed their minds and decided to withdraw their condemnation of Acacius. They were then forced to participate in communion with the condemned patriarch. Returning to Rome with documentation condemning John Talaia, and supporting Peter Mongus’ endorsement of the Council of Nicaea but not that of Chalcedon,24 they received a frosty reception from Felix. He then calls his “dearest brother” Acacius to appear at Roman synod to respond to the claims of John Talaia, who had come at the Rome to make his appeal after being deposed.25 Apparently Acacius did not accept Felix’ kind invitation to appear in Rome. Four months later Felix enumerated Acacius’ many sins and deposed him with a pronouncement of excommunication.26 The anathema was to be extended to any bishop, cleric, monk or layperson who communicated with Acacius henceforth (ep. 7). These five letters clarify the confused account in the LP, which places Tutus’ mission three years before that of Misenus of Cuma and Vitalis of Tronto:27 “In his episcopacy there came another report from Greece, that Peter of Alexandria had been reinstated by Acacius, bishop of Constantinople. Then the revered Felix, archbishop of the apostolic see of Rome, sent a defensor with the advice of his see – a council had been P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451-491). De l’ histoire à la géo-­ ecclésiologie (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 327), Rome, 2006, pp. 211-217, gives a cogent account of this affair, although the sources are sometimes conflicting. The final three chapters of his book are devoted to the three main sources, the Ecclesiastical Histories of Zacharias Rhetor, Theodore Lector, and Evagrius Scholasticus. Blaudeau’s study reaches its chronological limit at the end of Zeno’s reign in 491, before the accession of Gelasius, but is continued up to the pontificate of Agapitus (535-536) in Blaudeau, Le Siège. 24 Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople, p. 215. 25 Felix III, ep. 3 to Acacius ( frater carissime), Thiel, pp. 239-240; and ep. 4 to Zeno, Thiel, pp. 240-241. John’s Libellus, or statement of faith, may have been addressed to Simplicius but was handed to Felix III, who had taken the papal throne by the time John came to Rome. Cf. Evagrius, HE 3.15, who relates that Simplicius was still alive when John came to Rome. 26 Felix III, ep. 6 to Acacius (28 July 483). 27 LP Felix III; trans. R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs I, p. 42. 23



Persecuting heretics

held – and condemned Acacius as well as Peter. Three years later there came another report from the emperor Zeno that Acacius had repented and should be readmitted. Then Pope Felix sent two bishops, Misenus and Vitalis: if they found Acacius still in league with Peter they should condemn them again, but if not they should offer them a document of repentance. When they entered Constantinople the above-mentioned bishops were corrupted by a bribe and failed to fulfil the order of the apostolic see.”

In fact, the defensor ecclesiae Tutus was not sent until 485, as the acts of the Roman synod in which Vitalis and Misenus were suspended from the priesthood and excommunicated show.28 At the synod of 5 October 485, forty-three Italian bishops subscribed the papal anathema on Vitalis and Misenus, and on Acacius, “the defender and patron of the heretical plague of the Eutychians, creeping like a serpent (serpens) to spread cancer through Christ’s body”.29 The defection of Vitalis and Misenus, and their replacement by Tutus, marked a new phase in the Acacian schism. Within three months, however, Tutus too was denounced as a prevaricator, deposed and deprived of holy communion.30 The monks of Constantinople and Bithynia were warned to watch out for renegade monks, “who had been deceived and gone over to the side of the enemies of God”, and subsequently fled from their monasteries. Felix urged vigilance by the righteous and punishment and exclusion of those who had lapsed.31 When Acacius died in 489, a new bishop, Fravitta, was appointed to the see of Constantinople at the beginning of 490.32 Felix congratulated him on his ordination soon after the event, but expressed concern that Fravitta had sent no mandate about the names of Peter and Acacius being removed from the diptychs (ep. 14).33 Fravitta had assured Pope Felix 28 Felix III, ep. 11 (5 October 485). On Tutus, see Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople, pp. 218-219. 29 The Roman synod to the priests and archimandrites in Constantinople and Bithynia, ep. 11.2-3, Thiel, pp. 253-254; ep. 11.5, Thiel, pp. 256-257. 30 Felix III, ep. 12, to the monks of Constantinople and Bithynia (c. the end of 485). 31 Ep. 12, Thiel, pp. 258-259: ‘Circa quos humaniores vos esse convenit, ut ad cellulas sub districtione poenitentiae revertantur, et fidelioribus lacrymis eorum quod lapsi sunt expietur, donec exclusis inimicis et perversoribus suis catholica purgetur Ecclesia.’ “Those who are deemed worthy of more humane treatment should be returned to their cells under the restrictions of penance, and expiate their lapse with more faithful tears, until the catholic church is purged of the enemies it has excluded and those who would pervert it.” 32 See also Felix III, ep. 15 to Zeno, Thiel, pp. 270-273. 33 On the diptychs, or list of names remembered in the liturgy, see the Glossary.



introduction

and Peter Mongus that he held communion with each of them, so his communion could only be described as “confused”, as Felix remarks.34 For this reason, the bishop of Rome urged caution on the monks of Constantinople, and asked them not communicate with their new bishop until they were ordered to do so by the apostolic see.35 In May 490, when the crisis had reached its height, Felix asked Bishop Vetranio, whose see is unknown, to persuade the emperor to return to communion with Rome (ep. 17). At the time of Felix’ death in 492, the situation was far from resolved. Shortly beforehand, Felix wrote to Andreas, bishop of Thessaloniki  – a bishop whose treachery Gelasius was later to complain36 – who did not want to decline communion with Rome, but also did not want to omit from the diptychs the names of Acacius and those who communicated with him. Felix’ illuminating short letter to Andreas is worth translating in full:37 “Because we long for the full reintegration of the catholic faith to strengthen it, we gladly accept your affectionate concern to enter into communion with the see of St Peter; but we would like it to become constant on every side, as the caution of orthodox truth demands.”

Gelasius’ role in the schism Under the protection of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric, Gelasius insisted on the condemnation of Acacius, already three years deceased, as the condition for union between Rome and Constantinople. In his first year of office he rejected Emperor Anastasius’ proposed compromise, which offered the bishop of Rome autonomy in theological matters.38 Gelasius probably composed his lengthy first letter to the eastern bishops on the Acacian schism while still a deacon under Felix, in 488 or

Felix III, ep. 17, Thiel, p. 275: communione confusa. Felix III, ep. 16 to Thalassius, archimandrite of Constantinople (1 May 490). 36 Gelasius, ep. 18, Thiel, p. 384 and n. 5. 37 Felix III, ep. 18, Thiel, p. 277: ‘Quod plene catholicae fidei cupimus redintegratione firmari, sollicitudinem dilectionis tuae, qua ad sedis beati Petri communionem venire desideras, libenter amplectimur; sed eam vellemus, sicut orthodoxae veritatis cautela deposcit, ex omni fieri parte constantem.’ 38 This staunch refusal to let Constantinople determine its own rulings on theological matters led to Gelasius being regarded as the classic proponent of the “two swords” or “two powers” theory, which will be discussed further in Chapter 4. 34 35



Persecuting heretics

489.39 From the first year of his pontificate or even before, while he was a deacon under Felix III, comes the first tract in Gelasius’ name, Gesta de nomine Acacii, which explains the reasons for the Roman excommunication of both Acacius and Peter of Alexandria.40 The final chapter of the original is Felix III’s brief letter to the bishops in Egypt, Libya, the Thebaid and Pentapolis, urging them to uphold his anathema on Peter of Alexandria.41 In his first year as pontiff, in response to the pleas of Acacius’ successor Euphemius (490-495) on behalf of Acacius, Gelasius used the standard metaphor of the health of the church: to combat heresy, described as “poisonous” (noxia), the church needed to be both “doctor” and “medicine” (medicus, medicina).42 LP puts it thus:43 “In these times he held a synod and sent throughout the East and sent a second, permanent, condemnation of Acacius and Peter, if they did not repent and demand penance under the satisfaction of a signed statement.”

Unfortunately Acacius and Peter Mongus were by then deceased, and thus no longer in a position to issue a signed statement of any kind. In 493 Gelasius wrote to the bishops of Dardania, a province in the civil diocese of Dacia, in the prefecture of Illyricum Orientale, to threaten them with excommunication if they persisted in communion with heretics. The Dardanian bishops were instructed not to recite the heretics’ names in the liturgy, and to exclude from their number anyone 39 Gelasius, ep. 1, Thiel, pp. 287-311; see the introduction to ep. 1 in Part 2, Section 2. 40 Gelasius, Tract. 1, Thiel, pp. 510-519 and Collectio Avellana 99; two shorter versions from other manuscripts are included in Thiel, pp. 520-522, a summary of the contents of the whole; and Thiel, pp. 522-524, a slightly reworked version of chapters 4 to 13 of the original work of fifteen chapters. 41 Felix III, ep. 9, Thiel, p. 250. The date of this fragment (beginning of August 484) gives a terminus post quem for Gelasius’ Gesta de nomine Acacii. 42 Gelasius, ep. 3, Thiel, pp. 312-321. Cf. esp. Leo I, ep. 15 to Turibius on Priscillianism, and hom. 16 on Manicheism. See B. Neil, “A Crisis of Orthodoxy: Leo I’s Fight against the ‘Deadly Disease’ of Heresy”, in Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature. Thematic Studies from the Centre for Early Christian Studies, ed. by D. C. Sim, P. Allen (Library of New Testament Studies, 445), London, 2012, pp. 144-158; and Felix with the Roman synod of 485, ep. 11.3, Thiel, p. 254. 43 LP 1, p.  255: ‘Ipsis temporibus fecit synodum et misit per tractum Orientis et iterum misit et damnavit in perpetuum Acacium et Petrum, si non penitens sub satisfactionem libelli postularet paenitentiam.’ It is not clear whether the author knew to which Peter he referred: Peter the Fuller (d. 488) or Peter Mongus (d. 490). The LP entry on Gelasius is translated in full in Part 2, Section 1 below.



introduction

who did recite their names in the diptychs.44 Their reply indicates that his threats were successful: the “humble” bishops “gladly” accepted his condemnation of Eutyches, Peter, Acacius, and their followers.45 In 493 Gelasius congratulated Abbot Natalis in Illyricum on his efforts to defend the faith of the apostolic against “what the enemy has sown in the churches of the East”,46 and asked him to preach the contents of his letter to the bishops (pontifices) of his region and neighbouring provinces.47 In Letter 12, addressed to Emperor Anastasius I in 494, Gelasius begged the emperor not to let the church be torn apart by the Acacian dispute. It seems that the emperor was not easily swayed, however, as the schism continued for several decades to come.48 Letter 18 of Gelasius admonished the bishops of Dardania,49 in the prefecture of Illyricum Orientale, to beware the tricks of Andreas, bishop of Thessaloniki who, while he refused to omit the name of Acacius from the diptychs, did not deserve communion with the Holy See.50 On 1 February 495, Gelasius sent the bishops of Dardania a dogmatic statement rendering a full account of why Acacius was properly condemned by the apostolic see (ep. 26). Two versions of Gelasius’ Letter 26 to the Dardanian bishops circulated: the epitomised version is the only document in the Collectio Avellana that also appears in seven other collections of papal letters, including the Quesnelliana, Frisingensis, Diessensis, Pseudo-isidoriana, Dionysiana adaucta, and Colbertinus codex.51 Interestingly, the epitomised 44 Gelasius, ep. 7, Thiel, pp. 335-337; preserved in Veronensis, a collection preserved in a single manuscript, Veronensis 22 [20], ff. 83v-175 (s. VII); see Blaudeau, Le Siège, pp. 3440, superseding F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande, bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters, Graz, 1870, vol. 1, pp. 763-764. 45 inc. Saluberrima apostolatus; ep. 11, Thiel, pp. 348-349; Collectio Avellana 80. 46 Gelasius, ep. 8.2, Thiel, p. 338: ‘Nihil significamus ommisum, quod aut correctione rerum, quas in ecclesias Orientis seminavit inimicus, patrum regulis congruentem possit adhibere medicinam.’ 47 Gelasius, ep. 8.3, Thiel, p. 339. 48 Gelasius, ep. 12, ch. 2, translated in Part 2, Section 1 below; see W. Ensslin, “Auctoritas und potestas”, pp. 661-668; Haarer, Anastasius I., pp. 128-133 (both cited in n. 1 above). 49 Or possibly Dacia: there is manuscript support for both readings. 50 Gelasius, ep. 18, Thiel, pp. 382-385 (2 August 494) = Collectio Avellana 101. 51 The longer version is edited by Thiel, ep. 26, pp. 392-413, and by Guenther, Collectio Avellana, Appendix 1, pp. 774-790 (p. 774, note 1). The epitome is edited by Thiel, pp. 414-422, and Guenther, Collectio Avellana 95. On this sixth-century papal letter collection, see L. Kéry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 4001140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature (History of Medieval Canon Law), Washington, DC, 1999, pp. 37-38; and Blaudeau, Le Siège, pp. 42-43.



Persecuting heretics

letter was also conserved in late fifth- or early sixth-century Veronensis collection,52 the only overlap between it and Collectio Avellana.53 Gelasius sent a similar account to the eastern bishops in the same year.54

The absolution of Misenus On 13 May 495 Gelasius and a Roman synod gathered in the basilica of St Peter to offer absolution to Misenus, the former papal emissary who had, under duress, supported the cause of Acacius (ep. 30). Misenus, who by then was an elderly man, suffering continual illness and consumed by a wasting disease, had pleaded for the viaticum.55 Gelasius reported triumphantly that Misenus had renounced all heresies, and was therefore restored to communion and to his episcopal office. Among the 45 bishops and others who subscribed the Acts of the council were two noblemen: Diogenianus,56 and Amandianus, on whose behalf Gelasius intervened for the return of his bondsmen who had been ordained.57 In 495 or 496 Gelasius received a legation from the Syrian bishops about the state of the eastern church. In response, he wrote to the bishops of Syria, a letter preserved in Greek and Latin, asking them to keep faith with the Roman church (ep. 43). His admonitions were not limited to bishops and abbots. In his dealings with the pro-Acacians, we find him making personal admonitions in letters to influential parties such as Emperor Anastasius and the nobleman John, whom he warned not to mix with those of a Eutychian profession and communion,58 as well as to bishops, abbots, and monks of East and West in order to spread the word.59 52 Ep. 10 is also found in the Veronensis: see W. Haacke, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma (Analecta Gregoriana, 20), Rome, 1939, pp. 37-38. The letter is translated in Part 2, Section 2 below. 53 See the study of Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, esp. pp. 269-270. 54 Gelasius, ep. 27; see the introduction to ep. 27 in Part 2, Section 2. 55 Gelasius, ep. 30.2, Thiel, pp. 438-439. On the viaticum, see the Glossary. This letter is translated. 56 Gelasius, ep. 30.1, Thiel, p. 437: Diogenianus spectabilis vir. Sixtus, a notarius of Gelasius from the papal secretariate (scrinium) copied this list of names. 57 See Gelasius’ ep. 20 in Part 2, Section 8. 58 Gelasius, ep. 12 to Anastasius; frg. 1 to John. 59 Gelasius, ep. 7 to the bishops of Dardania; ep. 8 to Abbot Natalis; ep. 10 to Succonius in Constantinople; ep. 18 to the bishops of Dardania and Illyricum; ep. 43 to the Syrian bishops.



introduction

The end of the schism Gelasius’ efforts were continued by his successor Anastasius II (496498). Over the course of three years, this pope devoted four letters (out of six surviving) to the cause of peace with Constantinople. The most famous was his first effort, addressed to Emperor Anastasius, in which he tried to persuade the emperor to remove the name of Acacius from the diptychs.60 Consumed by the Laurentian schism, Pope Symmachus (498-513) did not concern himself greatly with affairs of theological import in the eastern churches. Only one letter of Symmachus pertains to the Acacian schism, and even it may have been authored by Symmachus’ great supporter, Ennodius of Pavia.61 In answer to a plea from the eastern bishops,62 Symmachus refused to admit to his communion those who would not divorce themselves from association with Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus and Acacius.63 The schism lasted until 519, when Pope Hormisdas lifted the excommunication on Acacius, under Emperor Justin I. This was widely described as a papal victory, even in modern scholarship, with Frend commenting that its true architect was Gelasius,64 but the impetus for reconciliation seems to have come from the emperor himself.

Pelagianism Another major religious controversy of Gelasius’ day concerned the heretical sect of Pelagianism, which first came to prominence in the time of Augustine, with the Council of Carthage in 404 taking a strong stand against Pelagius and his followers, Caelestius and Julian of Eclanum. Augustine’s pursuit of their condemnation was endorsed by Pope Innocent I (401-417).65 In the early-fifth century Pelagius had found an Anastasius II, ep. 1, Thiel, pp. 634-637. Cf. LP 1, p. 258, s.v. Anastasius II. Ep. 13 ad orientales (cf. CPL 1687), Thiel, pp. 717-722 (8 October 512). 62 Ecclesia orientalis ad Symmachum, penned by Dorotheus of Thessaloniki in 512; ep. 12, Thiel, pp. 709-717. 63 Symmachus, ep. 13.6, Thiel, p. 722. 64 Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, p. 197. 65 See C. Ocker, “Augustine, Episcopal Interests, and the Papacy in Late Roman Africa”, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 42.2 (1991), pp. 179-201, and literature therein. 60 61



Persecuting heretics

enthusiastic body of supporters amongst the Roman aristocracy, with his doctrine of perfection by works. With his denial of original sin, his strong emphasis on the freedom of human will and the superiority of the ascetic way of life, as well as his endorsement of the total renunciation of private property, Pelagius’ teachings tore at the social fabric of the Roman senatorial class. Among his chief supporters was the prominent advocate and aristocrat Caelestius. Pelagius is known to have corresponded with Melania the Younger, and with Demetrias Anicia. To some Christian leaders, especially Augustine, the Pelagian doctrines of justification by faith and the human capacity to achieve perfection through acts of virtue appeared to undermine the doctrine of salvation by divine grace. Pelagians claimed access to sources of spiritual power over which the church had no control, which explains the urgent tone of Gelasius’ three surviving letters on the subject. In spite of his renewed condemnation at the synods of Carthage in 411 and 416, and the Council of Milevis in 416, Pelagius sought protection and approval of his teachings from the bishop of Rome. Innocent did not live to hear his appeal but his successor, the Greek pope Zosimus (417-418), took up the joint cause of Pelagius and his associate Caelestius, and pronounced both men innocent of deviation from the catholic faith. The outraged African bishops led by Augustine held another synod at Carthage in 418 and reinforced their condemnation of both men and their teachings. Zosimus changed his mind about the orthodox status of Pelagius, and endorsed the Synod of Carthage, declaring Pelagian doctrine a heresy. In 418 Emperor Honorius expelled Pelagians from Italy. Pelagians had also caused problems in the eastern churches. Just prior to their condemnation at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431), Emperor Theodosius expelled all Pelagian clergy from the East. Julian of Eclanum, expelled from Constantinople where he had taken refuge in the court of Patriarch Nestorius, returned to Rome during the pontificate of Sixtus III (432-440). Pope Sixtus opposed Julian’s attempt to regain his former see of Eclanum in 439.66 Around 440, a book provocatively entitled Praedestinatus (‘The Predestined One’) was published in Rome by the circle of Julian of Eclanum. Although it contained a nominal condemnation of Pelagius, the tract was in fact a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian defence of free will, and a condemnation of Augustine’s teachings on grace and predestination, which it presented in a much distorted Prosper Tiro, Epitoma chronicon 1336; ed. Mommsen, Chronica minora 1, p. 477. 66



introduction

version.67 In the 440s, Leo I had faced the question of whether to rehabilitate clergy who had supported Pelagius or Caelestius but who wished to return to the mainstream church. While there are only two references to Pelagianism in Leo’s surviving letters – Epistula 1 to the (unnamed) bishop of Aquileia, and Epistula 2 to Septimus of Altinum – this does not reflect the severity of the problem caused by proven heretics wishing to return to positions of ministry in the Italian church.68 In his first letter Leo instructs the bishop of Aquileia to convene a provincial synod, summoning all reformed Pelagian clergy to a public recantation of their error by means of a signed declaration. Pelagianism was to have a long history in the West, especially in Gaul, Britain and Ireland, and closer to Rome, in Dalmatia, as we know from two letters of Gelasius to Honorius. Following Leo’s example, Gelasius warned Bishop Honorius, bishop of Salona (490-493), that Pelagianism should not be allowed to resurface in Dalmatia.69 From the tone of his second letter to Honorius, we get the sense that Gelasius knew he had overstepped the limits of his jurisdiction, as he seeks to justify his right to intervene in Dalmatia against Pelagianism. The letter begins with a stock phrase for such situations: “We are amazed that your Love was amazed that the concern owned by the apostolic see to all churches throughout the world in the custom of our ancestors has also been exhibited for the faith in your region”.70 The superior tone conveyed in these false expressions of amazement is typical of imperial edicts of this era. Closer to home, the problem of Pelagianism would not disappear, and Gelasius wrote to the bishops of Picenum condemning three Pe67 In his fierce polemic against Pelagianism, and his views on the role of human free will in salvation, Leo I was strongly influenced by Augustine’s works on grace: S. Pietrini, Religio e ius romanum nell’epistolario di Leone Magno (Materiali per una palingenesi delle costituzioni tardo-imperiali, 6) Milan, 2002, p.  283. Augustine’s influence is evident in a sermon delivered in 452; see esp. Leo I, serm. 19.3; CCL 138, p. 79. 68 PL 54, 594-595 and PL 54, 597-598. The latter is translated in B.  Neil, Leo the Great, (The Early Church Fathers), London, New York, 2009, pp.  132-133, with introduction at pp.  130-131. Some of this introduction has been reworked here. See also Neil, “A Crisis of Orthodoxy”, pp. 151-154. A later letter from Pope Boniface to Caesarius of Arles (ep. 20; CCSL, 148a, pp. 66-69), reveals the extent of the problem among Gallic bishops in 531, two years after the Synod of Orange was held to deal with questions of free will and grace. 69 Ep. 4, Thiel, pp. 321-323. 70 Ep. 5.1, Thiel, p. 324: ‘Miramur dilectionem tuam fuisse miratam, curam sedis apostolicae, quae more majorum cunctis per mundum debetur ecclesiis, pro vestrae quoque regionis fide fuisse sollicitam’.



Persecuting heretics

lagian doctrines.71 His letter to the bishops of Picenum was written in 493, in the midst of the civil war between Odovacer and Theodoric, to which Gelasius alludes in passing: “We were grieving that the provinces right next to our city were being laid waste by barbarian incursions and the wild storms of war.” 72 However, the devil’s attacks on the minds of Christians were, for Gelasius, “more pernicious” (perniciosorem) than those dangers.73 In matters of heresy, his approach was to impose papal authority from on high, as exemplified by his intransigence throughout the Acacian schism, following the hard-line approach of his predecessor Felix III. His persecution of Pelagians in Dalmatia and Italy was justified by the actions of his forebears, Innocent I, Zosimus and Leo I.74 Papal authority, in the correspondence of Gelasius, was not taken for granted, but was his default position until challenged.

Manicheism According to the LP, Gelasius ordered Manichean books to be burnt in front of the church of St Mary Major.75 Manichees were first discovered in Rome by Pope Miltiades (310-315), predecessor of Silvester. Pope Anastasius I (399-401/02) required that any cleric arriving from overseas bring five letters of recommendation to prove that he was not a Manichee. An imperial edict of 425 expelled Manichean heretics from the city of Rome, along with “schismatics or astrologers and every sect opposed to the catholics”. In 443-444, Pope Leo I held an investigation into the Manichean presence in Rome.76 His punitive measures were supported by Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III’s constitution of 445, which expelled Ep. 6.8, Thiel, p. 332: ‘Illud autem Pelagianorum peculiare virus est’. Ep. 6.1, Thiel, p. 325: ‘Barbaricis hactenus dolebamus incursibus maxime vicinas Urbi provincias et bellorum saeva tempestate vastari’ (1 November 493). 73 Ep. 6.1, Thiel, p. 326. These dangers are spelt out more fully in Tract. 5, Thiel, pp. 571-598. 74 On Leo’s persecution of Pelagian clergy, who were returning to their former sees in northern Italy in 440-442, see Leo, epp. 1 and 2, and discussion in Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 33-35. Cf. n. 68 above. 75 LP 1, p. 255. 76 Leo, ep. 7, ed., trans. by H. G. Schipper, J. van Oort, St Leo the Great. Sermons and Letters against the Manicheans, selected fragments (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum series Latina, 1), Turnhout, 2000, pp.  46-49; and serm. 16 (CCL, 138), pp. 61-67. 71

72



introduction

Manichees from cities, and prevented them from inheriting property.77 Later, post 506, Pope Symmachus was accused by Emperor Anastasius of being a Manichean, as well as being illegitimately consecrated.78 This probably inspired Symmachus’ enthusiastic persecution of the sect, burning their images and books outside St John Lateran, and sending its adherents into exile.79 His successor Hormisdas (514-523) convened another investigation, at which the accused were tried by torture.80

The Lupercalia At the end of the fifth century, the church was still developing its own civic, Christian rituals, centred on the seasons of the liturgical year. For Gelasius, as for Leo I (440-461), Christianity was at the heart of Rome’s civic pride and strength as a community, even, or perhaps especially, in the midst of the challenges it faced at the end of the fifth century. It has even been argued by one Spanish scholar that the homily De neglecta solemnitate, attributed to Leo the Great by Quesnel and the Ballerini brothers,81 was in fact the work of Gelasius, delivered in the context of his fight against the paganising customs of the city, around the same time as his tract against the Lupercalia.82 Attempts by Roman bishops to displace existing pagan rituals with the feasts of the new Christian calendar encountered some resistance, as in the case of Leo I’s campaign against sun worship.83 By the end of the sixth century, however, Gregory Novella 18, Schipper, van Oort, pp. 48-51 (also trans. Pharr, p. 531). Symmachus answered both charges in the apologetic ep. 10, Thiel, pp. 700708; cf. the Acts of the Roman Synod of 499. 79 LP 1, p. 261. 80 LP 1, pp. 270-271. 81 Serm. 84, CCSL 138a, pp. 525-526, tr. Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 119-120. Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 118-119, advances the reasons for interpreting the sermon as referring to the neglected ritual of commemorating the saving of many Romans during Alaric’s final sack of the city in 410. 82 J. Janini, “Gelasio I y el Sermon De neglecta solemnitate (PL 54, 433-444)”, in Studia Patristica 8 (1966), pp. 248-258. 83 Serms. 22A and B, and serm. 27, delivered on the feast of the Nativity (CCSL, 138), pp.  90-101 and pp.  132-138. Leo had observed Christians bowing to the rising sun in the East, at the top of the steps at the entry to St Peter’s basilica. Leo was concerned that Christians not carelessly conflate the two cults, but distance themselves from the relics of their city’s pagan past. See B. Neil, “Leo the Great’s Preaching on Sun Worship”, in Liturgie und Ritual in der alten Kirche, ed. by W. Kinzig, U. Volp, J. Schmidt (Patristic Studies, 11), Leuven, 2011, pp. 127-140. 77 78



Persecuting heretics

of Tours reports that Gregory the Great led a rogation through the city, praying for divine assistance to avert the outbreaks of plague that had been caused by the flooding of the Tiber in 589 ce.84 Our only evidence for the existing celebration of the pagan feast of Lupercalia comes from Gelasius’ Tract 6, composed “against Andromachus and the other Romans who are resolved that the Lupercalia should be celebrated according to ancient custom”.85 The ancient Roman feast of the Lupercalia was still being celebrated in 448 ce, as we know from its entry in the calendar of Polemius Silvius.86 Celebrated in mid-February with a public procession involving paid actors who “named and shamed” members of the public, its function was to promote the fertility, purification and protection of the Roman people.87 Andromachus has been identified as the consiliarius and magister officiorum of Odovacer, who sent him to Constantinople in 489, where he also acted as Felix III’s legate in the Acacian schism.88 Andromachus, who as urban prefect may well have been responsible for organising the festivities in 494,89 seems to have suggested that the omission of such sacrifices was responsible for disease, perhaps an outbreak of plague in Campania (tract. 6.5), or the failure of crops in Gaul and Africa. Gelasius also mentions a military defeat and the consequent civil disorder that forced the festival to be suspended.90 According to McLynn, this tract demonstrates Gelasius’ reaction to an episode of domestic humili84 Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, 10.1; ed. by B. Krusch, W. Levison (MGH scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, 1.1.2), Hannover, 1951, p. 478. 85 ‘Adversus Andromachum senatorem ceterosque Romanos, qui Lupercalia secundum morem pristinum colenda constituebant’: Thiel, pp. 598-607; also in Collectio Avellana, Guenther, pp. 453-464; translated in Part 2, Section 10. 86 See Y.-M. Duval, “Des Lupercales de Constantinople aux Lupercales de Rome”, in Revue des études latines 55 (1977), pp. 222-270; and E. Dulabahn, “The Laterculus of Polemius Silvius”, Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1986. 87 On the celebrations from 44 BC up to Andromachus, see the articles of J. A. North, “Caesar at the Lupercalia”, in Journal of Roman Studies, 98 (2008), pp. 144160; J. A. North, N. McLynn, “Postscript to the Lupercalia: From Caesar to Andromachus”, in Journal of Roman Studies, 98 (2008), pp. 176-181. 88 McLynn, “Crying Wolf ”, p. 163; cf. PLRE 2, p. 89, s.v. “Andromachus 3”. Gelasius calls him “my son” in ep. 10.7, Thiel, p. 346: filius meus vir illustris Andromachus. 89 As McLynn, “Crying Wolf ”, p. 171, suggests. 90 Tract. 6.13-14. See Moorhead, Theoderic in Italy, pp.  21-28 on the battle between Odovacer and Theodoric. Or perhaps the reference is to fighting in Rome between Emperors Anthemius and Ricimer in 472 (to which Gelasius refers in Tract 6.10): McLynn, “Crying Wolf ”, p. 174 n. 81.



introduction

ation, an interpretation supported by Demacopoulos.91 Gelasius was apparently criticised by Andromachus and other senators for his failure sufficiently to reprimand a priest for adultery. In return he accused them of committing “spiritual adultery” by continuing to offer sacrifices to the god Februarius. McLynn makes the appealing suggestion that the names of the “errant presbyter” and perhaps even Gelasius’ name were included (or scripted for inclusion) in the actors’ recital of names of wrongdoers of the city.92 Gelasius’ objection to the procession was that it was blasphemous and sacrilegious, and completely unsuitable for the participation of those who called themselves Christians. He writes in his conclusion: “Finally, as it pertains to me, no one who has been baptised, no Christian should celebrate this, and only the pagans, whose rite it is, should pursue it.”93 It seems, therefore, that he did not seek to abolish the festival per se, but merely to prevent Christian civil servants from involvement in it. He uses the same language of disease and infection as he used for Pelagianism and the followers of Acacius.94

91 McLynn, “Crying Wolf ”, p. 168, refers to the “inconclusiveness of Gelasius’ anathemas”; Demacopulous, Invention of Peter, pp. 76-80, esp. 77: “But why was Gelasius, the bishop of Rome and heir of Peter, so powerless to shut down the Lupercalia and why would his declaration of excommunication have meant so little?”. 92 McLynn, “Crying Wolf ”, p. 171, citing W. M. Green, “The Lupercalia in the Fifth Century”, in Classical Philology, 36 (1931), pp. 60-69 (66-67). 93 Tract. 6.14, Thiel, p. 606: ‘Postremo quod ad me pertinet, nullus baptizatus, nullus Christianus hoc celebret, et soli hoc pagani, quorum ritus est, exsequantur.’ 94 Tract. 6.13, Thiel, p. 606: ‘Non enim simul omnes in corpore curat medicina languores, sed quod periculosius conspicit imminere: ne aut materia corporis non sufficiat medicinae, aut pro conditione mortali simul omnia non possit avertere.’ Cf. Gelasius, ep. 3 on the Acacians, cited above in n. 42; ep. 6.8 on the Pelagians, cited above in n. 71.



CHAPTER 4: LEADING THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH

Gelasius’ increasing confidence in his influence over the universal church is evident in Letter 12, addressed to Emperor Anastasius in 494. There he introduced the famous “two powers” theory, of church and king, which divided power between the temporal authority of the emperor, and the spiritual power of the church, and especially the bishop of Rome, who alone had ultimate authority in matters of doctrine.1 For this he has justly earned his fame as “the most radical and cogent theorist of the papal monarchy to that time”.2 Two main schools of thought have developed regarding the theoretical underpinnings of Gelasius’ understanding of his own power as bishop of Rome and vicar of the first apostle, Peter. The first, that of Erich Caspar, saw Gelasius as accepting a traditional division of power between the secular ruler (potestas) and the spiritual leader (auctoritas).3 Later, Walter Ullmann argued for a much loftier conception of the papacy beginning in the fifth century. Ullmann posited the development in late-antique Rome of an ideology where the pope as monarch enjoyed powers overarching those of any secular authority, including that of Gothic kings and Byzantine emperors. He traced this idea back to Leo I (440-461).4 Nelson agreed with Ullmann’s interpretation, 1 Gelasius, ep. 12.2, translated in Part 2, Section 1 below. On this letter see L. Knabe, Die Gelasianische Zweigewaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Investiturstreits (Historische Studien, 292), Berlin, 1936. 2 Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 317. 3 Caspar, Geschichte des Papsttums, pp. 70-71; followed by Dvornik, “Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius Ι”, p. 115; and Ensslin, “Auctoritas und potestas”. 4 Ullmann, Gelasius I. (492-496) (cited in ch. 1 n. 1 above), a refinement of his earlier work, The Growth οf Papal Government in the Middle Ages, pp. 17-28.



introduction

citing the Roman law that made the paterfamilias responsible for all crimes of his sons and slaves.5 The same line is taken by Sessa, who describes the fifth-century conception of the papacy as a dynastic institution that was domestic in nature.6 Hoeflich added an important qualification to Nelson’s theory by demonstrating that Gelasius’ claim to power over the emperor in Letter 12 was based equally on the rights and responsibilities of a tutor under Roman tutelary law, as much as on the model of the Roman paterfamilias.7 Within this ideological framework, the emperor was the bishop of Rome’s spiritual ward, for whom the pope would be held to account at the final judgement. Gelasius, like Leo I and others before him, based his claim to authority on the Petrine commission (Matt.16:18-19).8 He was the first pope to be acclaimed with the title “vicar of Christ” (ep. 30.15), admittedly by his own bishops in a Roman synod. However, he never called himself, as Leo did, “the unworthy heir” of the great apostle. According to Ullmann, popes like Leo I used Roman legal phrases like “the unworthy heir” deliberately to give a quasi-legal framework to an ideology of Roman episcopal monarchy.9 However, the Matthean commission to Peter is not cited at all in Letter 12. It does, however, come up in his letter of instruction to the papal legate Faustus, where we have a clear statement of the vicar of St Peter’s powers in relation to religion and to the power of the emperor:10 5 J. L. Nelson, “Gelasius’ Doctrine of Responsibility. A Note”, in Journal of Theological Studies ns, 18.1 (1967), pp. 154-162. 6 Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp.  201-202: “Leo’s idea was the most radically domestic vision of episcopal succession yet outlined by a Roman bishop.” 7 M. H. Hoeflich, “Gelasius I and Roman Law: One Further Word”, in Journal of Theological Studies, 26 ns (1975), pp. 114-119. 8 Gelasius, ep. 10.3, translated in Part 2, Section 2 below; and ep. 30.13, in Part 2, Section  3. In both these instances, it is his incapacity to absolve the dead that he is defending, not a question of his primacy over other sees. 9 E.g. Leo I, serm. 2.2, ed. by Chavasse, p. 8, 39: ‘nec in persona tam inparis tepescit haeredis’, in a sermon delivered on the first anniversary of his accession. See W. Ullmann, “Leo the First and the Theme of Papal Primacy”, in Journal of Theological Studies, 11 (1960), pp. 25-51. 10 Gelasius, ep. 10.9 ῾Si … ad religionem pertinet, non nisi apostolicae sedi iuxta canones debetur summa judicii totius; si … ad saeculi potestatem, illa a pontificibus et praecipue a beati Petri vicario debet cognoscere, quae divina sunt, non ipsa eadem judicare. Nec sibi hoc quisquam potentissimus saeculi, qui tamen Christianus est, vindicare praesumit, nisi religionem forsitan persequens.’ Thiel, p. 347; in the same chapter of the Commonitorium, he reminds Faustus that, in response to the confession of blessed Peter, “the gates of hell will never prevail” (Matt 16:18).



Leading the universal church

“If it concerns religion […] the sum of the entire judgement is due only to none other than the apostolic see according to the canons; if it concerns the power of the state […], it must recognise from the pontiffs and especially from the vicar of blessed Peter not to judge these same matters that are divine. Not even the most powerful in the state, whoever he may be, although he is a Christian, presumes to arrogate this to himself, except perhaps if he is persecuting religion.”

Gelasius, having inherited the leadership of the Roman see via an uncontested election, like Leo before him, believed it was his right and responsibility to offer leadership not just to the church of Rome but also to the wider church. Gelasius’ commitment to the theory of Roman primacy was probably less often tempered in practice by the strong sense of collegiality that informed most of Leo’s dealings with other bishops.11 While Demacopoulos has stressed Gelasius’ relative geo-political unimportance vis à vis Constantinople,12 Gelasius successfully maintained his authority over some western churches, especially in Italy and southern Gaul, in line with the claims of Innocent I and Leo I before him. Leo’s major statements of Roman primacy were his homilies on the anniversary of his succession, and on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul.13 It is unfortunate that there are no extant homilies of Gelasius to serve as a point of comparison. Gelasius made interventions in the government of the wider church through three major avenues: hearing appeals in Rome, making or approving clerical appointments, and the management of the extensive property belonging to the Roman church. These three spheres of influence are treated below. Finally, we look at Gelasius’ contribution to canon law through the codifying of his decretal letters by later ages, and to the Roman liturgy.

On matters of local custom, Leo did always not insist on imposing the Roman way: for example, he agreed to adopt in the West the church of Alexandria’s calculation of the date of Easter in 455. Cf. Leo, ep. 133, in which Proterius of Alexandria offers proofs that the Roman date of Easter is wrong, and argues for the eastern date. 12 G. Demacopoulos, “Are All Universalist Politics Local? Pope Gelasius’ International Ambition as a Tonic for Local Humiliation”, in The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, ed. by G. D. Dunn, Farnham, forthcoming. See the introduction to Gelasius’ Letter 12, in Part 2, Section 1. 13 Leo, serms. 1-5, on the anniversary of his ordination, which took place on 29 September 440; serm. 82 on the feast of the Apostles, 29 June, 441; see also serm. 84 on the anniversary of Alaric’s sack of Rome. 11



introduction

Appeals to Rome Appeals to Rome were common enough in the fifth century, but Taylor points out that “the proceedings of Gelasius’ tribunal were for the most part conducted by documents”.14 Gelasius seems to have allowed petitions to be presented to him in person only in the last resort. For example, in a rare intervention in a dispute between a bishop and his clergy, Gelasius informed Bishops Respectus and Gerontius that he was so disturbed by the multitude of complaints against Bishop Aufidianus that he wanted to bring all the complainants to Rome, but due to the difficult of the times and the expense of bringing such a crowd, he judged it more useful for the two bishops to hear the complaints and judge the case.15 It is clear from this that the clergy of Aufidianus’ see had used their right to appeal to Rome against their bishop. Gelasius recognised their right of appeal, but was forced by practical considerations to use the local bishop’s court (audientia episcopalis) to resolve the matter. In the case of Eucharistus, the failed candidate for the bishopric of Volterra, Gelasius forbids him to make any further appeals to Rome.16 In another case involving a dispute between clergy he considers it pointless to call litigants to Rome when the only concern of the complainant is words, not souls. Instead he appoints three local bishops to judge the case between the archdeacon Faustinus and deacon Stephen.17 Compare this with the case of the pious woman whose tearful complaints of fraud were heard by Gelasius himself.18 Clerics were compelled to seek justice from the ecclesiastical court first: on at least three occasions Pope Gelasius protested successfully to Theodoric against those who had gone to the royal courts unlawfully while concealing their status as clerics.19 In a tantalisingly brief fragment, he points out that, since Theodoric has ordained that the laws

Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 321. Gelasius, ep. 8*, Löwenfeld, p. 5. 16 Gelasius, ep. 22*, Löwenfeld, pp. 11-12. 17 Gelasius, ep. 6* to Victor, Serenus and Melior, Löwenfeld, pp.  3-4 (end 494-beginning 495). 18 Gelasius, ep. 40 to John, bishop of Spoleto; the case of Olibula, who was defrauded of her parental estate by her own siblings, is discussed above. 19 Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 322 n. 40; see frg. 11, Thiel, p. 489 (Jaffé 723); frg. 13, Thiel, p. 490 (Jaffé 743); ep. 46**, Ewald, pp. 521-522 (Jaffé 721). 14 15



Leading the universal church

of Roman princes should govern human affairs, he should respect the representative of St Peter’s right to do the same.20 A fragment of an admonition to the newly-ordained bishop of Volterra indicates that bishops sometimes resorted to appeals to Ravenna to circumvent papal authority.21 Gelasius threatened Bishop Elpidius with deposition if he went anywhere near the Byzantine court in Ravenna, although this had been the tradition of bishops from slightly closer to Ravenna, in the towns of Pistoia, Lucca and Fiesole:22 “With what daring, with what temerity do you write that you are preparing to go to Ravenna, when the canons clearly prescribe that you cannot meet with any bishop at all unless you consult us first! This the longstanding and honoured pontiffs (pontifices) of Pistoia, Lucca and Fiesole have done, but not you, who have been bishop (sacerdotio) for only a few days. You reveal yourself unworthy of your office by these aberrations.”

Volterra, north-west of Siena, seems to have belonged rather to Roman ecclesiastical jurisdiction, not that of Ravenna, even though it was slightly closer to Ravenna than to Rome.23

Clerical appointments Gelasius was greatly preoccupied with the problem of finding enough clergy, due to barbarian invasions, the reduced population, and waves of plague and famine.24 To this end he legislated on a temporary basis to fast-track candidates, and to allow locum priests (visitatores) to at-

20 Frg. 12, Thiel, pp. 489-490: ‘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.’ 21 Frg. 7 to Elpidius, bishop of Volterra, Thiel, p. 486. 22 Ibid: ‘Quo ausu, qua temeritate rescribis Ravennam te parare proficisci, quum canones evidenter praecipiant nullum omnino pontificem nisi nobis ante visis atque consultis ad comitatum debere contendere? Quod quum longaevi vel aetate vel honore pontifices, id est Pistoriensis, Lucensis et Fesulanus, nuper monstrentur fecisse tu, qui paucorum dierum fungi sacerdotio videris, quemadmodum tibi putas licere, quod non licet, nisi quod hoc officio carere festinas, quo te his excessibus ostendis indignum?’ 23 It is 257 kms from Volterra to Ravenna, and 286 kms to Rome. 24 There is a reference to the lack of clergy in Letter 42.2, translated in Part 2, Section 4 below.



introduction

tend churches which were bereft of clerical oversight.25 He tells a bishop to appoint the monk Rufinus as subdeacon on the following Saturday, and, if God wills it and he (Gelasius) survives, he promises to do the priestly ordination himself in the following mid-week, so that there is someone to perform mass at the basilica of St Laurence over Easter. This is presented as a favour to the owner of the church, one magnificus vir Theodore the consiliarius, who found the monk to be his priest.26 Gelasius interfered in episcopal elections far less often than Gregory I, who was renowned for imposing his own candidates as far afield as Sicily and Ravenna.27 However, Gelasius did take an active interest in the election of bishops (including perhaps his own successor)28 and other clergy, especially in cases where the candidate was unwilling. He replies firmly in the negative to a bishop’s enquiry about involuntary ordination of deacons to the priesthood,29 a ruling that Gregory I was to reiterate in the case of Honoratus, archdeacon of Salona.30 Gelasius’ solution was to promote acolytes or subdeacons of mature years and upright life, so that the deacons were rendered inferior to those who were once below them, and thus their ambition for advancement would be increased.31 Gelasius’ appeal to human pride and greed shows clearly how he applied his knowledge of human nature to solve practical pastoral problems. Lack of suitable candidates for clerical appointments was clearly a problem, and visitatores were often appointed by Gelasius as a shortterm measure to fill the gaps. In Fragment 5 he responded to a petition from the clergy of the Italian town of Histoniensius (mod. Vasto d’Ammone), instructing Bishop Celestine to ordain a priest and deacon Gelasius, frgs. 4-6, Thiel, pp. 485-486, in which he appoints a bishop; a priest and a deacon; a defensor and a deacon to Italian sees whose congregations have complained to him of the lack of clergy. 26 Gelasius, ep. 41 to Bonus, the Sabine bishop, Thiel, p. 454. 27 See B. Neil, “The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great”, in A Companion to Gregory the Great, ed. by B. Neil, M. Dal Santo, Leiden, 2013, pp. 3-27. 28 Anastasius the Deacon presented the two statements of Misenus to the Roman synod of 495: ep. 30.2 and ep. 30.4, Thiel, pp. 438-439. However, Moorhead, “On Becoming Pope”, p. 284 n. 29, notes that a deacon Anastasius was present at the Roman synod in 499. 29 Gelasius, frg. 10 to Bishop Victor, Thiel, pp. 488-489. 30 Gregory I, ep. 1.19 to Bishop Natalis of Salona, CCSL, 140, p. 18. 31 Gelasius, frg. 10, Thiel, p. 489: ‘ipsaque commoda presbyteri propensius quam diacones consequantur, ut hac saltem ratione constricti, et honorem, quem refugerant, appetere nitantur et quaestum.’ “And let the priests attain advantages more readily than deacons. That way, constrained by this reason at least, they might strive to attain an honour and advantage which they had rejected.” 25



Leading the universal church

to the basilica of St Eleutherius in the name of visitator. In the town of Cliena,32 the plebs had petitioned Gelasius for a bishop, complaining that they had been scattered for a long time without proper leadership. Gelasius asked the assembled people and clergy to choose a suitable candidate unanimously, under the watchful eye of Bishops Philip and Gerontius ( frg. 4). Simony, or the offering of bribes in return for offices, was an ongoing problem in episcopal appointments. Gelasius convened the Roman synod to judge one such case against Eucharistus, who gave 301 solidi and two tremisses to his delegation as a “bond” to ensure his election as bishop of Volterra. When Eucharistus’ attempt at the episcopate failed (supposedly because of his history of heinous crimes) and the defensor ecclesiae Faustus refused to return the “bond”, the matter was referred to Gelasius, not, as we might have expected, because of the initial bribery – the pope tells us that in fact the transaction was made in his presence and that of many curiales of Volterra – but because Eucharistus wanted to reclaim his money, most of which Faustus maintained he had spent on the upkeep of the curiales and on fodder for their animals. Gelasius ruled that Faustus not be obliged to return the balance and that Eucharistus’ claim was null and void. Eucharistus was forbidden to appeal again to Rome.33 The notoriety of this dispute is demonstrated by the fact that Gelasius’ letter (ep. 22*), which is really a report, was read out formally in a synod.34 Uncanonical elections also greatly exercised Gelasius. In the case of the popular candidate Maro, Gelasius ruled that he was not to be preferred to Laurentius, even though everyone loved Maro, because the canons forbid a lower candidate to be ordained before a higher one.35 He advises Bishop Iocondus to return the deacon Stephen to the church in 32 Gelasius, frg. 4, Thiel, p.  485 n.  4, notes that a Cliena is mentioned in the province of Corneola by the Anonymous of Ravenna. 33 Gelasius, ep. 22*, Löwenfeld, p.  12: ‘Que tamen erit apud Eucharistum vacua et inanis erit, et omnibus viribus effetata nec post hoc iudicatum sedis nostrae aut profertur in iudicio aut prolata vires aliquas repetitione assumet.’ “, as long as it concerns Eucharistus, will be vain and silly and void of all strength, and should not be brought again after this has been judged by the apostolic see, nor will it gain any force by being appealed again.” This reading takes as subject the antecedent causatio. 34 See Gelasius, ep. 22*, Löwenfeld, p. 11: Gelasius in synodo dixit. Cf. the translation of ep. 9* in Part 2, Section 6 below. 35 Gelasius, ep. 14* to Bishop Bellator, Löwenfeld, p. 8 (end 494-Aug. 495). See the translation in Part 2, Section 5 below.



introduction

which he was ordained, since Stephen’s ordination as deacon elsewhere was uncanonical.36 Two letters, to the bishops of Dardania and to Bishop Natalis, concern a case of episcopal usurpation in 495.37 Gelasius’ time-honoured strategy is an appeal to the tradition of his predecessors, the previous bishops of Rome, who had decreed that only the metropolitans were allowed to appoint bishops for the churches of Dardania. Once a bishop had been properly and fairly elected, getting rid of him could be a problem. How could Gelasius help a church whose bishop was said to have collapsed (elisus) with frequent attacks of epilepsy, here represented as demonic possession, when the bishop himself denied the rumours? Gelasius’ strategy was to appoint neighbouring bishops to investigate and apply proofs.38 Two bishops of Forum Popilii were appointed to investigate and visit the church, to see if the bishop ever fell down at home or in public. They were requested to expedite their assessment within thirty days because swift action was deemed necessary. If required, they were permitted to test him by force with the flesh of a lamb. Unfortunately we do not know the outcome of this procedure of discernment.

Management of church patrimonies Rome had extensive patrimonial territories which were a source of tax-free revenue for the Roman church, in Sicily, Illyricum, Calabria, and possibly Asia.39 By the time of Gregory the Great, papal properties were also held in Bruttium, Lucania and the Cottian Alps. The church of Ravenna had similar patrimonies in Istria and Sicily. A letter of Pope Felix IV (526-530) to the bishops of Ravenna some thirty years later estimated the value of a quarter of the Ravennan patrimonies at 3000 solidi.40 If the total patrimonies of Ravenna were worth Gelasius, ep. 19* to Bishop Iocondus, Löwenfeld, p. 10 (496 CE). Gelasius, epp. 28 and 29, Thiel, pp. 435-437. 38 Gelasius, frg. 8 to Bishops Rusticus and Fortunatus, Thiel, pp. 487-488, in the see of Aemilia-Campania, under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Ravenna. 39 See the survey of Roman patrimonies from the earliest attestations to the reign of Gregory the Great in D. Moreau, “Les patrimoines de l’église romaine jusqu’à la mort de Grégoire le Grand”, in Économie et religion dans l’Antiquité tardive. Antiquité tardive: Revue internationale d’ histoire et d’archéologie (IVe-VIIIe s.), 14 (2006), pp. 79-93. 40 Felix IV, Constitutum de ecclesia Rauennatensi (CPL 1687); in Agnellus, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ch. 60, ed. by D. M. Deliyannis (Corpus Christiano36 37



Leading the universal church

about 12000 solidi, those of Rome must have been worth much more, assuming that the value of the solidus remained comparable over the course of thirty years.41 During the early years of Justinian’s wars of reconquest, the legislation continued to favour the traditional policy of the inalienability of ecclesiastical property that had been commended by Roman bishops from Leo the Great (440-461).42 This situation changed in 541 when the Goths took back control of part of Italy. Gelasius clearly assumed responsibility for the management of church property, as we see in his request to the Roman deacon Corvinus for a report on the value and yield of lands in Picenum.43 Other evidence of financial management of papal estates includes the two rental receipts translated in Part 2, Section 3. When this property was stolen or threatened, Gelasius was quick to intervene. We have referred above to Gelasius’ correspondence with Honorius, bishop of Salona, concerning the theft of church property in Dalmatia by the church slave Ampliatus.44 Another fragment concerns a bishop who had stolen the lands of the church of Falerion and deposed those clerics who resisted him.45 The bishop of Falerion had claimed for his own use the paternal estate (praedium) which his predecessor had left for the sustenance (alimoniam) of clerics. The insecurity of property was also a dominant concern of the Edict of Theodoric, a collection of laws which will be discussed in the next section.

Gelasian decretals Gelasius’ most influential work on the discipline and law of the church was the letter known as the General Decree (Decretum generale).46 This rum Continuatio Medievalis, 199), Turnhout, 2006, p. 227. 41 On the value of a solidus, see the Glossary. 42 Moreau, “Les patrimoines”, p. 87. 43 Gelasius, ep. 4**, Ewald, p. 510 and n. 2 (Jaffé 633). See Taylor “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 330 and n. 97. More generally on the role of the bishop in property management, see H. G. Ziche, “Administrer le propriété de l’église: L’évêque comme clerc et comme entrepreneur”, in Économie et religion dans l'Antiquité tardive. Anti­ quité tardive: Revue internationale d' histoire et d'archéologie (IVe-VIIIe s.), 14 (2006), pp. 69-78. 44 Gelasius, frg. 28, Thiel, pp. 499-500; cf. Chapter 2, n. 65 above. 45 Gelasius, frg. 22 to bishops Respectus and Leoninus, Thiel, p. 496. 46 See the introduction to this text in Part 2, Section 4 below.



introduction

letter, containing 28 decretals, was incorporated in the Collectio Dionysiana, a collection made by Gelasius’ contemporary, the Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus. The Dionysiana became one of the two most important western canon law collections of the first millennium, along with the Hispana, a collection from Visigothic Spain.47 Dionysius’ innovation was to place the decretals of the bishops of Rome from Siricius to Anastasius II beside the canons of the eastern and North African church councils. The earliest Latin translation of Greek councils was the Compilatio Prisca, which Dionysius sought to replace with a better translation for his friends Stephen, Bishop of Salona, and his “dearest brother Laurence”, who may have been the archdeacon who contested Symmachus for the papal throne in 514.48 The Latin decretals and conciliar canons were first collected at the request of Pope Hormisdas (513-523), according to Dionysius’ dedication of the second redaction of the Dionysiana. The preface was addressed to Julian, cardinal of the monastery of St Anastasius, who had been ordained by the late pope Gelasius.49 The 173 decretals in the Dionysian collection – excerpts of 38 letters by Popes Siricius, Innocent, Zosimus, Boniface, Celestine, Leo I, Gelasius and Anastasius II, dating from 385-498 – dealt with local, disciplinary matters as well as Roman primacy. They are presented in chronological order, but also divided up into chapters with rubrics that identify the theme of each. The arrangement of the decretals by title made the work an accessible instrument for churches of Rome and beyond. Twenty-eight of these extracts came from the General Decree of

47 On the Hispana, see D. Jasper, H. Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages (History of Medieval Canon Law), Washington DC, 2001, p.  68 and n.  290. An expanded treatment of the Dionysiana may be found in B. Neil, “The Decretals of Gelasius I: Making Canon Law in Late Antiquity”, in Lex et religio in età tardoantica, XL Incontro de Studiosi dell’Antichità Cristiana (Roma, 10-12 maggio 2012) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 135), Rome, 2013, pp.  657-668. See further U. Gmelin, “Auctoritas: Römischer Princeps und päpstlicher Primat”, in Geistige Grundlagen römischer Kirchenpolitik, ed. by U. Gmelin, G. Roethe, W. Pewesin, A. Reinke (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, 11), Stuttgart, 1937, pp. 1-154 (135-136); C. Gallagher, Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium: A Comprehensive Study (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 8), Farnham, 2002, pp. 1-42. 48 Prefatio ad canones Dionysii, PL 67, 139-142; on the likely identity of Laurence, see Gallagher, Church Law and Church Order, pp. 10-11. 49 PL 67, 231A: ‘Quantique sit apud Deum meriti beatus papa Gelasius, et nos qui eum praesentia corporali non vidimus, per vos alumnos ejus facilius aestimamus.’



Leading the universal church

Gelasius to the bishops of Lucania, Bruttium, and Sicily.50 They covered rules for marriage and divorce, which were also subject to civil law, as well as matters that were more limited to church law: celibacy of the clergy, dates for baptisms and ordinations, and the veiling of widows and consecrated virgins. We can see Gelasius’ lofty conception of his authority within the church hierarchy in the final statement of the General Decree:51 “But by all means each single pontiff will be the destroyer of his own rank and office if he should think that these matters are to be kept from any one of the clergy or from the hearing of the whole church.”

Gelasius was not the first pope to make rulings on matters of civil law (compare Innocent’s letters on second marriages by those taken prisoners of war),52 but his General Decree of 494 was a convenient collection of all previous rulings plus a few new ones, and was the last of its kind. His second decretal letter, an index of books including apocryphal scriptures, purports to present the decrees of Gelasius in synod with 70 bishops in Rome (ep. 42).53 Books that were allowed included the historical works of Eusebius and Orosius, who wrote “a history very much needed by us against the slanders of the pagans”.54 Like Augustine’s De civitate Dei, the histories by Eusebius and Orosius attempted to provide a Christian interpretation of the catastrophic events of the fifth century – starting with the sack of Rome in 410 – that would counter the Gelasius, ep. 14, Thiel, pp. 362-379 (11 March 494). Ep. 14.28: ‘Sui vero modis omnibus erit unusquisque pontificum ordinis et honoris elisor, si cuiquam clericorum, vel Ecclesiae totius auditui haec putaverit supprimenda.’ Thiel, p. 379. See the full translation of the text in Part 2, Section 4 below. 52 Innocent rejected the Roman law on the dissolution of marriage after abduction of one of the spouses and their enslavement, in ep. 36. See G. D. Dunn, “The Validity of Marriage in Cases of Captivity: The Letter of Innocent I to Probus”, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 83.1 (2007), pp. 107-121. Cf. K. Sessa, “Ursa’s Return: Captivity, Remarriage, and the Domestic Authority of Roman Bishops in Fifth-Century Italy”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19.3 (2011), pp.  401-432 (422 n. 74). On Leo’s ep. 159 to Nicetas of Aquileia, which upheld Innocent’s ruling on the validity of first marriages, see Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 139-140. 53 Gelasius in synodo, ep. 42 (CPL 1676), known as Libri accipiendi et non accipiendi, translated in Part 2, Section 4. On the question of its authenticity, see the introduction to our translation. 54 Gelasius, ep. 42.4, Thiel, p.  461: ‘Quia valde nobis necessariam adversus paganorum calumnias ordinavit historiam’. 50 51



introduction

attacks of Porphyry, who saw them as a punishment for Rome’s neglect of its traditional religion. The Gelasian Decretal (Letter 42) was the first Roman document to fix the canon of tradition, although the canon of Scripture was not set down by a bishop of Rome until the time of Hormisdas (514-523).55 Gelasius makes frequent reference to the “ancient rules” of his predecessors, the bishops of Rome,56 and to imperial law, or “the laws of our sons, the emperors”.57 He scorned non-Roman law, to judge by his letter to Succonius, bishop of North Africa, who had fled the Vandal persecutions of Nicene Christians. Gelasius admonishes the bishop thus: “You who scorn kings’ threats and despise the feral laws of raging barbarians have now fallen in with heretics”, namely, the Acacian party in Constantinople.58 The decretals of Gelasius complemented the collection of civil law promulgated by Theodoric between 493 and 526, known as the Edict of Theodoric (ET).59 The ET was prepared by a group of Roman jurisprudents, and intended for use by judges or litigants in resolving disputes between Goths and Romans.60 Its 154 edicts are concerned mostly with crime and punishments in personal and commercial transactions, such as boundary disputes, tomb violations, return of runaway slaves, payment of loans, inheritances, and divorce.61 There are many similarities in the content of Gelasius’ decretals and the civil laws collected in ET. The two key issues in the latter were shortage of manpower on the land and insecurity of property, particularly slaves and bondsmen, who were prone to running away and taking refuge in churches, or being seconded 55 Hormisdas, ep. 125, Thiel, pp. 931-938. Athanasius of Alexandria, ep. 39 (367 ce), also gave a list of forty-nine canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. See Part 2, Section 4, n. 39 below. 56 E.g. epp. 1.7, 14.27, 17.1, 20, 21, and 22. 57 Gelasius, ep. 17.2, Thie, p. 382: ‘quod tricennalis lex conclusit, quia et filiorum nostrorum principum ita emanavit auctoritas, ut ultra triginta annos nulli liceat pro eo appellare, quod legum tempus exclusit.’ See further E. J. Jonkers, “Pope Gelasius and Civil Law”, in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, 20 (1952), pp. 335-339. 58 Ep. 9.2, Thiel, p. 340: ‘Nonne tu ille es, qui spretis regum minis et saevientium barbarorum feralia jura despiciens.’ Translated in Part 2, Section 9. 59 Unfortunately it is impossible to date the composition of the ET more precisely within the 33 years of Theodoric’s reign: Lafferty, “Italy in the Twilight”, p. 463. 60 Lafferty, “Italy in the Twilight”, pp. 460, 463-465; idem, “Law and Society”, p. 347. 61 Lafferty, “Law and Society”, pp.  359-364; idem, “Italy in the Twilight”, pp. 468-469.



Leading the universal church

to the clergy.62 Gelasius had something to say about these problems as well, in four chapters of his General Decree and in other letters.63 ET deals with social abuses, including the sale of children in potestate parentis.64 Gelasius deals with similar cases, such as the widow who is being deprived of her inheritance by her sisters.65 Such cases witness to the increasing role of the bishop’s court (audientia episcopalis), a consequence of the lack of judges or at least reliable ones, which is also identified as a problem in ET.66

The Roman liturgy One of the most pressing problems faced by Gelasius was a lack of suitable candidates for the clergy. That the problem had become critical is indicated by a novel of Emperor Majorian (457-461), forbidding the involuntary ordination of a cleric.67 Parents could be punished for presenting their sons for ordination against their will, in order to fulfil a parental vow or debt. We note that this stipulation was not applied to episcopal consecrations. One reason for the dearth of clergy was the tradition that soldiers could not be ordained.68 In spite of the dearth of willing candidates, Gelasius was ultimately responsible for an increase in the numbers of Roman clergy: he ordained 32 priests, two deacons (possibly including the future pope Anastasius II),69 and 67 bishops, according to the LP. Sessa points out that an

As Lafferty observed of the ET, “Italy in the Twilight”, pp. 472-474. Gelasius, ep. 14.3, 14.14, 14.16, and 14.23; ep. 20.1, Thiel, p. 386, on the unlawful ordination of bondsmen (originarii): see ch. 1, nn. 62 and 63 above. 64 Lafferty, “Italy in the Twilight”, p. 469. 65 Ep. 40 to bishop John of Spoleto, on the case of the widow Olibula, Thiel, pp. 453-454; translated in Part 2, Section 5. 66 Lafferty, “Italy in the Twilight”, pp. 470-473, 481. 67 Nov. Maj. 11; CTh vol. 2, 176-178; trans. Pharr, p. 561 (28 March 460). 68 Decision 3 of an otherwise unknown council in the province of Byzacena (Concilium Thelense, 24 February 418), rules that no one can enter the clergy if they have entered the army after baptism: ‘Item si quis post remissionem peccatorum cingulum militiae saecularis habuerit, ad clerum admitti non debet.’ (CCSL, 149), p. 61, ll. 63-64. Cf. the almost identical provision of Innocent I, ep. 2.2, PL 20, 472A: ‘Item, si quis post remissionem peccatorum cingulum militiae saecularis habuerit, ad clericatum omnino admitti non debet.’ 69 See Gelasius, ep. 30, where the deacon Anastasius is mentioned. Cf. n. 28 above. 62 63



introduction

increased number of Roman clergy in this period were also from elite households.70 The Carolingian Walahfrid Strabo (c. 808-849) was the first to attribute a sacramentary to Gelasius, writing: “ is said to have put in order prayers composed both by himself and by others.” 71 While such medieval ascriptions are now regarded as inauthentic, we concur with Davis that there is no reason to doubt the LP’s statement that Gelasius “wrote prefaces to the sacraments and prayers with careful wording”.72 Capelle briefly traces the line of development through the sixth- or seventh-century Leonian Sacramentary, to the so-called Gelasian Sacramentary, with the addition of a few prefaces and prayers; this was then amplified by Pope Vigilius (537-555), and formed the basis of the Gregorian Sacramentary of c. 600, attributed to Gregory the Great.73 Unfortunately, the “hymns in the style of St Ambrose” attributed to Gelasius in the LP cannot be identified, in spite of recent claims to do so.74 As Duval comments, the situation is far more complex than either Capelle or Pomarès recognised.75 We return to this question in the introduction to our translation of Against Andromachus in Part 2, Section 10.

70 Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, p. 217. Cf. pp. 28-29 where she emphasises the status gap between Roman bishops and elite householders. 71 PL 114, 946, ed. and trans. by A. L. Harting-Correa, Walafrid Strabo’s Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum. A Translation and Liturgical Commentary (Mittellateinische Studien und Texte, 19) Leiden, 1995. 72 Davis, The Book of Pontiffs, p. xxvi. See our translation in Part 2, Section 1. 73 B. Capelle, “L’oeuvre liturgique de S. Gélase”, in Journal of Theological Studies, 2 (1951), pp. 129-144 (130-132). 74 LP 1, p. 255: ‘ymnos in modum beati Ambrosii’; see the translation in Part 2, Section 1. Building on Capelle’s theory (see previous note) that two Gelasian prefaces to the mass were related to the Andromachus affair, Pomarès, Lettre contre les Lupercales, posited that 18 formularies of the mass pertained to the dispute over the Lupercalia. A. W. J. Holleman, Pope Gelasius I and the Lupercalia, D. Litt. diss., Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, 1974, p. 3 and n. 6, followed Pomarès, Lettre contre les Lupercales. 75 Duval, “Des Lupercales”, p. 245.



CONCLUSION

Gelasius’ burial on 21 November 496 in the Basilica of St Peter was a clear indication of his primary allegiance  – his predecessor Felix was buried in St Paul’s.1 We have seen in the preceding chapters that Gelasius prioritised the following episcopal responsibilities: 1. giving pastoral care, especially to clergy and other classes of poor; 2. managing crises of various kinds, including population displacement, violent conflict, the failure of the legal system to deliver justice and a crisis in the structures of dependence; 3. persecuting heretics, first and foremost the supporters of Acacius in the post-Chalcedonian bloodletting, but also adherents of traditional pagan rites, and sectarian Christians; 4. leading, or attempting to lead, the universal church in spite of fierce disagreement from Constantinople over the bishop of Rome’s right to do so – which took in hearing appeals to Rome, intervening in clerical appointments and managing church patrimonies; and finally, 5. imposing clerical discipline by means of decretal letters. Gelasius’ feverish activity in these five spheres foreshadowed an increasing tendency for bishops of Rome to micro-manage the affairs of their church, a tendency that culminated in the broad-ranging activity demonstrated in Gregory the Great’s Registrum. The involvement of both Gelasius and Gregory I in the conduct and regularisation of the nascent Roman liturgy is another piece of evidence for a developmental arc between the two papacies.2 LP 1, p. 255 and LP 1, p. 252. On Gregory the Great’s contribution to the liturgy, which did not include the so-called Gregorian chant, see C. Mews, “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict and Roman Liturgy: The Evolution of a Legend”, in Journal of Medieval History, 37 (2011), pp. 125-144. 1 2



introduction

In all of these areas we find Gelasius breaking new ground and pushing the boundaries, with varying degrees of success. His high-handed management of the Acacian controversy could be called an unmitigated failure, if one believed that his aim was to end the schism. If, however, one sees it as an opportunity for Gelasius to stamp his own brand of Roman authority on the universal church, his zero-tolerance strategy towards heretics was probably quite effective. His persecution of Pelagians reached as far as Dalmatia. In the face of crisis, he seems to have done more than most bishops of Rome before him, and to have started the micro-managing style that Pelagius I (556-561) adopted so readily later in the sixth century. Gelasius’ attempt to stop the celebration of a pagan fertility rite, the Lupercalia, was probably futile, given the feast’s support among prominent senators. His negotiations with Theodoric for Roman autonomy in disciplining its own clergy were bold, if not longlasting. We see in the cases of later popes John I (523-526) and Agapitus (535-536) that Theodoric still claimed control over the bishop of Rome even in doctrinal matters. An attentive reading of Gelasius’ letters gives the clear impression that Gelasius believed that desperate times called for desperate measures. It is to these letters that we now turn.



PART 2: TEXTS IN TRANSLATION

PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATIONS

Throughout the translations we have tried to maintain the sententious and pompous style characteristic of Gelasius, with its repetitiveness and overburdening of subordinate phrases. While this will no doubt cause some difficulty for the modern reader, it seemed to us preferable to preserve the voice of the ancient author. Words of particular historical or linguistic interest that are repeated frequently have been explained in the Glossary at the end of the volume.



SECTION 1: THE PREEMINENCE OF ROME

The letters in our first two sections deal with the Acacian schism, which saw Rome and Constantinople breaking off communion with each other for a period of thirty-five years. The schism became a testing ground for Rome’s claim to preeminence over the other churches of the pentarchy, namely, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The excommunication of Constantinople’s patriarch, Acacius, by Pope Felix in 484, and then again by a synod of Italian bishops in 485, was a symbol of the deeply fractured nature of the church of East and West in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon (451). The letters attest to Gelasius’ intimate knowledge of the main protagonists: the anti-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria, Timothy Aelurus (457-477) and Peter Mongus (477-490), and their rival, the Chalcedonian Timothy Salofaciolus (460-482); Peter the Fuller, anti-Chalcedonian bishop of Antioch,1 and his Chalcedonian rival Calendio (479-484).2 The controversial patriarch Acacius was succeeded briefly by Fravitta (489-490), and then Euphemius (490-496), who remained patriarch throughout Gelasius’ pontificate. Much of the long-winded rhetoric adopted in these letters rests upon the bishop of Rome’s claim to supreme power over the universal church. A prime example (or the worst offender, depending on one’s point of view) is Letter 12, addressed in 494 to Emperor Anastasius, who was 1 First in 471, again in 475-476, and for a third time from 485 until his death in c. 488. On Peter of Antioch’s three episcopates, which lasted only five years in total, see R. Kosinski, “Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch”, in Byzantinoslavica, 68/1-2 (2010), pp. 49-73 (58-70). 2 For further detail on the causes of the schism and Gelasius’ role in it, see Part 1, Chapter 3.



TRANSLATION

putting pressure on the pope to reverse his predecessor’s condemnation of Acacius. This is Gelasius’ first letter to the emperor who three years earlier had replaced Zeno, co-author (with Patriarch Acacius) of the problematic document known as the Henotikon, promulgated in 482. Gelasius attempts to capitalise on the change of imperium by putting to Anastasius the case for a radical separation of the domains of spiritual and temporal power. Prefacing the letter with an excuse for not having sent letters to Anastasius (ch. 1), Gelasius discusses the two powers, ecclesiastical and royal (chs 2, 3), and beseeches the emperor not to allow the church to be torn apart in his time by the case of Acacius (ch. 4). Finally he tempers the various objections proposed for the defence of the schism (chs 5-12). Against both Caspar and Ullmann,3 it has been argued that it is a testament to Gelasius’ rhetorical skill, as demonstrated in Letter 12, that subsequent generations have understood the pontiff to possess a measure of domestic and international influence that he never actually enjoyed.4 With its inclusion in the decretal collection of the medieval canonist Gratian in the twelfth century (c. 1150), the letter in question is often cited by medieval canonists and modern scholars alike as evidence for papal primacy stretching back to antiquity. McLynn and Demacopoulos, however, suggest that the claims for preeminence expressed in the letter are better read as attempts to mask both local and international humiliation: domestic ineffectiveness in the Lupercalia affair,5 and international humiliation in the refusal of the East to recognise papal authority in the ongoing Acacian schism.6 We begin our translations with the Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) entry on Gelasius’ four-year pontificate. The earliest redaction of the LP was composed early in the sixth century and was thus written within living memory of Gelasius’ pontificate. The LP concentrates on the glorious achievements of the bishops of the Eternal City, and their largesse towards the clergy and people of Rome. Dedications of churches, ordinations of clergy, benefactions to the poor: these were the bulwarks of a late-antique bishop’s reputation. Above all, the persecution of heresies consumed the attention of the anonymous authors of the LP. In Gela See the discussion of their views on Roman primacy in Part 1, Chapter 4. Demacopoulos, “Are All Universalist Politics Local?” 5 McLynn, “Crying Wolf ”, p.  168. On the pagan feast of the Lupercalia, see Part 1, Chapter 3, esp. n. 87, and the translation of Tractatus 6 in Section 10 below; Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter, pp. 76-80. 6 Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter, pp. 94-95. 3 4



The Preeminence of Rome

sius’ entry, one heretic stands out above all others: Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople (471-489).

The Book of Pontiffs. Gelasius7 Gelasius, of African nationality, son of Valerius, held the see for four years, eight months and eighteen days. He was bishop in the time of King Theodoric and Emperor Zeno. . 8 In his time Manicheans were found in the city of Rome, whom he ordered to be deported into exile. Their books were burned in a fire in front of the basilica of St Mary.9 Under command of a synod, he tearfully recalled the chastened bishop Misenus, under the satisfaction of a signed statement. He restored him to his church, although he had sinned in the schism of Acacius and Peter.10 He loved the poor, and he increased the numbers of clergy. He freed the Roman populace from danger of famine. He issued a constitution concerning the whole church. In his time again a report came from Greece that many crimes and murders had been committed by Peter and Acacius at Constantinople.11 In that time John, the catholic bishop of Alexandria,12 fled LP 1, p. 255. All interpolations come from the text in T. Mommsen, Liber pontificalis, Gestorum Pontificum Romanorum, Berlin, 1898, pp. 116-118, and reflect the second and third editions of the LP. On the dating of these editions see Davis, The Book of Pontiffs, pp. lvi-xlviii. 9 On Gelasius’ persecution of Manichees, see Part 1, Chapter 3. 10 The synod of Rome pardoned the former papal legate Misenus in 495: see Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. We take this to mean the Alexandrian Peter Mongus rather than Peter the Fuller, since Acacius and Peter the Fuller were at odds over the latter’s incumbency in Antioch. 11 There is no evidence that Acacius participated in any murders, even indirectly; Peter Mongus was accused of assisting Timothy Aelurus in orchestrating the lynching of the patriarch Proterius in 457 in Alexandria, not Constantinople. Peter the Fuller might have been implicated in the murder of Stephen III (477?-479), the Chalcedonian predecessor of Calendio in the see of Antioch. 12 This is the Chalcedonian John Talaia, subsequently consecrated patriarch of Alexandria in 482 but expelled by Acacius and others in the same year. John fled to Italy, where he was eventually appointed bishop of Nola by Gelasius. See Evagrius, HE 3.12, following Zachariah, HE 5.6; cf. P. Peeters, “Sur une contribution récente à l’histoire du Monophysisme”, in Analecta Bollandiana, 45 (1936), pp. 143-159; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, p. 177. 7 8



TRANSLATION

and came to Rome to the apostolic see. Blessed Gelasius received him with honour, and even offered him a second see. In these times he held a synod and sent throughout the East and sent a second, permanent, condemnation of Acacius and Peter, if they did not repent and demand penance under the satisfaction of a signed statement. He dedicated the basilica of St Euphemia the martyr in the town of Tibur , and other basilicas of Saints Nicander, Eleutherius, and Andreas on the Labican way, on the Pertusan estate. He founded the basilica of St Mary on the Laurentian way, on the farm of Crispin.13 He wrote five books against Nestorius and Eutyches ; he also wrote hymns in the style of St Ambrose.14 He wrote two books against Arius,15 and wrote prefaces to the sacraments and prayers with careful wording and many letters on the faith in precise language. During his episcopate the clergy grew. He performed two ordinations in Rome in December and February, of 32 priests, two deacons, and 67 bishops for various places. He was buried in the basilica of St Peter the Apostle, on the eleventh Kalends of December.16 The see was empty for seven days.17

13 On Gelasius’ management of villa churches, see the discussion of Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 166-170, and epp. 33-35 translated below in Section 8. 14 On Gelasius’ contribution to the Roman liturgy and the so-called Gelasian sacramentary, see Part 1, Chapter 4. 15 On Gelasius’ attitude to Arianism, see Part 1, Chapter 3. 16 21 November, 496. The symbolism of Gelasius’ burial near the saint and first apostle would not have been lost on the readers of LP. Before him, only Popes Leo I (d. 461) and Simplicius (d. 483) had shared the honour of burial in the fourth-century basilica of St Peter, outside the walls of Rome. 17 If this interval of time is correct, it would suggest that Gelasius’ successor, Anastasius (496-498), was appointed very quickly indeed, since the canons allowed a threemonth period for the change-over: see e.g. Canon 25 of the Council of Chalcedon in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 98. However, this was a quasi intra-curial succession.



The Preeminence of Rome

Letter 1218 Pope Gelasius to Anastasius Augustus 1. On their return to the city,19 the servants of Your Piety, my sons Faustus the magister 20 and Irenaeus,21 viri illustres,22 and their companions who took part in the official legation, said that Your Clemency had asked why I had not sent my greetings in written form to you. It was not my design, I confess; but because those who had recently come from the regions of the East had spread it about through the whole city that, on your orders, I was denied access to them, I believed that I should refrain from writing a letter, lest I became burdensome rather than dutiful. You see, then, that this did not come about by dissembling on my part but was the mark of appropriate caution, lest I annoy those who are minded not to accept me. But when I ascertained that Your Serenity’s graciousness had indulgently sought word with My Humility in previously mentioned communications, then I truly considered that it would not undeservedly be reckoned against me if I were to keep quiet. Glorious Son, I love, cherish, and respect the Roman emperor just as one Roman born,23 and insofar as I am a Christian with him, who has ardour for God, I desire to possess knowledge in accordance with the truth, and as vicar of the apostolic see (whatever my worth) I shall endeavour to make good with suitable suggestions according to my measure what I ascertain to be missing anywhere in the full catholic faith. Indeed this stewardship has been enjoined on me by the divine saying: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). Since if blessed apostle Paul, the chosen vessel (Acts 9:15; cf. 2 Cor 4:7), is spurred by fear and shouts aloud, it is much more fearful to my mean stature, if I, in my preaching, withhold what has been divinely inspired and handed on by the devotedness of the Fathers. Text in Thiel, pp. 349-358. I.e. Rome. For observations on the elevated classical style of the papal scrinium, and especially the use of prose-rhythm or strictly metred sentence endings (clausulae), see S. Oberhelmann, Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First Century B.C. to Fourth Century A.D., Lewiston, 2003. 20 On Faustus, see Part 2, Section 2, n. 6 below, and the translation of Letter 22* in Section 5 below. See the Glossary for the title magister. 21 See PLRE 2, p. 625, s.v. “Irenaeus 4”. 22 On this term see the Glossary. 23 See Part 1, Chapter 1, on Gelasius’ origins. 18 19



TRANSLATION

2. I pray Your Piety not to judge my obligation to the divine plan as arrogance. Let it be far from a Roman emperor, I ask, that he should reckon as damage the truth that has been disclosed to his understanding. In fact, august Emperor, there are two ways in which this world is chiefly ruled: the hallowed authority of the pontiffs (pontificum) and royal power.24 In these two the responsibility of the bishops (sacerdotum) is so much greater, to the extent that at the time of divine judgement they will render an account even for the very rulers of human beings. Indeed, my most indulgent son, you must know that you are permitted to superintend through high office of a human kind; however, in your devotedness you bow your head25 to the leaders (praesulibus) of divine affairs, and from them you await the occasions for your salvation, 26 and, in both taking the heavenly sacraments and being suitably disposed to them, you acknowledge that you must be subject to the order of religion, rather than be in control of it. And so in these affairs you depend on their judgement, and do not wish them to be reduced to your will. For if, as much as pertains to the order of public discipline, by acknowledging that the imperial rule has been conferred on you by heavenly dispensation, the overseers (antistites) of religion themselves also obey your laws, lest their opinions which are extrinsic to worldly affairs be regarded as standing in opposition to them, with what willingness, I entreat you, is it fitting that you obey those who have been assigned to the most excellent and venerable mysteries? Accordingly, just as a charge of no light weight presses upon the pontiffs to remain silent because of the worship of the Divinity, as is proper, so there is no middling danger for those (heaven forbid!) who despise those whom they should obey. And if, in general, when all the bishops are administering divine affairs properly, it is appropriate for the hearts of the faithful to be subject to them, how much more should agreement with the leader of that see be adhered to, whom the most high Divinity willed to be preeminent among all the bishops, and the loyalty of the entire church has honoured continually? 3. Wherever Your Piety turns a clear gaze, never has anybody been able to raise himself by any completely human counsel to the privilege or acknowledgement of that one whom the voice of Christ set before all, whom the venerable church has always acknowledged and in her See Part 1, Chapter 4, on auctoritas and potestas. Lit. “necks”. 26 Sc. the sacraments, as is clear from what follows. 24 25



The Preeminence of Rome

devotedness holds as primate. The ordinances established by divine judgement can be assailed by acts of human presumption, but they cannot be overcome by the power of any of them. And if only the insolence against those who struggle were not so destructive, as what is fixed by the instigator (auctore) of our sacred religion himself cannot27 be distorted by any force! For God’s firm foundation stands (2 Tim 2:19)! Is it not true that when religion was infested by some people, it could be overrun by any innovation however great, and remained all the more unconquered by the very thing to which it was supposed it might succumb? Therefore, I beg you, in your time let them stop going around rashly looking for an opportunity to disturb the church, which they are not permitted to do, so that in no way do they take possession of what they are wickedly seeking to grasp, and keep their own measure before God and human beings. 4. On this account, in the sight of God I pray, entreat, and exhort Your Piety simply and sincerely to accept my petition with no displeasure: I ask, I really do, that you hear my prayer in this life, rather than (heaven forbid!) experience my accusation before the divine tribunal. Nor does it escape me, august Emperor, what the zeal of Your Piety has been in your private life.28 You have always aspired to participate in the promise of eternal life. On this account, I pray, please do not be angry with me if I love you so much that I wish you to have in perpetuity the reign that you have procured for a limited time, and that you who govern in this world might reign with Christ. It is certain, Emperor, that in your laws you suffer nothing to disappear from the name of Rome, nor do you permit damage to be inflicted. Can it be true then, distinguished prince, that you who long for Christ’s favours not only in the present but also in the future, in your time would allow someone to inflict loss on religion, on truth, on the integrity of the catholic communion and faith? With what confidence, I ask you, will you seek his rewards there when you do not prevent his losses here? 5. I beg you, do not let the statements made about your eternal salvation be burdensome. You have read what is written: Better are wounds Note the present tense, indicative, where we would expect the subjunctive. On conflicting reports (largely reflecting the bias in the sources, both pro- and anti-Chalcedonian) regarding Anastasius’ piety, see Thiel, p. 352 n. 19; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, pp. 190-191; M. Meier, Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches, Stuttgart, 2009, pp. 269-288; and F. K. Haarer, Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World (ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 46), Cambridge, 2006, pp. 115-183. 27

28



TRANSLATION

from a friend than kisses from an enemy (Prov 27:6). I beg Your Piety that these words be impressed on your mind by the same affection as they are spoken by me. Let nobody deceive Your Piety. What Scripture bears witness to figuratively through the prophet is true: “My dove, my perfect dove, is one” (Song 6:8): the Christian faith, which is catholic, is one. But what is separated from fellowship with all traitors and their successors by an unadulterated, pure, unblemished communion is truly catholic. Otherwise there will not be a divinely commended separation but a lamentable disorder. Nor is there then any reason left, if we want to allow access to this in any infection you like, not to open the entry and the door to all heresies. For whoever offends in one point is guilty of all (Jam 2:10), and Whoever despises the smallest details falls down little by little (Eccli 19:1).29 6. This is what the apostolic see earnestly seeks to avert, so that, because the upright root is the glorious confession of the apostle, it not be blemished by any gash of crookedness, by any infection at all. For if (may God ward this off!) something like that were to happen,30 which we are confident could not come to pass, as things are we would either venture to resist an error, or where else would we demand correction for those in error? Accordingly, if Your Piety denies that the people of one city can be brought to order, what are we going to do about the aggregate of the entire world if (heaven forbid!) it has been taken in by our violation of duty? If the whole earth is reformed from the despicable, profane tradition of its fathers, how could the people of one city not be reformed, if a firm preaching follows? Therefore, glorious Emperor, do I myself not want peace between the churches, which I embrace even if it could come about at the cost of my blood? But, I pray you, let us ponder in our minds the kind of peace it should be, not just any kind at all, but truly Christian. For how can that be a true peace which has lacked inviolate love? The kind of love it should be is preached to us clearly by the apostle, who says: “Love from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith” (1 Tim 1:5). How, I beg you, will it be from a pure heart, if it is corrupted with infection from without? How can it be from a good conscience, if it has been mixed up with the crooked and the wicked? To what extent is it from a sincere faith, if it remains associated with traitors? Although we have already said it many times, it is nonetheless necessary to repeat it without ceasing, and not to keep quiet as long as the name of peace 29

Cf. the use of the same citation in ep. 14.26, Section 4 below. Sc. that the clean root be blemished.

30



The Preeminence of Rome

continues to be given as an excuse. It is not up to us to make peace, as is hatefully bandied about, but to teach that we want the kind of peace that is both the only peace and the one apart from which no peace can be shown to exist. 7. Certainly, if it is believed that the teaching of Eutyches,31 against which the guard of the apostolic see remains vigilant, could be in agreement with the saving truth of the catholic faith, it should be brought forth, defended, and asserted with as much force as you like, so that it might not only be shown by the teaching itself how inimical it is to the Christian faith, but demonstrated how many deadly heresies it encompasses in its dregs. But if, as we are more confident, you judge that the teaching of Eutyches should be shut out of catholic minds, I beg you, why do you determine that the infections of those proven to be polluted by it are not to be refuted likewise, since the apostle says: “Not only those who do things that should not be done are seen to be guilty, but also whose who approve those who do them”? (Rom 1:32). Accordingly, just as one cannot accept a purveyor of stubbornness without equally approving the stubbornness, so one cannot refute perversity when the accomplice and adherent of perversity is granted admittance. 8. Assuredly, in your laws abettors of crimes and protectors of robbers are bound together with equal punishment when they are judged, nor is a man considered not privy to wrongdoing who, even if he did not commit the crime himself, did, however, accept an intimate agreement with the one who committed it. Accordingly, when the Council of Chalcedon, on behalf of the true communion of the catholic and apostolic faith, condemned Eutyches, the instigator of the detestable madness, it did not consider it sufficient unless it struck down equally his partner Dioscorus32 and the rest. Then, in this way, just as there is no doubt that what has always been done or is being done in regard to each heresy, their successors Timothy, Peter, and the other Peter of Antioch have been struck out, not one by one by a council called again to deal with them singly, but once for all as a consequence of the regulation of the assembled synod. How, therefore, does it not appear obvious that those also who communicated with them and were their accomplices, and all who were deservedly separated completely from the catholic and apostolic communion, are bound together in a similar sense? Hence we 31 On the archimandrite of Constantinople and his miaphysite Christology, see Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. 32 On Dioscorus of Alexandria, see Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”.



TRANSLATION

maintain justly that Acacius too, who preferred to cross over to a destiny of treachery than to stand firm in the integrity of the catholic and apostolic communion, should be removed from our fellowship, given that for almost three years he has been informed by appropriate instruction by letters from the apostolic see that he should not enter that fellowship. But after he became part of an outside communion, the only thing possible was for him to be cut off thereupon from the catholic and apostolic community, lest if we remained inactive for a short time we too would be regarded, through his agency, as having submitted to the infections of the traitors. But really, when he was struck with such a punishment, did he return to his senses, promise reform, correct his error? Or did the one who did not feel even heavy blows want to be held in confinement when he had been treated more leniently? Because he died in his own treachery and condemnation, as well as the fact that his name cannot be added to what is read out in church,33 the infection of outside communion must not be permitted. On this account, either let him be shown to be uncorrupted by what he has shared with the heretics, in whose communion he was implicated, or he cannot avoid being rejected with them. 9. But the bishops of the East are muttering on these grounds, namely, that the apostolic see did not write to them on those subjects, as if in their letters they personally informed the apostolic see on the subject of the legitimate acceptance of Peter , or as likely that they were not already the accomplices of his irregular reception. Just as they are unable to inform us that he was cleansed of his heretical crookedness, so in no way will they be able to excuse themselves for being partners with heretics. If perhaps they had added that with one voice and will they all made a report to the apostolic see about the reception of Peter through Acacius, let them all realise that by a similar exchange we wrote back to them through the same Acacius. Indeed, because the authority of the apostolic see has been put at the head of the universal church in all Christian centuries, it is strengthened both by a succession of canons of the Fathers and by a complex tradition. But from this, whether somebody can appropriate something contrary to the ordinances of the synod of Nicaea, can be laid before those who belong to the one communion, not disclosed to the minds of people (societatis) outside. If any among them has the confidence, let him come forward publicly and refute and instruct the apostolic see on both topics.34 Therefore, let the Sc. from the diptychs. See the Glossary below. Sc. canons and tradition.

33

34



The Preeminence of Rome

name that from a distance contrives the separation of the churches and of catholic communion be publicly removed,35 so that an upright peace and a unity of faith and communion be recovered; and then one of us has risen up against or is trying to rise up against venerable antiquity, let him be examined appropriately and legitimately. And from that it will become clear who preserves the formulation and tradition of the elders with measured purpose, who, irreverently attacking36 them, considers he can become an equal by theft (cf. Phil 2:6). 10. But if the character of the people of Constantinople, on account of which it is said that the name of the scandal, that is, of Acacius cannot be removed, is set before my eyes, I shall keep quiet, because when both the previous heretic Macedonius37 was driven out and Nestorius38 was thrown out within living memory, the populace of Constantinople chose to remain catholic than be repressed by their feeling for previous leaders who had been condemned. I shall keep quiet, because those who had been baptised by the very same condemned leaders, while remaining in the catholic faith, were troubled by no disturbance. I shall keep quiet, because the authority of Your Piety has now also curbed popular riots on the occasion of public games.39 And so the multitude of the city of Constantinople will unavoidably obey you much more for the salvation of their souls if you, as their prince, lead them back to the catholic and apostolic communion. Indeed, august Emperor, if someone were to attempt something against the laws of the state (heaven forbid!), you would be incapable of allowing it for any reason. Do you think that it is not important for your conscience that the populace subjected to you should be brought to an inviolate and upright worship of i.e. remove the name of Acacius from the diptychs. This is a participle in the Latin, attested in all the MSS. 37 Macedonius, made patriarch of Constantinople in 342, was the author of a doctrine that downplayed the divinity of the Holy Spirit. His followers became known as “Macedonianists” or “Pneumatomachoi”. The heresy was vigorously opposed by the Cappadocian Fathers, and condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. 38 Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428-431). Nestorius evicted Macedonians from their churches in Constantinople as part of his campaign against heresy. Gelasius directed his tract De duabus naturis against the heretical doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches in equal measure. 39 Anastasius I sought to contain the violence of the Blue and Green factions in the early part of his reign, in a bid to establish law and order in Constantinople and Antioch. The city prefect Julian (PLRE 2, p. 639, s.v. “Julianus 14”), appointed at the accession of Anastasius in 491 ce, restricted theatrical shows and so provoked violent riots, which Anastasius quelled by sending in troops. Rioting erupted again in the imperial capital in 493. See Haarer, Anastasius I, pp. 225-227. 35

36



TRANSLATION

the Divinity? In the end, if the spirit of the people of one city is not considered harmed if divine affairs are reformed, as the situation demands, how much more, in order not to harm divine affairs, neither should we nor can we damage at all the loyal faith of the universal name of catholics! 11. And yet the same people demand to be cured by our will. Therefore, enable them to be provided with appropriate remedies, otherwise (heaven forbid!) we can perish with them by going over into their ruin, but cannot save them. I leave to your conscience, under divine judgement, what should now preferably be followed in this case: whether, as we desire, we proceed at the same time to a sure life, or, as they demand, we aim for an obvious death. 12. But they still try to call the apostolic see “haughty” and “arrogant” because it is suggesting medication for them. It is often the condition of the sick to complain when their doctors bring them back to healthy habits by observing suitable rules, rather than to agree themselves to give up or reject their harmful cravings. If we who are providing suitable remedies for souls are “haughty”, what should those who resile from us be called? If we who say that the ordinances of the Fathers must be obeyed are “haughty”, by what name are those to be called who recoil from those ordinances? If we who wish for divine worship, with its contents, to be kept inviolate and undiminished are above ourselves, let them say what kind of name should be given to those who even decide against the Divinity. So the rest, who are in error, reckon us to be, on the grounds that we do not conspire with their insanity. However, truth herself reveals where the spirit of haughtiness truly stands and fights.



SECTION 2: ACACIUS AND THE EPONYMOUS SCHISM

Letters 1, 10 and 27 illustrate Gelasius’ dealings with bishops of the East over the most significant doctrinal controversy of his day, the Acacian schism. The background to the schism, which began under Gelasius’ predecessor Felix III but may be traced back to the discontent arising from the Council of Chalcedon, has been treated in our Introduction to the volume.1 In the first letter, by doing away with the various arguments which the Easterners continued to put forward as an excuse for defending the case of Acacius, Gelasius shows that the vow of excommunication brought against him is binding. There is internal evidence that Letter 1 cannot postdate 488 or 489, meaning that it was written while Gelasius was deacon for Felix III.2 Koch also suggests that Gelasius acted as secretary for Felix’ predecessor Simplicius (468-483), who was instrumental in the eventual sentence of condemnation against Acacius.3 There were certainly precedents for the use of deacons as secretaries for their bishops.4 Other examples of the role of the scrinium in the production of papal letters are surveyed below in Section 4. Letter 10 is a commonitorium, or strict instruction, addressed to magister Faustus, legate of the apostolic see, rebutting the objections See Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. See Thiel, p. 285. 3 Koch, Gelasius im kirchen-politischen Dienste, pp. 53-58. 4 Similarly, Prosper of Aquitaine was said to have written or drafted several important letters for Leo I. See further examples from the scrinium of Gregory the Great in R. M. Pollard, “A Cooperative Correspondence: The Letters of Gregory the Great”, in A Companion to Gregory the Great, ed. by B. Neil, M. Dal Santo, Leiden, 2013, pp. 291-312 (296-299). 1 2



TRANSLATION

made by the Greeks, but most particularly their allegation that Acacius had been deposed contrary to the canons. The document claims that the jurisdiction of the apostolic see is supreme, but the letter is undated.5 The basic argument of the Greeks, according to Gelasius, was that Felix III had acted alone in condemning Acacius, and not in synod with the other bishops of Italy. The addressee of the commonitorium, Faustus the magister, is probably the same Faustus the defensor, who was involved in a legal case with Eucharistus, one of the addressees of Fragment 24, and the subject of Letter 9* on the same matter.6 The commonitorium instructs Faustus what arguments to use during his legation in Constantinople. Giving clear instructions to legates on what they were permitted to say clearly became a priority after the disastrous showing of Misenus and Vitalis in 483, and Tutus after them.7 Gelasius declares that Acacius died in error, with the result that no papal absolution can now be given to him (compare the similar argument against Vitalis in Letter 30 in Section 3). Letter 27 to the bishops of the East rehearses the same arguments as Letter 26 to the bishops of Dardania, regarding the proper condemnation of Acacius by the apostolic see. In it Gelasius attacks the Alexandrines and Antiochenes for not spurning the anti-Chalcedonian bishops appointed after Calendio (479-484) and John Talaia (482). Even if they were ignorant of the status of these rival bishops, once they discovered their character, they should have shunned communion with the heretics. It is interesting that Gelasius has to stipulate that ignorance was no excuse, since it is an admission that the ordinary person and even most of the clergy could have had no idea of the ideological stances of those appointed to their spiritual oversight. Thus the crucial importance of letters like these three, which were a prime means for the bishop of Rome to advocate his doctrinal stance and garner support.

W. Haacke, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma (Analecta Gregoriana, 20), Rome, 1939, pp. 37-38 (nr. 13), argued unconvincingly that it was a forgery. 6 Gelasius, frg. 24, ed. Thiel, p. 498; ep. 9*, ed. Löwenfeld, pp. 5-6. The latter is translated in Section 6. 7 On these three legates see Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. On the role of legates sent by Pope Hormisdas to Constantinople during the last phase of the Acacian schism, and the sending of indiculi, see A. Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411-533, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 227-230. 5



Acacius and the eponymous schism

Letter 18 Blessed Gelasius to the bishops of the East Or a copy of the letter of blessed Pope Gelasius showing cause why communion with Acacius must be avoided, sent to the bishops of the East. 1. […] that after five hundred years they intended to overturn the ordinances of Christ, although the human law of the thirty years9 cannot be abrogated: […] that St Athanasius was not thereby condemned by the synod of the East because that see did not agree to it,10 or St John of Constantinople11 or St Flavian12[….]. If, therefore, those who were condemned by the synod of the East could not be condemned because that one see alone did not consent to it, it follows that, even without a synod, the one who was condemned through the condemnation of the same see alone is condemned. Ultimately, if there is no verdict from that see alone,13 why are they so very desirous of having the sentence rescinded? 2. […] by the testimony of Acacius, where he corroborates that the catholic Timothy14 referred the condemnation of Peter15 to the other Rome, where he had been ordained by a heretic, that is, by an accomplice in his madness; where Acacius says: “so that on this charge he was subjected to more severe punishments, and thus the successor to

Text in Thiel, pp. 287-311. The thirty-year statute of limitation, during which charges could be brought, was legislated for by the CTh 4.14.1; ed. by Krüger, Mommsen, Meyer, p. 194. Cf. Gelasius’ ep. 17.2; ed. Thiel, p. 382.The statute of limitation applied also to rural parishes that had been peacefully administered during a thirty-year period: see Canon 17 of the Council of Chalcedon in Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. *95; cf. Part 1, Chapter 2, n. 71. 10 Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria 328-373, was condemned by synods of Antioch (341), Arles (353), and Milan (355), but not by Rome. 11 John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople 398-407, was condemned by the so-called Synod of the Oak in Constantinople in 403, but not by Rome. 12 Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople 446-449, was condemned by Dioscorus of Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus in 449, but again not by Rome. 13 That is, if it is not considered a verdict which comes from that see alone. 14 Sc. Timothy Salofaciolus, Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria (460-475, 477-482). 15 Sc. the condemnation of Peter Mongus, anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria (477, 482-490). 8 9



TRANSLATION

St Timothy, who died, is not in mediation”,16 which is now alleged. For his crimes, which Acacius referred, Peter was subjected to punishment, but nobody maintains that one set apart for high rank deserves his punishments. The emperor made every allowance for the election of the catholic Timothy; therefore, it is unavoidable that he follow what he himself established and said: “a catholic ordained by catholics”. Therefore, it is untrue that Peter is said to be placed “in mediation” so that he should succeed Timothy, with whom he never entered into communion and by whom it was demanded that Peter should be banished further away. 3. If John had sworn that he would not become bishop,17 how did you enjoin that “he was worthy – the one to whom the lion’s share of things pertaining to the governance of the church was entrusted”? Beyond the presbyterate, what is more important to the governance of the church if not the episcopate? If John had taken an oath, how do you enjoin this ? And if he had taken an oath, why have you put him in a position where what he had taken an oath against, happened? Otherwise, if what you enjoined has come about, why are you annoyed, why do you say that he perjured himself to you, when what he had sworn would not happen, came about, since you enjoined on him that this should be done? He was an apocrisiarius, all affairs were his concern, he personally took care of all church matters, none of the clergy of Alexandria was considered more important than he: in rank he was a presbyter; what could be added beyond his governance of the church, what further could have been imparted to him if not the episcopate? You therefore wanted him to be bishop, you who enjoined that he should be beyond what he was (for nothing else was left except that he should become bishop). 4. However, I am surprised if the emperor is “under coercion” not to expel Peter, and asserts that it was not possible for one man to be under coercion, so that what Peter did not want should happen against his will. For the emperor himself too, while alleging coercion, defines it as evil because he does it under coercion, informing us that he was unwilling to do this of his own free will, and bears witness that he is undergoing it against his will. 16 Lat. in sequestris, a legal term. Throughout his correspondence Gelasius appears to cite verbatim from letters of others, especially his opponents; these words or phrases are indicated in Thiel by italics, by us in inverted commas. 17 On John Talaia, see Section 1, n. 12.



Acacius and the eponymous schism

5. If you think that the person18 of Peter is to be excused, we can examine the damage that was done, that of a heretic and one condemned. If you allege that he was “in mediation”, he was substituted for the catholic Timothy because of the scandal. Neither the writings of Acacius, who states openly why Peter was shut out, attest to this, nor of the emperor, who both promised the catholic Timothy, from whose communion Peter was separated, that what he had established would remain in place, and by whom it was demanded that Peter should be removed further away and was brought both here and to Constantinople, as even Acacius bears witness that Peter was condemned by St Proterius19 in the deacons’ quarters, and established that a catholic be created by a catholic – not Peter, who was a heretic, although as substitute he was placed “in mediation”. The ones ordained by him were ordered to be condemned without delay unless they returned to communion with St Timothy. 6. If Peter is said to have “reformed” subsequently, it is demonstrated that in the meantime he lingered so long in this very error, and after his error should not have been put in charge of the catholics by whom he was reformed from his error. And so he deserved pardon, not office; especially because, being ordained by heretics, he had no substance of the episcopal rank whatever. If this is denied, they are both worsted by the testimony of Acacius, and it will be demonstrated by the account of events that, when Timothy the heretic was condemned with his accomplices, Peter was his comrade, and, sticking with him right up to his death, was appointed by Timothy’s followers. Finally, it needs to be asked whether, right up to the day of his death, Peter held communion with St Timothy. If this did not happen, without a doubt he will be among those of whom the emperor said: “if they are separated from the communion of the catholic Timothy, unless they return to communion and favour with him within two months, they are condemned in perpetuity”. 7. Moreover, it is laughable that certain people maintain that Peter was ordained by the same catholic Timothy. For during his lifetime, while he presided, Timothy in no way ordained Peter, never agreed to communicate by any means with the man whom he demanded be banished still further away, as has been said. Nor while he himself presided

18 In what follows a nice legal distinction is repeatedly made between Peter’s persona and his alleged crimes. 19 The Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria (452-457), presbyter and churchsteward under Dioscorus, and elected to replace him after Dioscorus was deposed at the Council of Chalcedon.



TRANSLATION

was he able to ordain him as succeeding bishop:20 let them see for themselves if he ordained Peter after his death. But at the time when Peter assailed the church, St Timothy was not in Alexandria,21 nor could he ordain a pontiff while he himself was alive, as has been said. But rather Peter, operating against the law in every case, while Timothy was presiding as the legitimate bishop,22 dared to apply the title of bishop to himself. No catholics of any kind at the time, at least all those who were of the same thinking as Timothy and in communion with him, did this, save “one accomplice in Peter’s madness”, as Acacius now testifies.23 You see, the catholics who had not entered into communion with the heretical Timothy continued to be in communion with the catholic Timothy while he presided and was himself catholic. They recognised him as the legitimate bishop, could not superimpose another or consecrate a heretic. From this it is apparent that Peter was ordained by the heretics, and could not thereby preside over a catholic church, precisely because this act is adjudged abominable and unlawful, namely, that the man who had long been wallowing in treachery should be inflicted upon the necks of the faithful.24 If this is allowed, then it is possible in the case of other heresies as well that anyone at random is likewise permitted to do what no precedents, no rules, no ecclesiastical laws ever allow to be imposed. 8. But, you say, Peter was “reformed”. In the meantime, as was already said above, you will demonstrate from this very assertion that he had been a heretic. The man who is said to have joined the catholic faith after condemning a heresy should be subject to the catholics by whom he was reformed, not set over them. For the disciple is not above the teacher (Matt 10:24), and it was enough that in his subjection he provided a model for his reformed ways, and, after a long-lasting error and protracted treachery, not rule over those by whom he was corrected and reformed. Then, finally, I ask what kind of error he condemned, what kind of right confession he chose, and what faith he sought – the true or 20 Lat. superordinare, referring to ordaining a bishop’s successor, although not in dictionaries, is attested in e.g. Mansi 3.624A, ep. 2 Conc. Aquil., and Ambrose, ep. 12.5. Sacerdotem here definitely means “bishop”¸ “high-priest”, as it were, and is often used by Gelasius with this connotation. 21 On the order of the tyrant Basiliscus, Timothy had been relegated to his Pachomian monastery at Canopus, a Chalcedonian stronghold: Zachariah, HE 5.4, Theodore Lector, HE 409, Theophanes, Chron. 121,14-17. 22 Lat. superstite […] legitimo sacerdote. 23 For the sentiments see Acacius’ ep. ad Simplicium, among Simplicius’ letters, 8.2; ed. Thiel, pp. 193-294. 24 The translation reflects the mixed metaphors of the Latin.



Acacius and the eponymous schism

the false? If he is following the catholic faith that was defined at Chalcedon, why is he in communion with those who absolutely refuse to accept the truth of two natures in Christ? Why does he have the names of Dioscorus, of the heretic Timothy, read out?25 Why does everyone who comes from there (Alexandria), with whom Peter without doubt is in communion, defend what is opposed to the synod of Chalcedon? But if he proclaims that the faith of such people is the true one, it is clear enough, rather than that he has turned away from his own error. 9. However, I am not surprised that he is said to have reformed, although he is stuck in his stubbornness, when there is no agreement about who reformed or received him. Indeed, the rule of the church and the ancient tradition are known to everyone: for it would have been appropriate for him either to have been subject to examination or received by the bishop of his province, that is, the overseer of the second see.26 However, the overseer of Alexandria, even though he judged that Peter should be received after he had condemned his crooked ways (pravitate), did not do this before he referred it to the apostolic see. Examples of many other cases dealt with by the catholic Timothy instruct us that those who have accepted the petitions of the heretics, in which they profess to condemn their previous error, do not confirm their reception or communion before they have dealt with their cases to the satisfaction of this see, and from that point ask that it be confirmed, just as has been done. I ask, I really do, who subjected Peter to examination, or who accepted him, or who restored him, who allowed him to enter into catholic communion. On this point for the moment I shall keep quiet, because all these aspects pertain to the penitent, inasmuch as he is both a heretic and ordained by heretics. It is established beyond doubt that Peter, who is now asserted to be reformed, went astray; you see, the pardon of those who have lapsed through fear is one thing, the pardon for choosing to be voluntarily crooked is another. If Acacius received this Peter, by what right, by what rule? Although it neither belonged to that pontiff himself to do this, and he did not want to refer the case to me – no, it was repeatedly objected to him that he should not do it, 25 Sc. on the diptychs, on which see the Glossary below. Dioscorus, who became patriarch of Alexandria after Cyril in 444, was anathematised at Chalcedon; Timothy Aelurus was anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of the same see from 457-460 and 475-477. 26 Sc. Alexandria, second in importance after Rome in Gelasius’ reckoning, although Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381) stipulates that that city comes after Rome: see Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. *32. This canon was reinforced by Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon: see ibid., pp. *99-100.



TRANSLATION

and earnestly charged that, at our suggestion, he have Peter driven from priestly and catholic duties, further away from Alexandria – why did he dare to do what I vetoed, and trample on what had been enjoined? 10. Or was it the emperor who examined and received him? It is agreed nonetheless that Peter was not received according to the church’s rules; his entire reception, therefore, is foreign to the church’s rule. But if you said: “But the emperor is a catholic”, we would say – may his peace be preserved – that he is a son, not the leader of the church: it is proper for him to learn, not to teach, what is due to religion; he possesses the privileges of his authority (potestas), which he has obtained by divine providence for the administration of public affairs; and if he is not ungrateful for the favours that are his, let him not appropriate anything opposed to the dispensation of the heavenly order. For God willed that the determinations of the church pertain to bishops,27 not to the authorities of this world, which, if they are believers, he willed to be subject to his church and to the bishops. Let the emperor not claim for himself a right that is not his, and a function (ministerium) that has been assigned to another; let him not recklessly oppose that One by whom everything has been ordered, and be seen to fight against the favours of the One from whom he has obtained his own proper authority. It is not by the laws of the state, not by the authorities of the world, but by the pontiffs and bishops that the almighty God of the Christian religion willed that lords and bishops be ordained, and that those who turn back from error be examined and received. Christian emperors must subject, not prefer, their jurisdictions to the leaders of the church. There is, therefore, no strict process of examination, nor can that reception stand of a man whom the church, by its laws, has neither thoroughly examined in proper order nor restored by communion. And so Acacius, instead of recalling Peter to catholic communion, held communion with his error and prostituted the catholic faith. You see, because his reception was not in order, it follows that he remained in error. 11. We are also removing Acacius from communion with us, in case through him we too are deemed to be in communion with Peter, who was subjected to examination and received through no rule of the church, and consequently remained in his original error. Moreover, how is Acacius not named as a culprit for having communicated with the man whom he reported was condemned? Does fresh and brackish water Lat. sacerdotes, also used in what follows to designate the power of bishops vis à vis the authority of emperors. 27



Acacius and the eponymous schism

flow from the same opening? (Jam 3:11) For since the apostle says: “If I build up again the same things that I tore down, I prove myself a transgressor” (Gal 2:18) – since, I say, an apostle of such stature made that statement, judge for yourselves whether Acacius, who afterwards praised with his own words the man whom he previously condemned, was not a transgressor. Out of your own mouth, it says, you will be justified, and out of your own mouth you will be condemned (Matt 12:37). Peace, peace, and there is no peace! (Ezek 13:10) For peace is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith (1 Tim 1:5). Which of these qualities is displayed in Peter, which in Acacius? The former, examined and received by no legitimate or ecclesiastical rule, continues in his crooked way; the latter became his accomplice in his ongoing crookedness, even after he had personally declared him condemned. 12. “But it was because of coercion from the emperor”, he says, “that Acacius held communion with Peter”. This itself is enough, because what is said to have been effected by coercion is shown to be crooked. Let Acacius, or the one who makes that statement, see whether he is declaring publicly that the catholic emperor was the originator of his crookedness. For our part, we do not believe this about a catholic emperor, seeing that in our keeping we have his sacra, in which he bears witness that he holds fast to the catholic faith and the definition of the synod of Chalcedon. And thereby we also demand from the same emperor that heretics should be driven out; and the more so does the man who alleges that the emperor was either unwilling or unable to do this, think the very worst of the emperor; since nothing is to be preferred to the Divinity and it is impious not to carry out with ready will what concerns God. For our part, I say, we do not believe these things about the emperor; for heaven forbid that he should be said to be fighting against the catholic faith contrary to what he professes publicly, contrary to the dignity of the imperial rule. But he does fight (heaven forbid!) if he compels anybody by coercion in this matter which is hostile to the catholic church. But by this very fact, as has been said, it is agreed to be crooked because it is said to have been carried out by coercion. But let those who make these allegations look to what concerns the emperor; meanwhile we, in this part of the emperor’s realm too, read out his sacra, in which he discloses that he did everything on the advice of Acacius, and at the same time we produce Acacius’ writings, which praise the emperor for so doing. Nobody praises highly what he endures through coercion, nobody of his own free will begs that coercion be inflicted on himself. If he acted because of coercion, let him admit that what he did was wicked;



TRANSLATION

for, being unwilling, he did it unwillingly; you see, nobody does of his will what he does through coercion. But let him admit that what he did not want to happen was wicked, if he were not pressured by coercion. If what he did through coercion is wicked, why does he follow it up with praise? Why, to the ruination of others, does he stand forth as the eulogist of his own business, which he carried out against his will? From this it is clear that what he does is not a question or coercion but of free will, at least while it pleases him, while he is the one to praise, while he announces that he is ahead of the other pontiffs of times past:28 after all, he is the one who says “now the church of Alexandria is breathing again, and is filled with the abundance of spiritual nourishment” (cf. Is 66:11), of whom he had said previously when he had been exiled, “the hearts of the faithful” – that is, of his people – “rejoice with the father” – that is, with the catholic Timothy. Ultimately, let him see for himself whether he is saying that the emperor does everything that is bad, when the things he claims he endures through coercion, he admits are wicked and declares he does not do them of his free will. These things are so bad, then, that he would not have wanted to do them had coercion not constrained him: what he loudly proclaims before us he is shown to perform not by coercion but of his free will. But if they agree that he has gone astray so that they look for a remedy, let them seek a remedy in its proper order, let them agree to have his wounds treated. A sick person never contradicts his physician on the terms of his treatment; in the same way, let them allow his wounds, which indeed they brought on the entire church by his aberrations, to be treated with patience until they acquire true health again – those very wounds, at any rate, that the same people do not deny were evilly inflicted. 13. “But the people of Alexandria”, he says, “demanded this with all their heart, and do not allow Peter to be removed from them for any reason”. What if the people of Alexandria were to entreat that idol worship be set up? For what difference does it make whether a heretic or a pagan is allowed to be set over the catholic church? What difference, if the people of Alexandria beg that a man of any other heresy you like be given them as their leader? For the person who has done this with one heresy is able to try it with another, if he so pleases. If, in the course of human affairs, there was an attempt to have something accomplished against the laws of the state, a good emperor would in no way give it his assent – does he yield to those who make demands against God? If Gelasius is playing here on the prepositions prae and retro.

28



Acacius and the eponymous schism

assent must be given to those clamouring for crooked dealings, where is the authority of the emperor? Where is the adjudication? Where is the administration of the laws? If what the petitioners are requesting, contrary to the catholic faith and the church’s rule, must be conceded, how is the emperor catholic? And on this principle, should what may not be done against the will of human beings be done against God? Lest ungodly deeds be usefully rebuked, yes, lest those designing deadly plots be reformed, are they to perish forever as they pile up their mad acts? It is not the mark of a good emperor nor of a catholic prince to yield to those making demands that are against his own interests; no, in the negotiation of these very affairs, it is salutary both to the entire state and his own well-being and reign not to have acceded to what is contrary to God. 14. “But they are not”, you say, “at variance either with good morals or right faith”. How are they not harmful to good morals in demanding that the treacherous ally of a parricide29 and the condemned partner of heretics be the manager of divine affairs, the man for whom it was unlawful to be in authority or was unfit for public office either? How is it not at variance with religion that a heretic and a condemned man, who obtained the spurious title of bishop (sacerdos) from the heretics, should wish to preside over the catholic faith? 15. “But he is reformed”, you say, “and everyone wanted this, both those by whom he was reformed and those by whom he was recognised as approved”. Let us see, then, by careful examination who these people may be. Assuredly they are the ones who you attest were likewise reformed from error with him. There remains no doubt that they are his accomplices: by what laws of theirs, therefore, ought those whom an equivalent crime has implicated be admitted to give whatever evidence? 16. “But”, you say, “those who were regarded as being in communion with the catholic Timothy, by now being in communion with Peter, have made similar demands about the same person”. They, therefore, are those who were conspicuous in their transgression of the catholic communion, the ones who, as has been said, after Timothy’s death fell away from the communion with him that they had maintained up to his passing, for fellowship with Peter, with whom the catholic Timothy is shown never to have been in communion. And so they have lapsed from communion with the catholic Timothy  – no, from the catholic com29 This term appears frequently in ecclesiastical debates of the time. See e.g. Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, p. 173. The accusation of parricide was frequently made when the murder of a priest or bishop was involved.



TRANSLATION

munion. Consider how Peter was reformed and approved, the man, it is said, who either by his accomplices or by the transgressors of the catholic communion sought the position of overseer. 17. “But the catholic Timothy”, you say, “was thereby not in communion with Peter because he had encroached upon the episcopate while he was still alive”. If it had been on account of the episcopacy that he supplanted Timothy, Peter would have been removed; but his not being in communion with him was not by reason of the episcopacy but of heresy. For communion concerns the faith; but if it were on account of the office, assuredly he could have communicated even with a layperson, if he had continued in the right faith.30 Why were those ordained by him ordered to be received into the catholic faith according to the rules? By this it is shown that he did not belong to the catholic communion. And then, if Peter was reformed, why did catholics, whether they were in Alexandria or throughout Egypt, remain separated from him? Why are those catholics not in communion with him, who to his dying day were in communion with the catholic Timothy and from that time on are truly catholic because, without any of Peter’s impudence, they persevere in the same communion? Therefore, it is patently obvious that those people, who, as was said, are in communion only with him and have demanded him as their leader, are either accomplices in his former crookedness or have crossed over to fellowship with him by departing from the catholic communion, and on that account are even reprehensively persecuting the catholics. 18. We have heard constantly and we know from factual report (about) those who are said to be in communion with the same man, (and) those who are separated from communion with him, who watch him proceeding against the catholic faith on a daily basis, and against the preaching of the apostolic see, and against the ordinances of the synod of Chalcedon. This is true to such a degree that, as witnesses to the insanity of their father, we can bring forward his sons, whom we have here (Rome). In a word, all the Egyptians who are engaged in various businesses in this city31 and communicate with Peter are so incapable of hearing the synod of Chalcedon and its definitions that they dare Lit. “if the right faith abided in him”. On Christian immigrants from Egypt in Rome see D. Noy, Foreigners in Rome: Citizens and Strangers, London, 2008, pp.  246-247. Noy, Foreigners, p.  247 n. 353, cites an inscription from 589 as the latest evidence for Egyptians in Rome. On John Talaia, the most famous Egyptian to visit Rome in the fifth century, see Section 1, n. 12 above. 30 31



Acacius and the eponymous schism

to find fault with us for holding fast to them. Therefore, it is clear from his disciples what the master teaches them, and from those he has begotten their heinous begetter is recognised. Yes, they are accustomed to proclaim openly that, if they were to hear Peter preaching the synod of Chalcedon, they would not put off anathematising him, from which it is clear enough that they bear witness to the fact that he advances a doctrine of that kind. Yes, we are asking you whether you think the synod of Chalcedon should be followed or not; if it should not be followed, how can you declare publicly in your letter that you hold fast to it? It is clear, therefore, that not only that none of your people abides by the catholic definition, but none is consistent even in his own confession. Accordingly, how can we believe you in your posturing about holding fast to the catholic faith when you do not hold fast even to what you broadcast openly in writing? But if, bound by your public declaration, you confirm that you abide in every way by the ordinances of the synod of Chalcedon, you are saying at the same time that you will accept the preaching of the apostolic see, which was read out, discussed, and accepted at that synod. Everything defined by all the pontiffs in the past who lived in the whole world from the time of the Lord Saviour, Pope Leo of blessed memory approved in the testimonies appended to his letter to Leo of august memory.32 19. If, therefore, you are following the ancient faith and what was handed down to us by the holy Fathers, if, with us, you think what they thought concerning the incarnation of the Lord Saviour, and do not depart in any way from the doctrine of the entire church – because neither are we more skilled than our ancestors, nor is it lawful for us to adopt by innovation something other than what those ancestors both learned and taught; nor are we more learned interpreters or expositors of the Council of Nicaea itself than those numerous, venerable leaders of substance, either in interpreting sagely or preaching faithfully – let us all hold fast to this common doctrine with sincere mind and true heart, and there is peace. Let us also maintain inviolate the rules which the church accepts from the same Fathers, and there is peace. Therefore, let these matters be certain, let them be fixed, and there is no discord. 20. If you allege that this is how it is among you, permit Our Solicitude to examine these affairs for a little while, because we wish to This is his ep. 165 (a reworking of ep. 124 to the monks of Palestine), also known as the Second Tome, in which Leo reinforced his Tomus ad Flavianum and defended the Council of Chalcedon and the entire synodal tradition that was grounded in Nicaea. Translated in Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 104-112. 32



TRANSLATION

have a more genuine peace as much as we desire to recognise a surer reason for peace. If your situation continues uncompromised, what is the meaning of your statement that Peter of Alexandria was “reformed” and “received” into the catholic faith? He therefore rejects everything that stands in the way of these definitions and wholeheartedly goes over to this formulation of catholic doctrine? What, then, do they want for themselves, those whom we recognise among us on a daily basis bawling against the synod of Chalcedon, growling and gnashing their teeth ( frementes atque frendentes) against what is preached by the apostolic see? If these people are reformed, then they hold fast to the beliefs mentioned above; if they hold fast to these beliefs, why do they attack them violently? If they profess those beliefs, why do they keep aloof from the catholics, who hold fast to the same things with unwavering profession? Or why do those who confess the true faith hold back from company with them? If they knew that they were keeping the one faith with them, it is therefore apparent that these who do not hesitate to fight openly against those beliefs that concern the catholic faith, who hold back from the profession of the catholics, are not catholics at all and thus on no reckoning whatever reformed. Well? Why is Peter in communion with them? If, while they persisted in error, he was approved by being examined about the true faith and received, if he at least reformed was brought over to beliefs that agreed with the catholic faith, he did not abide in them, because they are proven to be at odds with him. Why, then, is he in communion with such people? If he confesses openly those beliefs to which it is acknowledged he went over when he had laid aside his error, why is he in communion with his enemies? And thus it is proven more clearly than daylight that he was not reformed but persisted in the same contagion as that of the followers and professors with whom he is in communion. So you see, even this – that you want him to be reformed –33 is rebutted by all the evidence as false. On this account it is lawful that, even if he had reformed, he should have been subject to those who reformed him, not put in charge of them, since being ordained by these heretics he could not by any reckoning lead them. He is also convicted in this part of the empire where his reformed state is hidden, since he is discovered to be unambiguously in communion with those who persist in crookedness, and is driven from our communion, deservedly and justly in every way.

That is, you want him to look like a reformed person.

33



Acacius and the eponymous schism

21. See what a just reason we have at hand: we have also separated from our communion Acacius, who both justly reported earlier that Peter was condemned and afterwards illegally received him into his communion. You see, we had communion with Acacius to begin with; in order to preserve this unharmed, we warned him for about five years, and although he did not deign to write back, we for our part never ceased to exhort him to hold fast to the catholic faith34. In the end we alarmed him by sending legates,35 we coaxed him, forewarned him by threatening, persuading, imploring, holding damnation before him, that he might not yield to the communion of the lost: we charged him to remember the efforts he had expended originally for the catholic faith, and both urged him on to glory and warned him away from danger. Disregarding all this, he tricked the legates in order to allege that he was in error together with us, as it were, and implicated himself in communion with both a heretic and a condemned person,36 whom he himself had been instrumental in reporting. Until I learned these facts, I was able to remain in our original communion with him; but when I discovered this, if I had not separated him from communion with me without delay, the communion even with one who was now a transgressor would appear to me to continue nonetheless, and my communion which had been with a catholic would also be with the man who had preferred to enter into fellowship with heretics. To stop this happening, it was unavoidable that I break off communion with him and remove him from fellowship with me. So it was thereby unavoidable that I do this, because not to do it at all was not safe for the catholic faith. 22. “But the emperor”, you say, “used coercion to make Acacius communicate with Peter”. About this coercion both a great deal has already been said above, and a great deal will be said: from which let it be clear that there ought to have been coercion (if it was real) to spurn a bishop (sacerdotem) for the sake of the catholic faith, and compulsion to put up with whatever was opposed to it, provided that Acacius in no way departed from the authenticity of the catholic faith. Next, let it be shown by transparent argument that no coercion at all was brought to bear on Acacius by the emperor in this way, just as it is plain enough that the emperor on the contrary did everything on the advice of Acacius. Here Gelasius is speaking not personally but rather on behalf of his predecessor

34

Felix.

35 On the ill-fated embassy of Misenus and Vitalis, see Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. 36 That is, with Dioscorus and Peter Mongus.



TRANSLATION

23. “But even the emperor himself”, you say, “was under coercion to do these things”. For the moment I shall not ask about the reason for the coercion; however, there is no coercion greater than to be subject to divine worship and religion, by which everything is made propitious, by which, rather, all coercion is abolished and everything that is opposed to it is removed, and nothing at all is given precedence over it. In particular, there is nothing that should be preferred to God, since we have been commanded absolutely not even to prefer our souls to him (cf. Matt 16:25). For if we have disregarded him, not only can any coercion at all be advantageous, but no human affair, no matter what, can stand firm. Hence it appears that there is a greater coercion, a greater reason before all else to esteem everything as less than him. Besides, because there is no coercion except that it is alleged to exist, there is now no […]. Concerning the exclusion of Peter, an empty quarrel has been designed, to the effect that nobody tried to jump in when the heretic Timothy was driven out, and nobody resisted on behalf of the same Peter when he was subsequently expelled. Therefore, it is spuriously fabricated that this could not be done, because it is already agreed, by the precedent of the same events, that it was done without disturbance. Money was not the reason for it, and there is no coercion. For a disturbance was provoked by a rally of the heretics when St Proterius was killed,37 but there was never any disturbance incited by the catholics: and it is fitting that the riots of any peoples at all be curbed by the power of the state. And so that the madness of the crooked might be placated, who if they had been intimidated might have been stopped by mere fear, the divine religion is undermined and Christ’s church is torn to pieces! In the end, by the very fact that Acacius claims it was coercion, he proclaims that what he is doing is evil. Hence if he is coerced to strive against divine ordinances, I am under no coercion to do so. I have to guard against the evil that even you admit is evil, when you testified that you were doing it against your will, by coercion; no, it is a greater coercion for me, from the fear of God and the judgement to come, that I guard against evil. Why are you trying to draw me into your wrongdoing, which you perpetrate by coercion, although there is no coercion to submit to it? – no, as was said, the reason and the coercion for not doing so are greater.

37 Proterius had been lynched in riots on 28 March 457, and his body dragged through the city and burnt in the Hippodrome. See Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”, and Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, p. 155 n. 5 on the sources.



Acacius and the eponymous schism

24.38 “But reform me”, you say, “and do not remove me from your fellowship”. Abandon evil, turn to good,39 come back to me,40 and you are reformed and freed from evil and in no way separated from me. “But I am unable to”, you say, “and you should not abandon me”. You are sorry, as I see, that I am not going to perish with you; but I for my part am sorry that you will not be saved with me. If the person of Peter carries such great weight with you that you disregard God you will see that I am most certainly neither permitted nor disposed to do so. “Demand what can be done”, you say. And I say to you: “Ask me what can be done.” You see, it is easier for it to be done in order to esteem a human being less than God, so that the human being is opposed rather than God: if this cannot be done , it is much more impossible for it to be done by us to elect a human being by opposing God. There is greater reason for our inability to do this, than for your unwillingness to do it. We can say: “All of you, anathematise Peter; as long as he lives, do not hold communion with him but hold communion with us; and what account shall we render to God if Peter takes and destroys the souls which he is losing, if even in a small way we have allowed it to happen?” To what end do you try to draw me to yourself, but not rather come back to me? There is ruin there, salvation here; there is a steep descent there, sure safety here; there is deceit there, warning here; you do not want to return to things that will save you, and you want me to go down to those dangers. I do not know if I should do so even if you were the judge. 25. “But Acacius”, you say, “has been and continues to be forcefully crushed, so that he either arrived at those acts or cannot reform them”. It is indeed verified, yes, and shown on many accounts that Acacius did not withstand the force: because if he had refused he would not have arrived at those acts. Really, over and above his letters he is put to silence because everything was executed on his personal advice, and he praises the events highly as if they were inspired by heaven. But even if force with the emperor […] he was not tricked by the emperor through the legates, which has already been said by our legates too in their statement. If this is true, he is the culprit; if it is false, over and above that we will bring a more grievous charge against them as well, because on top of their transgression they have added a monstrous falsehood. But because this too is proved from Acacius’ letter, they have not made this statement There is a miscalculation in the paragraph numbers in Thiel’s edition, p. 300. Cf. Ps 13:15, 36:27; Vulg Amos 5:15. 40 Cf. Zech 1:2, Mal 3:7. 38 39



TRANSLATION

falsely. Thus his person is charged more severely, because he refused to rely on our legates, but rather tricked our legates. It is assuredly certain that he had reported this before he entered into communion, and had warned them not to hold communion. In the end, even if he is crushed by force, he should endure the force, not trample on faith and communion to assist the traitors and implicate himself with the condemned, just as Flavian of holy memory did, and others under emperors who were persecutors or heretics or pagans, and as recently happened in Africa.41 What then? Did they not suffer extreme force? And they were thereby victorious by suffering force, not by giving into violence. Were not those who, under such persecutors, denied Christ or went over to heresy rightly condemned by catholics and Christians? Was it any excuse that they were unable to withstand because they were subject to force? 26. “Why then”, you say, “were remedies provided for the lapsed?” Alright, I accept him, if you like, in the manner of the lapsed, as one doing penance throughout his life and at the end taking communion, just as we read was laid down for the lapsed; according to the procedure of this course let us recall him to the church. But now, if the administration of the entire church were admitted, will it carry such consequence (since this pertains to the pontiffs of the apostolic see, and the rationale of the whole administration seems to demand this) that the person of Acacius can be recalled to episcopal office? For precisely in this he shows that he did not surrender willingly but displayed a catholic sensibility, when he insists fittingly on the administration. 27. But, if he wants to and cannot, why does he crush others through the person of the emperor? If, as is reported, the emperor listens to Acacius, he can do so; if the emperor does not listen to him, although he should have dealt with him and should continue to deal with him firmly and manfully, assuredly by this very fact he is admitting that he is giving in, contrary to the catholic truth. And so in these circumstances it is plain that I am not involving myself in communion with him. For if he for his part is being crushed and cannot help himself, I for my part am not obliged at present to be an accomplice in his crushing tactics and his transgression; but because by God’s gift I am a free agent, I am keeping myself unimpaired at all events, so that even if it is impossible at the 41 Persecution of non-Arians by Vandals continued in North Africa, especially in Africa proconsularis, as ep. 9 to Succonius, bishop of Africa, shows; cf. Section 9. See further P. Heather, “Christianity and the Vandals in the Reign of Geiseric”, in Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends and Pupils, ed. by J. Drinkwater, B. Salway, London, 2007, pp. 137-146.



Acacius and the eponymous schism

moment, should God command it, it will be possible for the one who has the strength, on behalf of the authenticity of the communion and of the faith, to come to the aid of those who have lost the authenticity of the communion and of the faith. Otherwise, if we all lose it (heaven forbid!), how will it be recovered afterwards, particularly if there should be disgrace at the pinnacle of the apostolic see (may God never allow it to happen!). And so, if Acacius is bearing the violence of a human being so that he not reform errors, I am under a greater coercion from the fear of God and the obligation to protect the catholic communion and faith, of not becoming, on any account, by whatever means and on whatever terms, a partner of those who are established in error, but preserving myself absolutely untouched by their infection. If Acacius has an excuse because he has suffered violence, I, who am untroubled because the Lord is my surety, shall not be able to have any excuse at all then if, as was said, while the Lord is my surety I am not crushed by violence. Let these matters, therefore, be given over to divine justice until, as we have very often experienced, he restores freedom to the catholic communion and the Christian faith, and then we shall deal with those who are in Acacius’ error. For the part42 played by Acacius, through which the whole church has been wounded, cannot be resolved without the administration of the entire church. 28. “But also at the time”, you say, “when the heretic Timothy or that Peter was in charge of the church of Alexandria during Basiliscus’ tyrannical rule,43 Acacius was in communion with you”. What you say is true, but at that time Acacius was barely in communion with them, and was continuing in communion with me. Hence it is rather the case that if Acacius is undergoing force, now too he must show that he is the sort of person he showed himself to be during the tyrannical rule of the heretic Basiliscus, his persecutor. 29. “But now”, you say, “it concerns the interest of the state”. But a bishop should have mentioned that it concerned the greater interest of the public that the divine communion and authentic faith were kept safe. Is overturning religion in the interest of the state, and will religious authenticity not be in the interest of the state? I do not know whether those who make such allegations are of the same religion, and whether people of the same religion should make those allegations […] whom he 42 Lat. persona, here used with theatrical overtones of “part played” or “rôle”, rather than the legal nuances with which it had been deployed previously. 43 Basiliscus usurped power in 475 and held it for one year. See Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”.



TRANSLATION

would have wanted to keep as bishop for his people and those faithful to him when John was shut out, provided that he should allow a catholic pontiff and one of our communion to preside in the places that were suspect. Surely this matter clearly makes John’s case superior, while it is shown that when he was shut out and a heretic put in his place, it was not that a person deserved this office, but that an assault on the catholic faith was44 being organised? 30. We for our part have thus not brought a verdict against Acacius because he is a human being, because he is called Acacius, just as it can be said about any heretic you like, but for the reason that the person is a transgressor. And so the evil-doing that is in him is punished by the imposition of a verdict: if his transgression, his evil-doing, disappears, he will then not be that person against whom I have appeared to propose a binding verdict. For he will remain a human being and Acacius, whom it45 does not condemn insofar as he is a human being and is considered under the name of a human being, but insofar as he is a transgressor and an evil-doer. Therefore, if he stops being a transgressor and an evil-doer, on whom my verdict is binding, then this binding verdict of mine in his regard will not have any standing at all, if the person on whom it was imposed has been removed: for it will be someone other than he on whom the verdict was imposed, provided he makes a beginning of not being what he was, or of not being the one on whom the verdict was imposed. But if he begins to be what he was not, then to the extent that he begins to be one on whom my verdict was not imposed, the imposed verdict shall not remain at all where it stands. For as long as Acacius remains in the state against which the verdict was imposed, that verdict is truly binding on him on whom it was imposed in a binding manner. But when this is not the case, and if he has not remained in that state, that verdict will promptly transfer to the evil-doing on which it was imposed in a binding manner. In that eventuality, therefore, it will be able to be unbound; no, it will not even exist for the one on whom it was not imposed; no, it will be extrinsic and unrelated to the one on whom it is agreed it was not imposed. Because it is the evil-doing and transgression in Acacius that receives that binding verdict, not because he is a human being, not because he is called Acacius, once the evil-doing is removed from him, the verdict will be removed with all its force and rationale. “When they are converted”, it says, “and I shall heal them” (Matt 13:15). Present tense in the Latin. Sc. the indissoluble verdict.

44 45



Acacius and the eponymous schism

This is said about those who had a dull heart, and seeing they did not see, and hearing they did not hear. By God’s inspiration are they not from the same Jews about whom it was said: “By seeing they have seen, by hearing they have heard and believed with their heart” (Is 6:10)? Just like the apostles and so many thousand people, who are the remnants who have been saved (Rom 11:5), declares the apostle, who draws out this sense when he says: “For I myself am an Israelite” (Rom 11:1). In the Scriptures we find a perpetual verdict also imposed on very many sinners, from whom, however, it was withdrawn when they forsook their sin; and certain people said to have been killed and brought back to life,46 while what they were is put to death in them, and they begin to be what they were not, even to be broken off and transplanted (Rom 11:17). 31. If Acacius is crushed by the violence of the emperor to do what he does, let him first declare personally that the emperor is behaving contrary to the catholic faith and for this reason is not catholic. There are, therefore, no grounds for him to plead that what he puts forward personally or what he attests personally is said by us. Next, by the very fact that he asserts he is undergoing force, he declares that what he is doing is bad, and proves that he is acting against the catholic faith: why then does he urge me and demand that I should be his accomplice in this affair, which he grants is crooked? But if he does not maintain that it is evil, the fact remains that he is unconvincing in his statement that he is undergoing force from the emperor, when of his own volition he does what he confirms is good. For when he says that what he does is good, that he does this of his own volition, he is nevertheless indicating without hesitation what he thinks is good. Therefore, Acacius is not doing this under coercion because he is not doing it unwillingly, as if it were evil, but of his own volition, as if it were good. For if he is under coercion, of course he is unwilling; if he is unwilling, of course it is evil; therefore, he is not doing this of his own volition, as if this were good, but unwillingly, as if it were bad: if he is not unwilling although it is bad, it follows that he is doing it of his own volition as if it were good. Therefore, by dint of his own effort and desire and will and judgement, he has not been constrained; therefore, he is not undergoing force, but offending of his own volition. 32. “But by your inflexibility”, you say, “you are bringing the case of the entire church into danger”. If the catholic faith and communion is safeguarded, is religion heading for danger or is religion in jeopardy? 46

Cf. Rom 11:15, Heb 11:35.



TRANSLATION

And if (heaven forbid!) the catholic faith and communion is outraged, is religion not drawn towards danger, or is religion safe? Heaven forbid that somebody who is a catholic and a son of the apostolic faith should say this! 33. “But by that inflexibility of yours you are diminishing the standing of the apostolic see”. If the catholic faith and communion are kept safe, is the standing of the apostolic see diminished; if it is outraged, does the standing of the apostolic see remain? Heaven forbid that a Christian and a catholic should pull out this argument! If the catholic faith and communion suffers harm, does the state rejoice, and if it is safe, does the state suffer harm? Heaven forbid that a Christian and a catholic should make this declaration! If the catholic faith and communion is kept safe, does the emperor suffer harm, and if it is outraged, does the emperor not suffer harm? Heaven forbid that a Christian and catholic emperor should say this, or that any catholic Christian should say that it should happen, that is, that the catholic faith and communion should suffer harm, that the emperor may not suffer harm, because if the catholic faith and communion were kept safe, the emperor would suffer harm. For our part we love the emperor to the extent that we want him to do what will be for his own salvation, for his soul, for his own conscience. Even the penalty approved by the catholic pontiffs, he may soften; it is his prerogative to do what he knows is of benefit for his conscience, his soul and salvation. If he does not wish to do what is useful in these respects, let him look to it. For our part we are absolved both before him and before human beings; for if it is proper for pontiffs to intercede with him on behalf of the guilty, how much more is it becoming for pontiffs to intercede with him on behalf of bishops? If the emperor intercedes personally on behalf of those who have committed sacrilege, how much more is it becoming for us to intervene on behalf of those who, as he says, have harmed him? 34. Why do you want me to amplify47 Acacius’ transgression and confirm his condemnation, so that more and more I may appear to be wavering and self-contradictory in my verdict? For if I for my part (heaven forbid!) had been made an accomplice in his wickedness, I would now be needing a remedy, not administering a remedy; and the see of blessed Peter (may God not permit it to happen!) would be looking elsewhere, not providing a remedy itself […] Three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown (Jonah 3:3, 4). And it was the same in the case of King Hezekiah 47

Lat. exaggerare, used often in what follows.



Acacius and the eponymous schism

when fifteen years were added to his life after the announcement that he would die (cf. Is 38:1-5); it was the same in the case of the branches that were broken and were transplanted (Rom 11:17); and in the case of the same branches: if they do not persist in their unbelief, they will obtain mercy (Rom 1: 23, 31). The reason you are angry is that we have brought a verdict against Acacius. If we had not done this, we would have been unable in any way to separate and protect and keep unhurt the catholic communion from the heretical and condemned communion in which he implicated himself. How is it that you are trying to coerce us to confirm and repeat without wavering a just verdict, when in a way the ruling has been repeated with the amplification of Acacius’ transgression? Could Misenus and Vitalis48 have been received without anathematising Peter of Alexandria and all those who were in communion or are in communion with him after the anathema? For they themselves will condemn Acacius accordingly when we have set the bounds again. How, therefore, do you want to absolve him? Or does it seem that for Acacius to be condemned once is a serious matter, but for him to be condemned twice will not be a serious matter? Or do you want it to seem or be said either through you or through us that the apostolic see has been outwitted? Look, we entreated you; look, you wrote; look, he did not deign to write back either to you or to me. Do you see the disaster that comes from stubbornness and crookedness?49 Shouldn’t you be of one mind with us both for the sake of religion and for the wrong done to you? 35. “Tell us”, they say, “whether you are going to absolve Vitalis and Misenus or not”. And we for our part shall reply and ask you whether you would like them to be absolved by a sound faith and catholic communion and respect for the apostolic see, or not. If you do not want them to be saved, we shall not absolve them in this way or on grounds of this kind. “But you promised”, they say. What I promised can be read; I am now doing my best to fulfil it. For I promised to deliberate how they could be regarded as justly absolved; this even now I promise to do promptly too. Know, therefore, that our deliberation has come up against this limitation. We are not in a position to absolve them unless our verdict is seen to have been softened justly before time, unless we were to exonerate them from the burden of their transgression and hold them excused, and it were fitting to anticipate our sentence against those whom we have established were found guilty of a lesser crime. We On Misenus and Vitalis see Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. Lit. “the stubborn disaster of his crookedness”.

48 49



TRANSLATION

could say that it was enough, from the fact that, because they committed some offence in their passivity, they were reformed to this extent and removed from holy communion. But to soften things for them, we are saying that they were outwitted and taken in; it follows that we are making things easier for them, as much as we are crushing Acacius. For now it is not permissible either for them to say one thing or for us to make a different appraisal other than that Acacius is the originator of the whole transgression (if indeed their confession is held to have been uttered in the proceedings of the synod). So we would confirm that the sentence brought against Acacius was just, after the repeated statements and the double confession and the recent discussion and decision, along with the amplification of his transgression; it is up to you to find out how the man whom we condemn by renewed, conclusive proof can be absolved after that. Just as, I say, we undertake to absolve, we bind with the chains of the entire transgression, and strike with the entire weight of his condemnation one whom we endeavour to bring to his feet. So either let them wait to be freed by the administration of the whole church in accordance with the verdict, or pledge themselves to us under oath that never will anything be sought on the matter of Acacius’ absolution. For why is it that you would like him to be absolved in such a way that you can leave both our conscience and our reputation totally liable – my conscience, if I absolve a man who has personally confessed that he is the author of the whole ruinous episode – my reputation, the entire verdict being changed? It cannot be said that because the verdict was made public against them within a certain time-frame, on the grounds they were the authors of the evil-doing, it is thus withdrawn from them on the grounds that they were innocent, so that on the same grounds as it was made public against them, it is reserved for Acacius within the same time-frame that had been predetermined for them, because Acacius is the originator of the entire evil. Because I have said that my verdict against Acacius would be binding because he is the originator, it is not to be softened at a certain time; if I confirm it once more, it will remain with the force of the decree, so that he cannot be absolved. For in that passage it was not said “up to that time”, but it was said that it would “never” be unbound. 36. “But this is what you said before”, you say, “whereas now you are undertaking to withdraw the sentence”. It is enough to secure once the annulment of a verdict that has been pronounced – why do you want me to repeat it by my decision? If you were angry that it was brought down once, why are you striving to duplicate it? If it seemed difficult to



Acacius and the eponymous schism

dissolve it once when it was brought down once, what will we do about a duplicated verdict? Perhaps there too, with regard to the unbinding of a verdict that was brought down once, I shall be able to discuss the fact that I knew something less than was said. When I have confirmed the verdict by a duplicate announcement, what kind of remedy do you want me to provide? – particularly if I should prove that I confirm it at the very same time as I am striving to absolve it. 37. “But the emperor used force on Acacius”. This I am not going to discuss, because it is not true, and in no way am I able to bring charges openly against the prince  – of course, you are the originators of this charge. If Acacius, who is convicted of having failed with regard to God, is considered deserving of absolution, how much more deserving of absolution is the one who is said to have failed with regard to a human being? 38. If, by means of what is said in the course of the verdict brought down, affairs need to be dealt with “by the effort of the Christian prince or people”, and there is less progress because of their inflexibility, we would wish to discuss the case of Misenus and Vitalis, whether they have returned from their inflexible communion and accord with them, and we are burdening those whom we think to have been absolved, and whether, likewise, by the amplification of their sin, our verdict is to become irrevocable from the appointed time onwards. For their reception should be discussed in such a way that our conscience and good name, which are of the greatest concern, are looked after in the revocation of the verdict against them, and we may justly give notice that we revoked or dismissed it before the due time. As a result, as we examine the case of communion with them, we may also console those who continued steadfastly in the catholic faith, in that they were not in communion with us on that occasion by our command, and that we did not give consent to their communion, and that we abide with them in the catholic faith. And on that account they too are striving to stand firm with us. But if they hear that the verdict against them has been softened before the appointed time without any apparent show of justice, they will believe that they entered into communion as a result of our wish; and what we have been regarded as suspending they will perhaps deservedly judge as the false shadow of a hypocritical excuse, and judge us too as transgressors. And either they will either desert and give themselves up to communion with them, or condemn us justly as the profaners of an outside communion and of catholic communion. 39. Therefore, a just method of taking care of these matters needs to be sought. There is no other method, unless those whom we want to



TRANSLATION

absolve before the appointed time are brought to their feet and excused, and our withdrawal regarded as just; this can be done if the entire transgression is transferred onto Acacius. This is also what the very ones who continued steadfastly in the catholic faith are the more eagerly waiting to be done; for they are fiercer against Acacius than against Vitalis and Misenus, and will set great store on the withdrawal , provided they hear that all the evil-doing is transferred onto Acacius, as the instigator of the transgression. Were that to happen, without a doubt it follows that the punishment would be just, that is, the condemnation which is seen to be imposed on him instead of them would be just: this condemnation by its import is proven to be binding. In this way the person of Acacius becomes irremediable through the amplification of culpability and the effect of his punishment. For if by the administration of the whole church the person of Acacius were freed, they too will be absolved in all ways in accordance with our verdict. Thus this kind of thing,50 which we mentioned above, could not release either party, but make things worse, because neither emperor nor people are making an effort. Hence only by this sole means can a remedy be provided for matters, so that it is first a question of the absolution of Acacius, with not less than the health of the whole church, and in this way their punishment will be softened in due order. But if Acacius refuses to be absolved by any means, their person will be relieved of his aggravation, the more so because Acacius will be convicted of rejecting what was offered him, and our verdict will be excused, both regarding the absolution that was applied to them before the due time and the condemnation of Acacius that was ratified with amplification of culpability. So those who remain steadfast in the East continue firm in the catholic faith, because they observe that it is defended by me and is given new life by me: otherwise either they too will sink together while I am doing this, or (heaven forbid!) if I fall by the wayside, they will continue steadfastly and justly condemn me before God and human beings. Even when they were subjected to persecution they did not desert me;51 am I about to desert them in the absence of persecution? What Sc. the verdict concerning Vitalis and Misenus. Persecution of eastern bishops is a common theme in Gelasius’ correspondence with eastern bishops. It is impossible to verify the truth of these charges against Acacius’ supporters in the East, but if Gelasius’ allegations of imperial sanctions against Rome and of ill-treatment of bishops in Gaul who took a stance against the Acacians were correct (see ep. 13 in Section 9 below), it is possible that there is some truth to these allegations of persecution in the East also. 50 51



Acacius and the eponymous schism

would I say to God, to human beings, after that? I can say to him that I was otherwise unable to confirm the condemnation of Acacius, unless I absolved Vitalis and Misenus by the amplification of Acacius’ sin; but to be forced to absolve Acacius afterwards, when his evil-doing was amplified, what kind of grounds have I, what kind of account would I render? 40. “But if the whole church is administered by Acacius”, you say, “is the absolution of one man of such consequence, is the absolution of one man at whatever time, at whatever juncture, of such consequence?” But it concerns my conscience, and the reproach of my fickleness. For if the church is administered by Acacius, by this very fact it is shown that what could have been administered by him, that is, if he had reformed, is seen even to be harmed by him, when it could not have been harmed by him if he were not sinning. “But”, you say, “if you have thrown the burden of those men onto Acacius, you are rightly absolving them; when Acacius did the same thing in order to administer the church, you are absolving Acacius appropriately”. If there is hope in this, why are you coercing me to press with the burden of condemnation one whom you testify can or should be absolved? Let us grant that these men could be absolved by the burden of Acacius – for what reason do you want me to make it worse for the one I am striving to absolve? “Because otherwise”, you say, “those men cannot be helped”. But that way you want either him to be ruined or me to be left liable. 41. “But”, you say, “you are weakening your privileges by this inflexibility”. Therefore, lest we have a weakened right, let us be made heretics, and lest we lose the privileges of ecclesiastical power (potestatis) let us lose religion itself, lest the standing of the apostolic see be lessened in a few instances, should it go astray in many of them? I do not know if someone means that falsehood should be followed among the very many, rather than that truth should be preserved and protected among the few. Or is it the case that falsehood will not be falsehood because it is held by the multitude? Will truth, then, not be truth because it is cherished by the few? Since truth does not exist in the multitude but in its part or portion, however great, whereas religion is fixed only in truth, its privileges will last only in that place where religion itself is constant. Or is it the case that if truth is found among the few, it will not be truth, and if falsehood is found among the many, it will not be falsehood? Falsehood among the many is a great mistake; truth among a small number sustains no loss, because truth remains constant in its part, however great; and just as the multitude does not bring it about that falsehood should not be falsehood,



TRANSLATION

so neither does a small number of people bring it about that truth should not be truth. There are examples without number, from which it is shown that while falsehood prowls among the many, truth stands firm among the few. 42. “But we are detested for this”, you say. Then what shall we do? Lest we hold onto truth among the few, shall we go astray among the many? “Heaven forbid!” you say. Let us, therefore, reject falsehood even among the very many, provided we hold onto truth even among the very few. When the whole world was holding onto falsehood, was the church not standing firm among the apostles just as the truth commanded? When the entire people was astray, did the church not remain with seven thousand Israelites? (cf. 1 Kgs 19:18) And if we run through all of them, we will find examples without number: is it not written, “the way that leads to life is narrow and constrained, (Matt 7:14) and the one that is directed towards death is broad and ample” (Matt 7:13)? 43. “What?” you will say, “because they say they are holding onto what is more correct”. Nevertheless, at present that is false, because they claim to hold onto what we hold; for if they hold onto them better, they are holding onto something else. Now it follows that they should judge that they are holding onto them better than we do. If they are holding onto them better, let them keep themselves away from me because I hold onto them badly: to be reformed towards the faith and to pursue what is better should come from free will, not from force. I am not a nuisance to him – why is he a nuisance to me? I do not demand that he reform me – what does he contribute to one who does not demand, what does he offer to one who is unwilling? If he thinks my verdict worthless, let him despise it – why beg so insistently to be absolved? If he begs to be absolved, he obviously does not doubt that it is of some importance, and verifies that it pertains to a lawful condemnation, which he avoids being held by, although he is bound. And so, let him confess the error against which the verdict was imposed; let him lay aside the error, and the verdict is voided. If it is unjust, he should not trouble about that so much as that he is not able to burden anybody with a verdict that is unjust in the sight of God and his church. So, therefore, let him not desire to be absolved from what he in no way acknowledges he is bound by; but if he judges that he is bound by it and begs to be absolved, at least he is not alleging that what can bind him is not unjust, and he is begging to be absolved from the same verdict, because if it were not just it would not be able to bind him. But if it is just, it is only acknowledged as just if the



Acacius and the eponymous schism

error is condemned. And so let him confess his error by having the binding force of a just verdict absolved; let him put away the error for which a just verdict holds him bound; when that is removed, the reason for his being bound is annulled.

Letter 1052 A commonitorium of Pope Gelasius to the magister Faustus,53 who was discharging the office of legate in Constantinople 1. I too have grasped that the Greeks are going to remain in their inflexibility,54 and that what has been premeditated in the past cannot be regarded by anyone as unexpected. On this account it is not so much for reasons of religion that they are taking pains to resist the arrangements of the common good, but rather through the opportunity of the embassy to the emperor they are striving to overturn the catholic faith, and are relying on such intercourse55 to serve their hopes. 2. But what is the meaning of the emperor’s statement that Acacius was impiously condemned by us, when, respecting his limits,56 my predecessor57 not only refrained from attacking his name in the slightest, but moreover, when Anastasius rose to eminence at the beginning of his imperial power,58 he wrote that he rejoiced in his preferment to imperial rule? And I, who have never seen anything that the emperor wrote, have made it my duty to greet him by a letter that does him honour, as you know. My predecessors removed from apostolic communion bishops (sacerdotes) who confessed by their own admission that they had held communion with transgressors. If it pleases the emperor to be implicated with those who have been condemned, it cannot be imputed to us; if he should wish to withdraw from their company, so much the more can he not be condemned by us, but rather admitted to the grace Text in Thiel, pp. 341-348. PLRE 2, pp. 454-456, s.v. “Anicius Probus Faustus iunior Niger 9”. 54 On negative Roman attitude to the Greeks that was typical in Gelasius’ day, see A. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, 590-752, A.D. Lanham, MD, 2007, pp. 1-41. 55 Reading commercio; some manuscripts have commento (“falsehood”). 56 Lat. hac parte, that is, the western side of the Roman empire. 57 That is, Felix III, bishop of Rome from 483-492. 58 That is, in 491. 52 53



TRANSLATION

of sincere communion. However, it is up to the senate of Rome to see that the commemoration of the faith, which it is mindful of having received from its ancestors, should shun the infection of communion with outsiders, lest it be put outside communion with this apostolic see (heaven forbid!). 3. They propose that they should be granted pardon. Let it be cited, from the time that the Christian religion existed, or at least let a precedent be given, that in the church of God pardon was conceded by any pontiffs you like, by the apostles themselves, and finally by the Saviour himself, except to those who repented. But under this heaven there has neither been heard, nor read at all, nor said what is adduced by their statement: “Grant us pardon, so that nonetheless we may abide in error”. For that is what it amounts to.59 Let those who are striving to oppose us with the canons demonstrate by which canons, which rules, which pronouncement, or which document, whether by our elders, or from the apostles themselves (there is no doubt that they were deservedly more important), or from the Lord Saviour himself, who it is believed will sit in judgement on the living and the dead, it was commanded that this was ever done or should be done. We say that Christ raised the dead; we do not say that he forgave those who died in error. And the only one who assuredly had the power of doing this commanded the blessed apostle Peter directly: “What you have bound on earth will be bound also in heaven, and what you have loosed on earth will be loosed also in heaven (Matt 16:19). On earth”, he said; for nowhere in this binding did he speak of absolving the dead. What therefore has never been done we fear to conceive in our minds, knowing that it cannot be at all by divine judgment. But if, as they now claim, they are about to be parted from the church of Rome, they are shown to have already done this for some time. 4. But as for Euphemius,60 who says that Acacius could not have been condemned by one person, I am surprised if he does not realise his own ignorance himself. Yes, does he not realise that Acacius was condemned according to the formula of the synod of Chalcedon? Does he not know, or is he pretending not to know? By that formula particularly it is agreed that the instigators of Acacius’ error61 were condemned by a majority vote of bishops (sacerdotum); just as a clear consideration of events shows The meaning is that the three means of authority, heard, written, or read, have the same validity. 60 Fravitta’s successor as patriarch of Constantinople from 490 to 495; and recipient of Gelasius’ ep. 3. See Blaudeau, Le Siège, pp. 37, 40, 77-78 et passim. 61 Sc. proponents of one-nature christology present at Chalcedon. 59



Acacius and the eponymous schism

to have been done and is being done in the case of every single heresy from the beginning of the Christian religion, and that my predecessor was appointed executor of the old ordinance, not the instigator of a new regulation. It is permissible not only for an apostolic leader but for every pontiff to separate from catholic communion whomsoever they like and whatever place they like, according to the rule of the very heresy that has previously been condemned. Indeed, Acacius was not the inventor of a new or personal error, such that new decrees should be uttered against him, but got himself implicated in another’s crime by communicating with him.62 Thus it is unavoidable that he meet impartially with the same verdict as the originator of the error, through the agreement of the synod, received with his followers. 5. Against us they oppose the canons, while they do not know what they are talking about. They make known that they themselves are against the canons by the very fact that they avoid obeying the first see when it recommends what is sound and upright. These are the very canons that intended the referral of appeals from the entire church to this see for examination, but that these people have ordained henceforth on no occasion should be appealed by this see. And by this means the canons have instructed that this see is to sit in judgement on the entire church, to pass to nobody’s judgement, nor ever to be judged by its judgement, and they have determined that its verdict should never be undone, and ordered instead that its decisions are to be followed. And in this very case Timothy of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch,63 Peter, Paul, John and the rest,64 not just one but certainly several bearing the title of bishop, were deposed by the sole authority of the apostolic see; even Acacius himself, who was conspicuous as the executor of this injunction, is a witness to this fact. It is clear that, just as in particular the apostolic see did this in conformity with the formula of the synod, so it is most certain that nobody could resile from it. In this context, therefore, Acacius was condemned as he lapsed into the company of the

62 A reference to the fact that by uniting the sees of Alexandria and Constantinople the Henotikon had nominally effected communion between Peter Mongus and Acacius. 63 The reference is to Timothy Aelurus and Peter the Fuller (patriarch of Antioch 471, 475-477, 485-488). 64 Gelasius names Peter Mongus, Bishop Paul of Ephesus (exiled in 477), Bishop John of Apamea and subsequently of Tyre (consecrated on both occasions by Acacius). Gelasius seems to have recourse here to Simplicius’ ep. 7.3: see Thiel, p. 191 with n. 7.



TRANSLATION

condemned, in that he had been the executor of their condemnation before he was their defender.65 6. They have dared to cite to us the canons against which they are shown to have striven, always with corrupt practices, always with illegal acts. By which synod or according to what synodical formula did they themselves drive out John of Alexandria from the church to which he had been appointed?66 It was impossible for him to be accused, even in a fitting judicial process, when there were no obvious reasons either to convict him beforehand or to mount a challenge afterwards. But if they say “it was the emperor who did this”, by what canons, by what regulations was this prescribed? Why did Acacius agree to such a base deed when divine authority says: “Not only those who commit base deeds are culprits, but also those who agree with those doing them” (Rom 1:32)? By what canons or by what regulations was Calendio removed,67 or the chief catholic bishops of various cities? By which tradition of our ancestors do they call the apostolic see to judgement? Or should the overseers of the second or third see and the rest of the bishops with clear consciences have been driven out, and the one who was the enemy of religion should not have been? Therefore, if they have other canons, let them see by which ones they will carry out their absurdities. But any of the others who are honoured as venerable men of the church, and legitimate, are not only unable to call the apostolic see to judgement […] and the bishop of the city of Constantinople, a city that in particular according to the canons has received no title among the sees, after lapsing into communion with the traitors should not have been removed? Or the one who is said to have lied to a mortal emperor, and those who are held to have harmed the emperor should have been expelled; Acacius who was derelict in his duty to God – the supreme and true emperor – and deliberately involved the honest communion of the divine sacrament with traitors, should not have been excluded according to the synod by which this treachery was condemned? But whether they like it or not, the ancient ordinances of the canons were reaffirmed by the judgment of the synod itself. But God-fearing Acacius’ initial condemnation of Peter the Fuller occurred in his first year in the patriarchate of Antioch, 471. 66 On the Chalcedonian John Talaia, see Part 2, Section 1, n. 12 above. 67 Consecrated patriarch of Antioch by Acacius in 481, Calendio was a Chalcedonian who refused to accept the Henotikon (Zach., HE 5.9). He was deposed under the anti-Chalcedonian restoration under Zeno in 484. See further Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, pp. 175, 180-181. 65



Acacius and the eponymous schism

and excellent men are indisputably trying to wrest from the apostolic see the power allowed to it according to the canons, and are intent on appropriating it against the canons. O masters and guardians of the canons! We are forbidden to engage in a struggle with people of an outside communion, as divine Scripture makes known: “As for the man who is a heretic, after the first and second admonition avoid him, knowing that one of this kind is a transgressor, condemned by his own judgement” (Tit ­3:10-11). Look, let them acknowledge that the heretic is not only condemned by another but also by his own person! 7. But the fact that they pretend that “Acacius demanded pardon” and that we “were difficult” is shameless beyond measure. Witness to this is your brother, my son the vir illustris Andromachus,68 who was copiously instructed by us too, to encourage Acacius once he had laid aside his inflexibility to come to his senses and return to the fellowship of the apostolic see. And Andromachus bears witness under oath that he made great efforts with the same Acacius and that he could not be directed to what is upright, as is proven by the outcome of events. By all means, let the evidence be brought forward as to when he sent it, when he asked for pardon and promised to show us that he would mend his ways. Unless perhaps he displayed that spirit which we observe his successors possess, that even if he were to ask for pardon, he would still want it to be employed for his own gain in order to persist nonetheless in his error – when assuredly he would appear not so much to have been received by us as to have led us over instead to his baseness. Who do they claim had “confessed” he was the “culprit” before the strife? If he is the “culprit”, he assuredly needs to be reformed. If they do not think that he needs to be reformed, they are erroneously claiming that they are declaring him the culprit. Unless – a situation that is more unfortunate – they say that he is the culprit and do not hold him to be in need of reform. 8. That statement of his also made me laugh: “If it had been necessary to beg for pardon”. Doubtless he was reckoning that he then asked for pardon for his sin by necessity, if we allowed him not to stop sinning, we would agree to sin with him (heaven forbid!). I do not know among which of the world’s wonders these words could be admitted. Blame for the past can be remitted, of course, through subsequent improvement. 68 PLRE 2, p.  89, s.v. “Andromachus 3”. This is thought to be the same Andromachus to whom Gelasius addressed his letter against the Lupercalia. See Thiel, p. 346 n. 29.



TRANSLATION

For if from then on baseness is permitted to continue, it is not the generosity of remission, but an agreement to be complicit with it. 9. It is not surprising if those who have taken it upon themselves to blaspheme against the see of blessed Peter the apostle, who either harbour such monstrosities in their hearts or spread them abroad by mouth, and declare us moreover to be “arrogant” when the primary see does not cease to present whatever concerns religion, are quite confident that they can subject it to their own wanton spirit. But it is not surprising that those who are captive in mind do these things. So are the mad accustomed to think that all physicians are either enemies or out to kill them. However, I enquire of them, in what direction can the “judgement” that they pretend be pursued: with their own party, so that the same people are enemies and witnesses and judges? But neither human affairs nor yet the integrity of the divine law should be entrusted to such a judgement. If it concerns religion to such an extent, the sum of the entire judgement is due only to none other than the apostolic see according to the canons; if it concerns the power of the state to such an extent, it must recognise from the pontiffs and especially from the vicar of blessed Peter not to judge these same matters that are divine. Not even the most powerful in the state, whoever he may be, although he is a Christian, presumes to arrogate this to himself, except perhaps if he is persecuting religion.69 However, what would they say if they were not overwhelmed by all their documents? So let them keep their absurdities to themselves, unless they come to their senses, considering rather that Christ’s utterance, which he declared in response to the confession of blessed Peter “the gates of hell will never prevail” (Matt 16:18), is not unnecessary. 10. On this account we are not afraid that the apostolic verdict be undone, which Christ’s utterance and the tradition of the elders and the authority of the canons support, but rather it may always judge the whole church discriminately. But if there is any feeling of religion in them, let them rather take thought, if they do not lay aside their baseness in any way, they are damned in the eyes of God and human beings by an eternal order of the apostolic see. So it is declared terminated in order that nothing will be said about the business from now on, as if even now I would deem those, as you well know, worthy of being addressed individually. Nor obviously can a meeting be initiated with those who have not repented, just as the sparring with the followers of the other This is a snide remark at Emperor Anastasius’ expense.

69



Acacius and the eponymous schism

heresies must be refused.70 We beg the Divinity in continual prayer that you return here71 as soon as possible, safe and sound.

Letter 2772 Or a letter of Pope Gelasius giving the same account to the bishops of the East.73 1. Therefore, if those wise men appointed in dioceses of the East, by examining with their sharp minds the internal affairs of religion in its entirety, recognised that a person of this sort74 was appointed to the church of Antioch, why did they offer their consent by holding communion with such people? Why did they not protest on the spot, why did they not remove themselves from such an infection, when clearly they had already observed that Calendio75 had been driven out, so that the way was opened wide for the heretics? Why, on this occasion, did they investigate nothing about the synod, nothing about the situation, nothing about the Christian faith, nothing about the examination of the persons? But if they yielded to communion with him of their own will, they are of course separated from the apostolic see: with such people and around such people no synod could take place at all, even if it were unavoidable. But if they say they were unaware of the character of the overseer who succeeded Calendio in Antioch, why is it a surprise if those appointed in the East were unable to ascertain matters that pertained to their own district, and were ignorant of matters conducted in the apostolic see? Notwithstanding this, why, once the character of the bishop appointed to Antioch had come to their notice, did they not spurn occasions for fellowship with him without delay? What excuse do they feign for the outward show of their ignorance, when even today they follow the infections of the traitors which have been unmasked and quite frequently reproached by us? The matter is quite evident, because, even if they had recognised Perhaps the Pelagians are meant. Sc. to Rome. 72 Text in Thiel, pp. 422-435. 73 That is, along the same lines as the account given by Gelasius to the bishops of Dardania in ep. 26, regarding the condemnation of Acacius by the apostolic see. 74 The reference is to Peter the Fuller, on whom see Section 1, n. 1. 75 On Calendio, the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, see Section 1, n. 11 above. 70 71



TRANSLATION

him, they would not have opposed him even then, when now they do not even reject what is common knowledge. Let them turn directly to whatever party or pretext you like; they are so strangled by the snares of the manifest truth that they can be fettered by their own words and deeds, and can fan into action only the harmful dregs of their stubborn treachery.76 2. But what was said about the venerable Calendio is appropriate also for the person of John of Alexandria for reasons beyond doubt.77 Yes, if the same case were subjected to a broader enquiry, so many tragic events, so many errors are uncovered78 there that, if they themselves were judges who perpetrated the same deeds, upon being clearly confounded, would refrain from condemning him. For none other than the case under investigation is shown there publicly and openly,79 namely how, when any catholic pontiff at all was deposed, access was thrown open to the heretic Peter. At that time nobody was scrutinising, nobody was demanding a synod, everything was regarded as being done lawfully everywhere by whatever people; no determination of events, no examination was requested from the church; but just on a whim, a catholic bishop – not just a metropolitan, but even the overseer of the second or third see – was driven from his cities. In these affairs no investigation was sought, there was no talk of councils needing to be convened. Heretics were substituted, nobody resiled. But just like dumb cattle being led into captivity, they followed treachery with their wills subdued. Indeed, it is no wonder if now they are struggling to defend the worthlessness of those whom they followed blindly without subjecting them to examination. But we do wonder why they are not ashamed of the fact that in the condemnation of those men no plea was made for a synod, although they know that so many pontiffs of stature were deposed without a synod. They do not complain that when those men were rejected no council was initiated. Let them recognise that, because they did not in fact seek this in the rejection of others, they stand accused. But if for the rejection of the rest councils were not necessary, let them recognise that they were not necessary in the case of those men either. Was there no need of a synod to get rid of catholics, but there had to be a huge assembly to condemn a confessed transgressor? There is no embarrassment here about the piling up of mixed metaphors. On John see Section 1, n. 12 above. 78 Note the sequence of subjunctive[…]indicative. 79 Lat. palam[…]aperte, a legal term used frequently by Gelasius. See the Glossary. 76

77



Acacius and the eponymous schism

3. What is left, then, except for them to say that these men were not heretics? Therefore, let those who openly assert that they are adherents of a communion of outsiders not complain about a synod. Why, therefore, does a synod seem to have been necessary for those who acknowledge that they are going against the synod of Chalcedon, by which the error of Eutyches and his agents was condemned by the voice of the church as a whole? Nor is there any doubt that, just as in each and every heresy (a fact that needs to be repeated without ceasing, because no Christian doubts that it is unwavering) all accomplices, followers, those in communion with a crookedness that has been condemned once for all, are adjudged to a matching fate. And so let it follow that just as Timothy and Peter, the followers of men like that, were condemned according to the sense of that synod, with no fresh assembly of pontiffs having occurred, so Acacius too, who held communion with Peter has, as a comrade in his crime, thus become a partner in his punishment. Why do they weave these facts about with cloudy obscurities in order to conceal in a deadly manner their shamelessness and poisonous intention with silly stories, rather than making an effort to effect a cure with medical help?80 For we have nothing in common with people from an outside communion. So any person can, of course, be called to trial, either to confess to the charges or be convicted of the charges. Moreover, after the confession that he brought forward in the contents of his letter, why was Acacius called to trial, the man who confessed that he had associated in communion with Peter, whom he entreated should be condemned by an injunction of the apostolic see? Nor, now that he has established communion outside the church, can he be believed, either in behalf of his own defence, or that of those people, or now of Peter, with whom he had been formerly involved in an unlawful fellowship, and had made himself without doubt a familiar of his cause. If he was so, firstly by a legal examination after accepting cleansing, let him be involved81 according to the rules; but if he associated by communion with the same man, who had still not been legitimately examined or cleansed, inasmuch as he was implicated with the culprit up to the present, so he did not have the trustworthiness of speaking on the same man’s behalf. For when Acacius was not supported by any privilege to enable him to bring down a judgement about the second see, could he pronounce a legal condemnation? In a similar manner, Another unabashed piling up of mixed metaphors. Sc. with the community.

80 81



TRANSLATION

unless the authority of the first see had been obtained, he had neither the right of subjecting Peter to examination nor the power to take him back fully. 4. Since this has been established according to the rules and in our eyes Peter is not absolved in any way at all (we know that we condemned him, but know that we did not examine or absolve him), it remains for us to prove this: that the same Peter, whom Acacius alleges he accepted into communion upon his being cleansed, never desisted from the infection of heretical communion, and not only at the very time that Acacius held communion with him but even after communion with the transgressor Acacius, Peter of Alexandria persisted all the time in the company of heretics. And so both through him Acacius caught the infection of treacherous communion, and through the same communion was connected with the same plague as the heretics with whom Peter held communion. Acacius took it upon himself to support Peter, although due process was not observed, nor is Acacius recognised as having received him after examination and cleansing. And so, without the notification of the apostolic see he wanted to assume the illegitimate reception of Peter for himself, so that he could measure his examination and cleansing at his own whim, and receive him neither examined nor totally cleansed. If he really wanted to receive him after examination and cleansing, he should rather have observed due process concerning his examination and reception, but so that to be cleansed according to the law should appear more than it really was. 82 Therefore, just as previously Acacius did not condemn him before he had both referred Peter to the apostolic see and begged for him to be condemned, so too in receiving him he should have observed a proper measure, so that before he involved himself in communion with Peter he should have begged that he be examined by the apostolic see and cleansed in a legitimate manner. Acacius himself did not have the pontiff’s right to examine or receive him, and he could only satisfy this condition by the authority and agreement of that see, and without its authority he himself was unable to condemn Peter, and Peter could, through the due care of the foremost see (principali diligentia), be examined and cleansed and admitted to communion as was appropriate. For it is agreed that it is always by the authority of the apostolic see that persons of this kind are either examined The text here is awkward and the variants listed by Thiel prove that scribes struggled with it. 82



Acacius and the eponymous schism

or cleansed, or it was suitable for them to be absolved by some other bishops, in such a way, however, that their absolution depended on the agreement of the apostolic see. When both conditions were absent, it is established that neither was the examination legitimate nor the cleansing true, and for this reason his reception was not due to him. If, apart from my communion, you judged Peter to be catholic, and in contempt of me you took him back lawfully, what plea would you make if I rejected him from my communion, which you wanted to contemn, without, however, notifying or consulting you? Do you want to give your assent? You are mine. You do not wish to give your assent? You are not mine. For who is not with me, is against me, and who does not gather with me scatters (Matt 12:30). 5. I ask you, do you think that Peter was a heretic, or a catholic, or reformed from his heresy afterwards? If he was a heretic, you should not have held communion with him in any way, and it is clear that by holding communion with him you have become the comrade of a heretic, and as a result are bound by his condemnation as it proceeds from the sense of the synod. If he was a catholic, you are openly a defender of his entire teaching, which you declare is catholic, and nevertheless you are rated as being in his error. If you were to define him as a heretic, but claim that subsequently he reformed, you are proclaiming that you held communion with him too after he was cleansed. Meanwhile you believed that I was to be disregarded in his person; you cannot plead that in that same person I disregarded you. Next, since without me you had no right of absolving or formally receiving a person of this kind, it is agreed that he was neither cleansed legally, nor taken back according to the rule. As he was not received according to the rule, so it is agreed that he was not legally cleansed, and thus was not cleansed as was due, since he was not received legally. For inasmuch as my verdict remains on him and without me you do not have the pontiff’s right to annul my verdict, by what power is it asserted that he was either examined or by what authority received? 6. Another fact is introduced, moreover, that increases the body of evidence concerning your familiarity with him. For what if there is information that you not only entered into communion with him beforehand, and not just when you entered into communion with him, but also afterwards he persisted nevertheless in communion with the heretics: surely either through him a heretical communion reached as far as you, or you passed from dealings with him to communion with heretics? Inform us, therefore, that at some stage Peter of Alexandria



TRANSLATION

stopped communion with Peter of Antioch, and that as long as Peter of Antioch remained in this light83 there was no inseparable fellowship with either of them. Are you going to say that Peter of Antioch was also reformed? Why was Acacius boasting that, right to the end, he did not hold communion with him? But what use was it that he did not want to hold communion with him on his own account, when he thought that he was communicating with him through the agency of Peter of Alexandria without incurring any odium? What do we do with so many cities of stature from which catholic pontiffs have been driven out? If catholics were substituted, why were catholics rejected? But it is patently obvious that when catholics were rejected, it was not catholics who were substituted. It remains that in every case heretics succeeded catholics. Why did you rashly hold communion with them? Why did you not so act that the novel shape of events and so many tragic acts concerning the succession of pontiffs in their lifetime were examined by a synod? Is it a matter of grief in the case of Acacius only, because he was not refuted by a special synod, when he wove his own crime into his letter and should not have been heard when he had already confessed of his own accord? And is the case of so many catholic pontiffs who were shut out without any examination not a matter for grief? Of course, if the ones who had avoided communion with them knew us to be catholics, they would have preferred to hold communion with them, rather than by not holding communion with them to be driven out in a harsh persecution.84 7. Look, so many catholic bishops disclose by this very fact that they knew what the apostolic see determined, and tried to hold on to it steadfastly, and preserving communion with the catholics, they both chose as their partners those who were in communion with the apostolic see, and right up to the onset of persecution rejected as partners those with whom the apostolic see held as little communion as possible. Indeed, what the apostolic see had decreed is commonly said not to have been known to the eastern bishops. Why, therefore, did so many pontiffs of stature, agreeing on one and the same thing with the apostolic see and approving that it had ordained what was suitable and true for our inviolable religion, judge that these things should not only be followed by themselves but manfully promoted to the point of persecution? Look, you had them, the men who both presented you with notification of i.e. remained alive. On the persecution of Gelasius’ supporters in the East, see Section  2, n.  51 above. 83

84



Acacius and the eponymous schism

the apostolic constitution and provided firmness in holding onto it. If the apostolic see had sent them, it was scarcely able to arrange for two or three men. Look, so many pontiffs, following the ordinances of the apostolic see, presented you with notification, and supplied you with precedents of serving the truth. How could you listen to two or three men, when you closed your eyes to so many who were appointed in the same place? Without doubt you recognised that these were acceptable to the apostolic see, from the very fact that you seemed uneasy. Therefore, either follow those through whom you came to know the will of the apostolic see, or the plea you would like to tender regarding your ignorance is in vain, since by abusing so many substantial proofs, you have preferred to reject rather than accept the ordinances of the apostolic see, which are proclaimed by so many witnesses. 8. Surely all those bishops whom we have mentioned did not lie to the emperor? Surely all of them did not remove the emperor’s name from the diptychs? Therefore, when they were deposed and while catholic pontiffs were alive, heretics were created as their successors, and concerning not merely the lesser cities, but even metropolitan pontiffs who remained perpetually in communion, why then did you not feel pity for so many of your brothers? Why did you not approach the emperor? Why did you not lament with unceasing voices the church’s situation and the lamentable degeneration of the episcopate (sacerdotii)? You should have adduced (allegantes) that only the church has ever judged pontiffs; that it is not part of human laws to bring down a verdict concerning such men, except for pontiffs of the church who have been appointed especially; that it is the custom that Christian princes follow the decrees of the church, not put their own power before it; that the prince is accustomed to bow his head to bishops, not to sit in judgement on their heads. by what councils of the church, by what synod they were driven out; precisely what crime they committed that, without any examination of matters, so many leaders of churches were expelled on account of human caprice and a decision by the secular power; that those who have not been heard, not examined, not convicted, should not be overthrown; particularly when a new pretext for a new case and matters arises, because of their unexpected assaults for the sake of the whim of the secular power, so that those governors of the populace, with their sudden assaults on behalf of the will of the secular power, should be stripped of holy offices; and with impeachment from no previous case and from no connection, nor with any kind of joining in their error, are they to be held or demon-



TRANSLATION

strated to be partners of one who was already condemned before, so that while bound they are judged as if on the basis of a past decision; and thus why were they thrown out, since they were untouched by any preceding cases? It must be shown what those attacks were, and it must as always be established by the laws of the church. At least in accord with your rank you should consider that thought should be given to their misfortunes, out of fear that what you discern has been violently perpetrated against the laws on others be inflicted on yourselves. If they had been defiled by some crime, it should be acknowledged by the church’s examination. 9. I shall keep quiet and pay respect to the apostolic see according to usage, lest we be regarded as protecting our privileges. Let it suffice to show what you should do according to the rules and the canons of the Fathers, particularly when even the very laws of the state, complying with the regulations of the church, ordained that such persons should be judged by bishops only. But if they had been attacked by some heresy or other, so much the more was it fitting for them to acknowledge these things – the men who both according to the meaning of religion were able to examine those charges, and had the primal pontifical right of judging, which is the essence of the Christian religion. For either they were catholics or heretics, about whom those jokes were doing the rounds everywhere and detestable acts of robbery were rife. If heretics, they should have been surrendered, examined, and legally convicted by all means, refuted either by their own confessions or by the words of others. I keep quiet, because according to the custom of the Fathers it should have been referred to us, and I only impress on you what should have been done by the law of the church. But if they were deemed to be catholics, you, who not only yielded to their expulsion but also chose to hold communion with their substitutes, are indubitably heretics. When the catholics were expelled and withdrew, you were not ignorant of the fact that the situation of the faith and of the catholic communion was laid bare to so many overseers throughout the whole world; but plainly knowing and being willing, without any scrutiny of the facts, without any examination by a synod, without any respect for the apostolic see, you gave your assent to heretics, accepting gladly and supportively permitting catholic overseers to be dispossessed, with their pitiable fate unheard beforehand. If you thought that they were straying from the authentic faith and the catholic communion, you should have referred them to the apostolic see, according to the statutes of the elders and as it has always been done; just as Acacius is shown to have done in the case



Acacius and the eponymous schism

of Peter of Alexandria or Peter of Antioch, John and Paul.85 But because you knew that they agreed with the apostolic see, and what the apostolic see discerned by its own determination, it is established by those numerous and eminent bishops that the eastern overseers were in no way ignorant, and those who were opposed to the catholic and apostolic communion betrayed and deserted the same communion, because you were not united to them by affection, but rather entwined in the company of their persecutors. In this affair a synod never entered your mind, above all concerning persons, as was asserted, not bound by any law of old. In this affair it suggested itself to your inclination that the church, not of one city or of one bishop but of the whole East, should be looked after by no council, although a council of bishops had taken place. But as men who slipped back into the opposing party with total purpose and total desire, you turned aside zealously from councils that were necessary, lest through them some discernment were made of the sort that, when matters were opened to evidence and checked by law, you would not be permitted to enter fellowship with the heretics. 10. Therefore, why do you pretend to ignorance when you saw that so many pontiffs throughout the entire East not only knew that the catholic faith and sincere communion concurred with the apostolic see, but also defended it with the utmost constancy right to the end? If you did not listen to what we deemed about the catholic and apostolic faith and communion, you should have looked to them, and either followed them if you believed they were catholics, or else preferably accused them before the apostolic see if you thought they had strayed, or held onto that verdict and its purpose, by recognising what the apostolic see defined. Therefore, you should have either followed your colleagues and brothers who were catholics from near at hand with your eyes, or accused them if you believed that they had strayed, and not have offered your consent to those by whom they were troubled by no decision, until truth was openly established from all the facts, and the formula of the church’s judgement concerning them could proceed according to rule. But if, by following the rule of the apostolic see, you ascertained that they maintained this constancy, as a consequence through them and the contents of our definition you were in no uncertainty, and by giving your assent to their persecutors, you would have withdrawn from the fellowship of the apostolic see, not without knowledge of the verdict. And do you still The names of these deposed anti-Chalcedonian bishops appear in ep. 10.5 above. 85



TRANSLATION

maintain that you did not know what the apostolic see had decided, although from those bishops who were strong in the catholic faith and communion you had learned everything, not from words or letters, but from persons in your presence, and you were regarded as having separated from the same see by your own decision? And do you still maintain that a synod which you did not seek for the condemnation of so many catholic pontiffs ought to have been conducted for the person of one man? For whose sake do you want us to believe the report of such cases? Catholics or heretics? Those who are separated from every infection of the heretics, or those who are polluted by communion with the heretics? But who would not see that those who were thrown out of their own cities and sent into exile are catholics and utter strangers to every heretical plague; and those who dared to become the successors of catholic survivors were not catholic at all, but either patent Eutychians, or in communion with their adherents? 11. This plague endures among them to this day. Indeed, the ones who succeeded the catholics became indiscriminately involved in communion both with Peter of Alexandria and Peter of Antioch, and to this day they are involved with the successors of both Peters. Add to these also those men who, given that they did not succeed catholics, while they were regarded as catholic pontiffs, joined the communion of such men. This is the involvement, this is the confusion whereby there is no distinction between catholic and heretical communion throughout the entire East. No, indeed, anyone who has tried to separate himself is rather held to be a heretic, is struck down by persecution, punished by bouts of exile and suffering. Therefore, it remains that in this cesspool of all sorts, just as someone who is separated from the same is approved to be of sincere communion and therefore a catholic, so someone who is found to be a partner in his detestable intercourse is as remote from sincere communion as he is from the catholic and apostolic . And let nobody offer the excuse that he did not hold communion with someone or other who is perhaps more obviously heretical, or he will be regarded as being in communion with a heretic. For what help is it to him if he does not hold communion with him and is nevertheless joined in communion with those who are not hostile to communion with him? But if he was in communion with none of them or is not in any sort of communion, he will be of the sincere, catholic, and apostolic communion and faith; otherwise there is no way that he could avoid the compound infection of that indiscriminate involvement. In the same way too, that good man Acacius is without doubt exposed



Acacius and the eponymous schism

by others as having been in communion with Peter of Antioch, with whom he publicly bandied about that he did not communicate. For nor is Acacius suspending himself from communion with those who were in communion with Peter of Antioch. And on this account, what help was it that he did not want to seem to be seen in open communion with the man with whom he was tied through his accomplices in an accessory communion? Acacius held communion with Peter of Alexandria; but as long as Peter of Antioch was still alive, the one who in fact, after the Acacian compact with the Alexandrian Peter 86 is revealed to have died, Peter of Alexandria never ceased from communion with Peter of Antioch. 12. Because there is a report kept of the catholic bishops and the rest who have persevered in the catholic faith, it is not possible for the conscience of the entire East to escape detection either. And let me keep quiet about the fact that Acacius was in communion through Emperor Zeno himself – who was without doubt involved in communion with Peter of Antioch and with whom Acacius was no less in communion, whom he had brought in and whose role as bishop he had approved –,87 we could point out very many leaders of different cities who were in communion with Peter of Antioch, with whom Acacius was no less in communion, and through whom as a result he was in communion with Peter. But this involvement is thought by the Greeks, among whom there is no distinction between true and false, to be an easy matter and without blame, and because they want to be in communion with all reprobates they are shown not to stand firm in any rectitude.88 But in this case there is Peter of Antioch, whom Acacius demanded be received without penance to catholic communion even by the apostolic see. And on this account why are they complaining that Acacius was condemned by us, although it is noted that he condemned himself personally by his previous confession and the circumlocutions of Peter of Antioch on his reception of communion? In this case, however, not only is Acacius considered a culprit but all the pontiffs of the East, who in like manner lapsed into these 86 Patriarch Fravitta (December 489-March 490). His inaugural letter was sent to both Pope Felix III (ed. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen, p. 166, doc. 67) and Peter Mongus (Zachariah, HE 6.5). See Blaudeau (echoing Theophanes, Chron. 133.7-11), Alexandrie et Constantinople, pp.  233-234, for the suggestion that Fravitta played Felix and Peter off against one other. 87 For the details of this partnership, see Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, pp. 166-167. 88 On criticisms of Greeks from the Roman side, cf. n. 54 above.



TRANSLATION

infections and are deservedly considered bound by a similar condemnation; nor can they be extricated from there at all, except during their lifetime by keeping away from such men. Nor in such cases should we do anything but trust either those who know that by divine kindness they are keeping themselves completely separated from the coils of that treachery, or those who have withdrawn from fellowship with traitors. For what faith can we put in the attestation of sincere communion from those established in the infection of traitors, when they are fixed in an adulterated communion? Nor could we rely on attestations about the truth from those people who rely on falsehoods to fight the truth. It remains that we should trust only those who are free from every infection.



SECTION 3: THE PAPAL SCRINIUM AT WORK

Letter 30 shows the role of the papal archive (scrinium), which was treated in the Introduction to this volume,1 at a Roman synod held on 13 May 495 to judge Misenus, the bishop of Cuma and papal legate for Felix III, who in 482 had turned in Constantinople to the side of the Acacians.2 This letter, from October 485, should be read in light of Felix III’s Letter 11, which purports to be a full record of the first Roman synod on the Acacian schism.3 A decade later, in May 495, Gelasius convened a synod of 101 bishops, two presbyters, unnamed deacons, and two noblemen. The delegates gathered in St Peter’s Basilica, a Constantinian foundation of the early fourth century, located outside the walls of Rome in the same place as the modern basilica of the same name. The accused, Misenus, had produced two written statements (libelli) in March of that year, renouncing his former position, which were read out at the council and included in this record, and had presumably done a period of penance, during which he was excluded from communion. He was returned to communion by Gelasius’ pronouncement, with the approval of the synod, but not, it seems, to his position as bishop. However, Gelasius refused to extend absolution to Misenus’ partner in crime, the legate Vitalis, who had died without For secondary literature on the papal archive, see Part 1, Chapter 1. On the unfortunate delegation of 483, see Part  1, Chapter  3, “The Acacian schism”. 3 Felix III, ep. 11, Thiel, pp. 252-257 (March 483). Its authenticity is dubious: Jaffé 605 accepts that the Acts are a forgery, as argued by P. and H. Ballerini, Leonis Magni Romani pontificis Opera vol. 3, Venice, 1753, p. cxliv. Thiel, p. 284, also agreed with the Ballerini. It is not clear whether Felix III had even been elected bishop of Rome by this time, as Simplicius had died earlier in the same month. 1 2



TRANSLATION

seeking forgiveness of the pope and thus “bore the fate of divine judgement”. In this letter Gelasius pronounces his absolution. The notary, Sextus, kept a record of the council in the papal archives. This is further evidence of the change in record-keeping that took place in the pontificate of Gelasius. The following two letters confirm that this record-keeping extended beyond dogmatic councils. Letter 31, addressed to “the managers of the city”, presumably Rome, is a receipt for rents paid on a farm that belonged to papal estates. Letter 32 was written on the same day to Vincomalus, who was probably linked to the anonymous managers of Letter 31. Whether it pertains to the same rental property as Letter 31 is not clear, since in the second case the farm is not identified by name, although the payment amount is the same. That it was copied from the same form letter as Letter 31 is indicated by the recurrence of the same grammatical error in each letter, where the plural form of the verb becomes a singular, expressing the difference between a plural and a singular addressee. These two brief letters are the only known examples of their kind in the papal archives up to the time of Gregory the Great, and indicate that the papal estates in Italy were generating a substantial income at the end of the fifth century. Thirty solidi was a considerable sum (on the value of the solidus at this time, see the Glossary).

Letter 304 Or copy of the proceedings regarding the absolution of Misenus during the consulship of the vir clarissimus Flavius Viator, on the third Ides of May in the basilica of blessed Peter.5 1. Present at the synod was the reverend man, Pope Gelasius, together with Boniface, Maximinus, Epiphanius, Basil, Vitalis, Clarus, Irenaeus, Decius, Asellus, Euplus, Valentinus, Martinianus, Bassus, Benignus, Primitivus, Palladius, Vindemius, Constantius, Martyrius, Candidus, Text in Thiel, pp. 437-447; also ed. by Guenther, Collectio Avellana 103. 13 May 495, not 13 March, as Thiel p. 437, has annotated it in the margin. Thiel, p. 447, has emended the text Maji to Martii at the end of the letter, to agree with the date of Misenus’ last libellus, 13 March. However, there is no reason to suggest that this second libellus should have been dictated on the same day as the council received it. 4 5



THE PAPAL SCRINIUM AT WORK

Laurentius, Deodatus, Mercurius, Stephen, Dulcitius, Fortunatus, Paschasius, Sanctulus, Innocent, Chrysognus, Colonicus, Molensis, Maximianus, Valentinus, Constantius, Gaudentius, Felix, Vitalian, Peter, Serenus, Aucupius, Timothy, Stephen, Laurentius and Probus, bishops; present also were Castinus, Laurentius, Canusius, Eugenius, Januarius, Marcian, Gordian, Peter, Urbicus, Paulinus, Valens, Peter, Asterius, Smaragdus, Boniface, Maxentius, Epiphanius, Justin, Felix, Redemptus, Projectitius,6 Callistus, John, Valentinus, Sebastian, Martin, Epiphanius, Andreas, Servusdei, Apellio,7 Peter, Servandus, Agapitus, Abundantius, Marcellinus, Litorius, Laurentius, Agatho, Sebastian, Valentinus, Anastasius, Genesius, Dionysius, Epiphanius, Acontius, Paulinus, Agapitus, Adeodatus, Benedict, Dominic, Redemptus, Severus, Julian, Stephen, Crescentianus, Septiminus, Cyprian and Epiphanius, presbyters, together with Amandianus the vir illustris and Diogenianus the vir spectabilis; and also with the deacon assistants. Gelasius, bishop of the catholic church of the city of Rome, said: “Your Affection remembers that at a previous meeting a report delivered to us by Misenus was read out in your presence; if it pleases Your Affection, this same report should be reviewed once more, so that it is recorded in our proceedings. And because Misenus declares that the petitory claim in his hands is different, we shall be able to perceive what is contained in that too”. And he added: “Have Misenus’ report read out once more”. 2. The deacon Anastasius read out: “Dated by your servant Misenus on the eighth Ides of March,8 in the consulship of the vir clarissimus Viator. As far as the steep decline9 in my ill-fortune is concerned, I declare that my error cannot be forgiven on any grounds at all: therefore, I should not escape punishment in this matter, because I have deserved to be brought before a criminal judicial process, no matter the outcome.10 However, with regard to assistance that may remedy the case, there are two factors that constrain me to come to entreat you as a suppliant on Some MSS read Protectitius, but Thiel, p. 437 n. 1, rightly opts for Projectitius, remarking that this was the name of the presbyter who subscribed the Roman synod of 499. 7 Thiel, p.  437, retains this name, although a presbyter named Opilius subscribed to the Roman synod of 499. 8 8 March 495. The deacon Anastasius may be the future pope Anastasius II; cf. Part 1, Chapter 4, n. 28. 9 Lat. abruptum, a term used by Leo and elsewhere by Gelasius. 10 Misenus was subject to a double punishment, facing a civil charge of corruption, as well as the ecclesiastical tribunal of the Roman bishops in synod. 6



TRANSLATION

this matter, lest out of desperation I deserve to be afflicted with yet further torments for all time, in the manner of Judas’ transgression (cf. Acts 1: 15-20), and because that unspeakable clemency, which can absolve every wicked act by the power of the apostles, is so powerful. Therefore, in my case, Venerable Father (papa), I pour out only this one utterance in my wretchedness: ‘Spare one who is prostrate, stretch out your hand to one lying on the ground.’ I rely on no excuses for ignorance, I offer no fraudulent evasions, nor do I seek to transfer my dangerous ill-fortune onto someone, since I, who am asking to be absolved with clemency, should not implicate others: although I am not permitted to adduce anything for my defence, I nevertheless do not doubt that all these matters should be dealt with by your judgement. I have only one request: that, obeying the Divinity on high which proclaims through the prophet: ‘I do not wish the death of one who is dying until he turns and lives’ (Ezek 18:32), instead, balancing with kind consideration all proceedings that concern my person, you do not deny solace (viaticum) to an old man exhausted by continual ill-health and mortification, so that I am not snatched away without the communion of the church, understanding my experience of terror from the case of another, who, even though you were willing to provide help, was unable to attain it.11 And the very fact that while still alive I was able to attain the grace of being received into the church is a fitting demonstration that rather I became implicated in this disaster through naïveté.” 3. When this had been read out, Bishop Gelasius said: “The proceedings will record the petitory claim.” And he added: “Let Misenus come forward in person now and the petitory claim that he presented be read out in his presence.” After Misenus had come in, prostrating himself on the floor, he presented another petitory claim, and asked for it to be accepted. After it had been accepted, Bishop Gelasius said: “Let both petitory claims that he has presented be read while he is present too.” 4. Again Anastasius the deacon read out: “Dated by your servant Misenus on the eighth Ides of March (8 March), in the consulship of the vir clarissimus Flavius Viator. As far as the steep decline in my ill-fortune is concerned, I declare that the error I made cannot be forgiven on any grounds at all: therefore I should not escape punishment in this matter, because I have deserved to be brought before a criminal judicial process, no matter the outcome. This is an oblique reference to Misenus’ co-legate, Vitalis, bishop of Tronto, who had died some years earlier. 11



THE PAPAL SCRINIUM AT WORK

However, with regard to some assistance that may remedy the case, there are two factors that constrain me to come and entreat you as a suppliant on this matter, lest out of desperation I deserve to be afflicted with yet further torments for all time, in the manner of Judas’ transgression”, and the rest contained above.12 5. Again read out13 another petitory claim: “Dated by your servant Misenus on the third Ides of March (13 March), in the consulship of the vir clarissimus Flavius Viator. After my original petitory claim was presented, I have entreated as a suppliant nothing other than that the mercy of the apostolic see not be denied to me forever. I already feel that my hope of this is bright because of God’s boundless loyalty, by which it is directed, declaring that more and more my conscience is freed and cleansed of the infections of the traitors, which, being deceived, I fell into by misfortune rather than by design, I testify with my whole heart and mouth in view of God’s gaze that, with welldisposed attitude, I reject in truth all heresies and whatever is inimical to the catholic and apostolic faith and the genuine communion. Furthermore, I reject especially the Eutychian , of course with its instigator Eutyches and his follower Dioscorus, of course with his successors and those in communion with him – Timothy Aelurus, Peter of Alexandria, Acacius of Constantinople, Peter of Antioch – and I spurn, condemn, and anathematise forever their accomplices and those in communion with them, execrating all of them and their kind with loathing. I declare that I will never have any fellowship in any way whatever with such people, but will in future be far removed from them all. It will never be permissible for me of my own accord to accept their crooked ways: rather, because I seem to have fallen off my guard by the force of disaster, in the sight of God and blessed Peter the apostle and his vicar, as well as the whole church, as I said, with my professions and voice I condemn, hold in contempt, abhor those people, affirming that for all time I shall persevere in faith with the catholic and apostolic communion alone. With my own hand I have signed this claim on the third Ides of March, in the consulship of the vir clarissimus, Viator. I have entrusted these petitions with my own hands to Your Beatitude in the meeting of the reverend men.” And in another hand:14 “I, Misenus, have signed this Sc. in par. 2. The present tense is used in the Latin here, whereas we would expect the perfect as in other sections of the letter. 14 That is, the previous text was written by a notary, whereas now Misenus is signing in his own hand to guarantee the authenticity of the document. 12 13



TRANSLATION

petitory claim of mine which has been presented by me, on the day and under the consulship as above.” 6. Bishop Gelasius said: “What has been read out shall be copied in transcription.”15 And he added: “We wish to know through your participation too in the council what appears to Your Fraternity should be decided.” All the bishops and presbyters rose to their feet, asking in these words: “Christ, hear our prayer: long live Gelasius!” This was said twenty times.16 “Be responsible for what God in his magisterial power has given you!” This was said twelve times. “Do what Lord Peter does!” This was said ten times. “As you may allow, so do we ask!” This was said nine times. 7. When they had taken their seats again, Bishop Gelasius said: “In truth, the apostolic see, which at the designation of Christ the Lord retains primacy over the whole church, in the interests of common superintendence and care, makes provision with requisite foresight on behalf of the catholic faith or the canons of the Fathers or the rules of the elders. Just recently the apostolic see, under the leadership of my predecessor of holy memory,17 sent to the East Misenus and Vitalis, supported by the delegation of its authority, against the followers of the plague of Eutyches or those who had become polluted by communion with such people. Turning away from the teachings of the apostles, in some way or other they broke off fellowship with the ones to whom they had been sent, as an examination of events in the synodal proceedings made clear. The apostolic see removed Misenus and Vitalis from communion and equally from their high rank, deservedly and justly. However, mindfulness of the loyalty on high18 reserved by its moderation a place for mercy for these men, and while it established terms for punishment, it declined to cut off the hope of reconciliation. And so it moderated its verdict, such that it preferred to have their pardon arise from the salvation of 15 On the role of the notaries as transcribers, see H. C. Teitler, Notarii and Exceptores: An Enquiry into Role and Significance of Shorthand Writers in the Imperial and Ecclesiastical Bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. From the Early Principate to c. 450 AD, Amsterdam, 1985. 16 Acclamations were common in the course of synods: cf. Pope Leo I’s acclamation in the final session of the Council of Chalcedon, in the endorsement of his Tome: “ Peter has spoken through Leo”. Emperors Constantine VI and his mother Irene were acclaimed as “The new Constantine and the new Helen” at the Council of Nicaea II in 787: Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, Session 8, PL 129, 479A. 17 Felix III (483-492). 18 Sc. in heaven.



THE PAPAL SCRINIUM AT WORK

those by whose partnership they had been taken in; and so that they should rather provide both a salutary fear of reproof and fellowship in their correction of those whom they had supported by agreeing with their crooked ways. Lastly, those expressions of censure were so weighted as to remind them that they and their followers had been struck down, and they should not despair of being able to be rescued from their predicament. In this statement assuredly both the path of return was not completely shut off to them, and to the others, through them, if they so choose, the reform is offered and good will extended, that they might compensate for their past lapses by a better effort, if they direct the partiality which they conferred with ready will on the transgressors towards the reformation of catholic bishops instead. 8. For it was said: ‘they shall be suspended until such time as, by God’s design and the effort of the catholic leaders and the Christian people, the church of Alexandria has accepted a catholic bishop’. Evidently, it was believed to be a matter for congratulation that it was impossible in any way for the Greeks to reject this, because they saw that Peter had been condemned by the apostolic see and that they could easily be swayed by supplication. In this way they would know what to avoid and what they should aim for as a consequence, and, when they had come to their senses, be thought more inclined to agree with the upright on their side than perpetually to stray in the company of traitors. And it has long been awaited that, spurred on by these reasons, they would lay aside their infectious misdeeds, so that in agreement with the apostolic see, as had been the hope with regard to their inclination, they would apply their enthusiasm instead to supporting the catholic bishops who needed to be recalled. In so doing they would return speedily to union with the orthodox and ensure the success of the reception already determined for those who were comrades in their error. Nor shall there be a stop to any possible opportunity whereby, with fitting warning and adequate preparation, they might equally realise the dangers to be avoided, and observe that the door to apostolic communion is open to them, if they seek it with sincere intentions. 9. But because it has reached the point that, despite exhortations and remedies, while they do not even have objections to set forth, they nevertheless have put off entertaining a consensus up to the present, we indeed owe them a kind of fatherly affection of devout sorrow in their difficulties, while we pray earnestly to the omnipotence of our God, which alone can turn wills, however astray, towards the way of truth, so that by an amazing work of atonement, it graciously pours on these same people



TRANSLATION

a spirit of repentance and an effectual correction. Until these blessings eventuate by means of divine propitiation, just as we trust in the power of omnipotence, let us not allow this supplicant in the meantime to perish in any way while his longing is sincere, so that the Easterners do not take fright from his deposition, lest they persist in their error, but are simply stirred by our concern to return to salvation, especially since the very sense of the words will corroborate the merciful disposition of the apostolic see, and the regulation handed down will not be judged selfcontradictory. Namely, it has been decided, as has already been stated above, that the men19 about whom we are concerned should be suspended until such time as, ‘by God’s design and the efforts of those already mentioned,20 the church of Alexandria accepts a catholic bishop’. This has not been set forth hastily and without exception, but has been drawn up on the condition that the decision does not appear immutably fixed, whether these men exert themselves or not; and so the sense in which the situation has been weighed, when Misenus is not involved in it, frees him from the necessity of making a statement. For it is clear that what has been proclaimed should be done by the effort of the men just mentioned, cannot be done if he does not follow. But since it is recorded that it must be achieved through their effort as well, it has been demonstrated plainly enough that without this it cannot be fulfilled. Therefore, those whose effort is shown to be lacking are to be pitied for their stubbornness; however, because it is lacking, it has been assumed that, just as what cannot be accomplished without him can be accomplished with him, so if the conditions under which this case reaches its end should cease, it will not keep him bound insolubly. 10. On this account, the verdict that has been brought down grants freedom not from the existing , through which it can pertain right up to the agreed limit of his death, the freedom of conferring with those who were held back by constraints.21 And indeed, as must often be repeated, the apostolic see, reckoning that the Easterners can in no way reject what the apostolic see has opposed and cannot prefer a person before their own salvation and the apostolic communion of anyone, has considered these things in a way more favourable to their minds. But (what should not be kept quiet again) the sorry ruin cannot impugn as heedless the attitude of the apostolic see, which judged well Sc. Vitalis and Misenus. Sc. the catholic emperors and the Christian people. 21 A difficult sentence, qua style and content. 19

20



THE PAPAL SCRINIUM AT WORK

concerning the Easterners, any more than it can blame its own inflexibility, since it did not follow the path that was offered to it for its own restoration. However, it should not by its stubbornness thereby prevent others who desire it from having the healing power. For then it was said trustingly about the agreement with the Greeks that at one and the same time they appeared to be able to prefer the company of blessed Peter before people of whatever kind, and the ones who had previously been catholics were reckoned easily agreeable to the truth and thus incapable of putting their feeling for any person at all before their desires for apostolic communion. Since they have not yet accepted to enact this decree, which was taken for granted as being made possible through their willingness, it is decreed absolutely that no result is forthcoming, since there are none to bring it about, – no, because they themselves who it was judged would bring it about are standing in the way of its execution. 11. If they persist in this inflexibility (heaven forbid!), the condition in this matter, which was thought would be faithfully fulfilled by their efforts, is undone. But we rather wish they would turn to better things, lest in the meantime the one asking for mercy should be carried off either by old age or illness by which he is frequently assailed. As long as he survives it is advisable, 22 lest when he is already dead no remedy can be applied. In fact, since it was not said ‘whether they are making an effort or even perhaps are unwilling’, but ‘with their greater effort’23what was proclaimed could stand, so therefore if they are making an effort they will in no way hold out against what has been condemned. In this sense too the blessed apostle Paul is not thought thereby to have failed (heaven forbid!) or to have been self-contradictory, because when he promised to go to Spain, being overtaken by the divine dispensation, he was unable to fulfil his promise due to higher things (cf. Rom 15:28). For insofar as it concerned his own free will, he made known what he really wanted to accomplish; insofar as it pertained to the secrets of divine counsel, everything that it was impossible for a human being to know fully except through God’s Spirit, he left undone because he was hindered by what God had arranged. Nor because blessed Peter the apostle replied to the Lord himself out of his good-will and respect towards God: ‘You will never wash my feet’ (Jn 13:8) was he mistaken Sc. for a cure to be applied. cum eorum magis adnisu; cf. meliore conatu, at the end of Letter 30.7 above, and adnisu catholicorum principum in reference to the emperors/leaders, at the beginning of Letter 30.8. We take this to be a repetition of the statement of the conditions of their pardon in that earlier chapter. 22 23



TRANSLATION

(heaven forbid!), or will it be thought that he halted in his decision in the slightest, in that presently he gave in to the same divine will and was not about to do what he had said he would. Being hampered by reasons pertaining to the salvation of humankind, he sought with eager disposition what needed to be done. For that reason, when the avenue through which reconciliation with the plaintiffs had been established was not successful, it was possible to approach another, by which official aid is rendered to those for whom it has been ordered to be rendered: by all means let Misenus’ punishment be sufficient for whatever aberration or whatever transgression, a punishment that is administered to the point where it will be relaxed, only with overriding regard for the human condition, and the penalty, which cannot accrue, be remitted. Inasmuch as the all-powerful and merciful God has refused to deny a remedy to any soul that seeks it through dutiful conduct towards the church, it is not a matter for doubt that this matter will succeed with God himself as the instigator and with godly sympathy (compunctio), so that now it may be a question of Misenus’ rehabilitation, when there is no compelling need to drag out the expenses either. 12. Furthermore our Saviour delegated to blessed Peter the apostle before the rest: ‘Whatever you have bound on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you have removed on earth will be removed in heaven’ (Matt 16:19). Just as in these words he establishes no exception, so too everything in general can be bound by means of the apostolic dispensation, and consequently everything can be removed. Since especially on these grounds the example of the apostles’ compassion should be exhibited in a higher degree to all, so that by absolution the condemned, if they all recover their senses and withdraw from their error, and return to the genuine unity of the apostolic communion, should not doubt that they can cast off the chains of that condemnation which as transgressors they deservedly received as a body. For neither do we make an effort to look after those who are situated far from the sound faith; nor should we oppose those in the present circumstances who come back as suppliants. In this case we should be on our guard with due care, lest in any way we incur harm to our conscience (heaven forbid!) by denying mercy to the last, to one who begs for it, and the severe judgement which, even with regard to suppliants endures without end, becomes a matter of impeachment.24

24

Sc. to the one administering severe judgement.



THE PAPAL SCRINIUM AT WORK

13. Hence, insofar as the Lord allows the possibility to human beings, let us offer remedies to the one seeking them, while we leave to divine justice everything that surpasses the measure of our ability. 25 But those26 who beg us to grant pardon even to the dead, 27 which is clearly not possible for us to do, will not be able to take issue with us for dismissing the offending transgression during their lifetime, which is possible for the church by God’s generosity. Because it was said: ‘What you have bound on earth’ (Matt 16:19; Matt 18:18), 28 he therefore reserved those who are certainly not now upon the earth, not for human judgement but for his own, nor does the church dare to claim for itself what it perceives was not granted to the blessed apostles themselves. 29 14. Inasmuch as the case of those still living is one thing and the case of the deceased is another, Vitalis bore the fate of divine judgement, which, however much we might have wished, could not be obviated. At least let the experiences of another who was suddenly carried off while pursuing remedies be of profit to Misenus, as long as his 25 A similar judgement on those who died outside the church was made by Leo I in ep. 108.3 to Theodore of Fréjus, PL 54, 1112: “Nor are we required to judge the merits and actions of those who have died in this state, since our Lord God, whose judgements cannot be understood, has reserved for his justice what could not be fulfilled by the priestly ministry.” Trans. Neil, Leo the Great, p. 135. 26 Facundus of Hermiane, a North African bishop (d. 570) praised the interpolation “who beg us to grant either pardon or condemnation even to the dead”. On Facundus, see T. Hainthaler, “Facundus of Hermiane”, in Religion Past and Present, vol. 5, Leiden, 2009, p. 7. The whole of this paragraph from this point on is cited by Pope Vigilius in ep. 24 (a. 553), without the interpolation of the alternative phrase “or condemnation”, which suggests that it was not in the original letter of Gelasius. Leo I, ep. 108.3, advised Theodore of Fréjus that priests could not grant absolution to anyone after death. 27 That is, to forgive the other legate Vitalis, now deceased, as the next chapter shows. Similarly in ep. 18.5, Thiel, p.  385, Gelasius refused to offer absolution to Acacius after his death. 28 Note that the Petrine commission is here used to defend the pope’s authority on an internal matter, not a matter of primacy over other sees. Cf. a similar usage of the biblical passage in Gelasius, ep. 10.3, in Section 2 above. 29 Facundus of Hermiane believed that the following addition belonged here: “For if it is permitted to bind the dead, it is also permitted to loose them; and if it is permitted to bring condemnation on the dead, it is also permitted to give them pardon.” He cited as evidence both manuscript witnesses and its presence in ep. 24 of Vigilius cited above in n. 26. Thiel, p. 446, n. 40, rejected this emendation, noting that the closing words “(what) it perceives was not granted” refer more logically to the opening line of the next chapter (14): “Inasmuch as the case of those still living is one thing and the case of the deceased is another […]”.



TRANSLATION

resources permit during his lifetime. We know what is written: ‘One will be taken and one will be left’ (Lk 17:34). The danger of the one cut off while he was alive exhorts us not to put off the means of healing. The one who is destined to be the recipient by divine providence is indicated by the very fact that he outlives the other, who was not judged worthy of attaining these favours. And a certain examination of heavenly judgement in both cases is illuminating and revealed to us more clearly in the two situations: in the one it was a case without pardon, in the other, with pardon, where indulgence should not be lacking. And it is thereby much more a mark of apostolic piety not to refuse to the person who was contaminated by communicating with him, if he entreats with tears, the indulgence which Acacius himself in his lifetime could also have obtained if he had sought it properly, inasmuch as it was laid down ‘to be indissoluble’, so that it was not said ‘even if he perhaps reforms’. Therefore let Misenus, having declared according to the rules that he execrates all heresies, particularly Eutychianism, with Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter of Alexandria, Acacius of Constantinople, and Peter of Antioch and all who succeed, follow, and are in communion with them, and brands them with eternal anathema, receive the grace and honour of apostolic and episcopal communion, which he obtains through the catholic tradition.” 15. Rising to their feet all the bishops and presbyters shouted in the synod: “Christ, hear our prayer, long live Gelasius!” This was said fifteen times. “Lord Peter, preserve him!” This was said twelve times. “Long live his see too!” This was said seven times. “In you we see the vicar of Christ!”30 This was said eleven times. “In you we see the apostle Peter!” This was said six times. “Long live his see too!” This was said thirtyseven times. I Sextus, notary31 of the holy church of Rome, on the order of my lord the most blessed Pope Gelasius, have made a copy of this from the archives on the thirteenth Ides of March while the vir clarissimus Flavius Viator was consul.

30 Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 322, notes that this is the first known use of this title as applied to the bishop of Rome. See Part 1, Chapter 4 above. 31 Cf. n. 14 above.



THE PAPAL SCRINIUM AT WORK

Letter 3132 Gelasius to the managers of the city It is settled that you (pl.) have put in an amount of 30 solidi of gold to church accounts out of the payment from the farm of Clacula which you (sing.) hold on the basis of the farming title, concerning the produce during the year of the consulship of the viri clarissimi Asterius and Praesidius, in the third indiction. I signed on the fifth Kalends of August (28 July, 495), while the vir clarissimus Flavius was consul.

Letter 3233 Gelasius to Vincomalus It is settled that you (pl.) have put in an amount of 30 solidi of gold to church accounts out of the payment from the farm which you (sing.) hold on the basis of the farming title, concerning the produce during the year of the consulship of the viri clarissimi Asterius and Praesidius, in the third indiction. I signed on the fifth Kalends of August (28 July, 495), while the vir clarissimus Flavius was consul.

Text in Thiel, pp. 447-448. Text in Thiel, p. 448.

32 33



SECTION 4: DECRETALS

Decretals from bishops of Rome originated as responses to queries from individual bishops, which were later taken to have universal application. Their status as decretals was thus a gradual evolution, owed in large part to their preservation in medieval canon law collections. Gelasius provided perhaps the earliest definition when he wrote in Letter 42: “Likewise, decretal letters which the most blessed popes sent at different times from the city of Rome, for the consultation of diverse Fathers, are to be taken up with respect.”1 In this letter, Gelasius treats the precepts of ancient canons and papal writings as equally binding, referring to them both as “canons”. Letter 14, known as the General Decree (Decretum generale), makes frequent reference to the ancient canons,2 while allowing for relaxations of these rules according to the situation, such as an acute lack of clergy.3 Originally addressed to the bishops of southern Italy, in the regions of Lucania, Bruttium and Sicily, the letter attained a life of its own when it was cut up into 28 separate decretals by Dionysius Exiguus in the early sixth century.4 The rubrics invented by Dionysius have been reproduced at the beginning 1 Gelasius, ep. 42.3, Thiel, p. 458: ‘Item decretales epistolas, quas beatissimi papae diversis temporibus ab urbe Roma pro diversorum patrum consultatione dederunt, venerabiliter suscipiendas esse.’ 2 E.g. constituta Patrum inviolata serventur (ch. 2); paterni canones (ch. 17); sententiae subjaceant quam canones praefixerunt (ch. 23); antiqua de eis debent instituta servari (uch. 24) 3 ubi nulla perurget necessitas (ch. 2); cum nulla cogit necessitas (ch. 24). On the lack of clergy see Part 1, Chapter 4, “Clerical appointments”. 4 Neil, “The Decretals of Gelasius I”, discusses this letter in some detail. Cf. Part 1, Chapter 4, n. 35.



TRANSLATION

of the translation of Letter 14 below. The letter was issued on 11 March 494, shortly after the triumph of Theodoric in Italy. It seeks to lay out ecclesiastical law and also strays into some areas of civil law. The inclusion of this letter in the sixth-century canon law collection known as the Dionysiana has been discussed at some length in our Introduction above.5 Letter 42, known as the Gelasian Decretal, is an index of canonical and non-canonical books dating to 495 or 496. Its authenticity has been questioned, with Schwartz suggesting that it was most likely composed in southern Gaul in the sixth century.6 However, the theory is cast into doubt by a reference to the “Gelasian decretal” in a hostile prologue that was appended to it in the late fifth or sixth centuries.7 We accept De Gaiffier’s argument that the earlier witness to Gelasian authorship is most likely to be correct. Letter 42, chapters 4 to 9, were taken up and copied almost verbatim by Hormisdas (514-523) in Letter 125, a list of apocryphal works.8 There is no distinction made in either pope’s list between apocryphal and heretical works. Gelasius’ Letter 42 starts with a justification of his authority as the bishop of the church of Rome, which “is nonetheless preferred, since the rest of the churches have not been established by any synodical documents, whereas Rome obtained the primacy by the saying of our Lord”, quoting Matt 16:18. This is quite disingenuous (if the text is indeed correct), since Peter was not in Rome when the commission was made, and Gelasius himself admits that there are two other churches with strong connections to Peter: that of Alexandria, which he counts as second; and that of Antioch, which he counts as third. Constantinople, which proclaimed itself as second to Rome in honour at the councils of Constantinople I (381) and Chalcedon (451) – at both of which it had the home ground advantage – does not rate a mention. Gelasius’ aggressive statement of Rome’s authority over the universal church was made in the context of the ongoing Acacian schism. Leo the Great’s Tome to Flavian (ep. 28), the foundation for the Definition of Faith that was reached at Chalcedon, is given particular endorsement, with a repetition of the anathema against anyone who dares Part 1, Chapter 4, “Gelasian Decretals”. E. Schwartz, “Zum Decretum Gelasianum”, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 29 (1930), pp. 161-168, following H. Declerq, “Gelasien (Decret)”, in Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, ed. by F. Cabrol, Paris, 1924, vol. 6, pp. 722-747. 7 B. de Gaiffier, “Un prologue hagiographique hostile au décret de Gélase?”, in Analecta Bollandiana, 82 (1964), pp. 341-353 (343-344). 8 Thiel, pp. 931-938. 5 6



Decretals

“dispute its text down to one iota” (at the end of Chapter 3). Orthodoxy is strictly defined as being in communion with Rome.

Letter 14 General Decree9 Titles 1. On regulating the appointment of ecclesiastics at the proper time. 2. That when there is no compelling necessity, the ordinances of the Fathers should be kept inviolate; or, when there is a shortage of clergy, they should be chosen from the monks. 3. That if any people from the laity are chosen for the clergy, they should be investigated much more carefully than is prescribed for monks. 4. That new basilicas should be dedicated by bishops on the order of the pope. 5. That no payments should be exacted for baptising and confirming (consignandis) the faithful; in the case of those who have done this, they will put their position in danger. 6. That priests should observe the proper measure, not prepare chrism, not confirm,10 nor in the presence of any bishop whomsoever should they either take it upon themselves to pray or sit, unless the bishop orders them to, and neither should they ordain an acolyte or a subdeacon. 7. In the same way deacons too should have regard for the proper limits of their rank, according to the decrees of the Fathers. 8. That deacons should not be able to sit in the priests’ area (presbyterio), nor should they arrogate to themselves the distribution of the sacred body while priests are present. Text in Thiel, pp. 360-379. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pp.  760-761, notes that Innocent made a similar ruling in 416, in his letter to Decentius of Gubbio (ep. 25.3): “Presbyters are allowed to anoint the baptised with chrism. But they are not allowed to sign the forehead with the same oil consecrated by the bishop, for that is used by the bishops only when they give the Spirit.” (trans. M. F. Connell, Church and Worship in FifthCentury Rome: The Letter of Innocent I to Decentius of Gubbio, Cambridge, 2002). The separation of roles of priests and bishops meant that the first anointing at baptism and the second anointing of confirmation were separated in time, sometimes for an extended period. 9

10



TRANSLATION

9. That the apostolic see should guard the canons of the Fathers with pious and zealous devotion. 10. That apart from the season of Easter and Pentecost nobody should presume to baptise, with the sole exception of those whose extreme bad health has necessitated it. 11. That the ordinations of priests and deacons may be celebrated at fixed times. 12. That virgins should be consecrated on predetermined days. 13. That widows should not be veiled. 14. That no leaders should protect the slave or originarius of a church or monastery in the name of religion if the owners are unwilling: whoever has attempted to do this will put his position and his communion in danger. 15. That the clergy should not pursue dishonourable business-dealings or filthy profiteering. 16. That nobody who is illiterate or missing any part of his body should be advanced to the clergy. 17. Concerning those who castrate themselves. 18. That criminals are not allowed to be advanced to the clergy, and those already established among the clergy, if they should be found involved in any crimes, should be debarred from their duties. 19. That it is not permitted to conduct the sacred services while under the influence of demonic or other unrestrained passions. 20. That those who associate with holy virgins and commit acts of filthy incest11 cannot take communion, unless perchance they have done public penance. 21. That widows, as said above, should not be veiled; and if, by changing their minds, they have scorned the continence they promised, they will render an account for themselves to the Lord. 22. That second marriages should not be denied to seculars; however, by no means is it granted to the twice-married to enter the clergy. 23. That if anyone has received a deserter from his own church12 and promoted him into any rank, both should be subjected to the sentence which the canons have fixed. 24. That if some from the ranks of the monks or the laity are chosen for the clergy, when no necessity compels it, the ancient determinations 11 This is a reference to the subintroductae, women who lived with men in spiritual marriage. This was considered a dangerous practice and was condemned, inter alia, by the Councils of Elvira (c. 306), Ancyra (314), and Nicaea (325). 12 On the right to asylum in churches for runaway priests, and the legal and epistolary evidence, see Part 1, Chapter 2, “Displaced persons”.



Decretals

must be observed in their cases. If they are proved to have trafficked the holy rank for a price, they should be deposed from their office, for the crime of Simon Magus embraces the giver and the recipient.13 25. Concerning newly-established sacred spaces, whatever was said above, this addition is nonetheless made now: that no basilica that is built may be dedicated in the name of the deceased.14 26. That it is unlawful for women to minister at the sacred altars, or to take on themselves any of those duties allotted to men. 27. That in any church at all over which a bishop presides, four shares should be made both from income and from the offerings of the faithful, so that one share is to be used for the bishop, a second for the clerics, a third for the poor, a fourth for church fabric. 28. That a bishop, priest, or deacon, verifiably accused by any cleric at all of acting against these ordinances, can be struck down without hesitation; also a bishop will endanger his office if he remains silent on all these matters that should be brought to the attention of the church. 1. We are constrained by the necessary disposition of affairs, and we are obliged to the governance of the apostolic see, so to balance the canonical decrees of our Fathers and to dispense the teaching of the leaders of past times and of our predecessors, that we, by applying careful consideration, may as far as possible regulate the alleviation that the exigency of present times demands for the renewal of the churches. In this we should not be regarded as wholly going beyond the formulation of the ancient rules by repairing the duties of the clerical profession, which the assault of war and famine has wasted through various parts of Italy. In many churches, as we have learned through the frequent reports of our brother and fellow-bishop John, bishop of the church of Ravenna,15 everywhere there is a lack of ministers to serve. If we do not relax for a Cf. Acts 8:9-24. Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp.  166-172, documents the increased oversight of private estate churches by Roman bishops from Gelasius onwards. Another example is ep. 33 to John of Sora (translated in Section 8 below), which seeks to restrict the rights of the noblewoman Magetia to have masses said for the dead in her private oratorium, with accompanying public visits and processions. 15 Known to us from Liber Pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, 34-46, Deliyannis, pp. 186-208. John (477-94) is described in ch. 34, Deliyannis, p. 186, as ‘pauperum nutritor […] egenorum alimonia tributor’ (“sustainer of paupers […] a giver of alms to the needy”), in much the same way as is Gelasius in LP 1, p. 255. A letter of Simplicius, ep. 14, Thiel, pp. 201-202, addressed to the same John of Ravenna in 482, reprimands him for trying to ordain an unwilling bishop, namely Gregory Mutinensis. 13 14



TRANSLATION

short time the intervals for ecclesiastical advancement that were fixed in ancient times, the churches will remain completely forsaken by the holy orders of the church, without which they cannot be administered. In very many places, for want of suitable help, there is a lack of support for saving souls in need of redemption, and we ourselves become involved in a serious accusation if in some measure we do not take thought for such a pressing danger. 2. Therefore, due deference to the olden ordinances remains, which, when there is no pressing emergency to do with situations or times, it is appropriate to observe in accordance with the rules. To that extent, we allow the churches which are either robbed of all their ministers or so bereft of sufficient service that they are not in a position to provide the divine gifts for those people belonging to them, to do away with the intervals for both appointing and advancing clerical service. As a result, if someone, even one of a religious bent who has been trained in monastic discipline, enters the clerical rank, first the conduct of his life in the past must be investigated: if he is shown not to be contaminated by any serious offence, if in all probability he did not have a second wife, nor is there exposed a wife who was abandoned by her husband; if in all probability he has not performed public penance and does not appear to have any bodily part amputated;16 if he is not hindered by the state of a slave or an originarius; if he is now shown to be free from ties with the curia;17 if he has had an education, without which in all probability he could scarcely fulfil the role of the porters; if he is supported by all these aforementioned conditions, let him immediately be made a reader or a notary or a defensor at least; after three months let him be an acolyte, especially An exclusion of castrati; cf. item 17 below. See the Glossary on this term. Holders of municipal offices (curiales) were excluded from the clergy because their secular obligations were considered to be incompatible with divine office: CTh 16.2.6, Krueger, Mommsen, and Meyer, pp. 836837; Nov. Val. 36.6, trans. Pharr, p. 550: “Moreover, such persons must not be called to any other burden, but they shall be held exempt from all other duties, in order that they may be free for this service.” Many curiales nevertheless sought exemption from taxes and the freedom from munera (on which see the Glossary) that clerical office offered. Innocent I, ep. 3.VI.9, PL 20.492 (Jaffé 286), and Boniface I (418-422) (LP 1, p. 227, line 15) had already issued decrees forbidding anyone under obligation to a curia from clerical ordination. On the clerical cursus honorum, which was transformed in the early fifth century into a career pathway similar to that of the government or imperial bureaucracy, see G. D. Dunn, “The Clerical cursus honorum in the Late Antique Roman Church”, in Patrologia Pacifica Tertia. Selected Papers Presented to the AsiaPacific Early Christian Studies Society (Scrinium, 9), ed. by P. Allen, V. Baravov, B. Lourié, Piscataway, NJ, 2013, pp. 120-133. 16 17



Decretals

if his age also is in favour of it, in the sixth month let him take the title of subdeacon, and if his way of life is modest and his intention honourable, in the ninth month a deacon, and at the end of a year a priest. However, because the intervals of the years were compressed, let it be ascertained that his allegiance to his holy intention is voluntary. 3. But if anybody from among the laity is to be added to the ranks of ecclesiastics, it is seemly for a person of this kind to be examined with so much greater attention to the details encompassed above, as is the distinction, it is agreed, between the worldly and religious life, since the ministries suitable for the church should be restored, not that people should be rushed into unsuitable offices. And so much more should there be an enquiry into what could be useful for the sacred services in their lifestyles, as may be gleaned from the time when they would need to be acquired. Hence the uprightness of their conduct will be shown to possess what a longer familiarity did not offer, lest through the opportunity of assisting the financial hardship of the clerics, blemishes have been introduced instead into divine worship, we are reckoned to have gained the profits of an illegitimate family. Nonetheless, we add six months over and above the period of a year for their advancement, because, as I have said, it is appropriate to distinguish between the person who is dedicated to divine worship and one coming from the way of life of laypeople. However, we have become convinced that these things should be granted, so that the ministries may be renewed in those churches where, through the troubles of war, either nothing at all or very little has remained; until, when these things have been returned to God in propitiation, the ancient canonical formula of the Fathers with regard to filling ecclesiastical ranks may be observed. Nor should the cure that is being provided for a temporary shortage count in any way against them; it is not proposed as a new law against the decisions of the elders. For all other churches unaffected by this situation which have not been laid low by a similar disaster, it is appropriate to uphold the original verdict with regard to conducting ordinations. Having been apprised more thoroughly of this situation, we more readily order the observance of the venerable canons, warning the consciences of those in every clerical rank not to attempt to rush into unlawful aberrations. Nor should any of the pontiffs admit that it is right for the twice-married, or those who have contracted marriages abandoned by others, however much they may have done penance, or those who are illiterate, or have body parts missing, or those subject to restitution or involved in connections with the curia or affairs of the state, or those who have been banned far and



TRANSLATION

wide with no expectation of a suitable time to return, approach to serve the divine mysteries. Nor at their own whim should they seek to arrive at foreign laws, unless a lawful directive from the apostolic see orders them to do so. 4. Let them not dare to dedicate newly constructed basilicas by injunctions that have not been sought in the customary way.18 Let them not go about claiming for themselves clerics who belong to an outside jurisdiction. 5. Let them not fix any payments for baptising or confirming, nor should they desire to harass the reborn19 by imposts of any kind, because we are commanded to give without pay what we have received without pay (Matt 10:8). And thus let them make a point of demanding nothing at all for the services mentioned above, whereby, either discouraged by pressing poverty or withdrawn through having no regard for their own redemption, they neglect to approach such cases. They can be certain that those who have been caught accepting what is prohibited or preferably have not voluntarily corrected what they did, would bring their own position into danger. 6. No less too do we forbid priests to go beyond their authority, and not boldly take upon themselves the duties that accrue to the exalted rank of bishop: they are not to perform chrism, and are not to lay claim to the faculty of confirmation, which belongs to the bishop. In the presence of any overseer at all, unless perhaps he is ordered, the priest may not presume to have the license of acting in the role of bishop either in prayer or the sacred function; nor in the sight of the bishop should he presume to sit or to handle the venerable mysteries, unless he is ordered. Nor should he think by any reckoning that he has been allowed the right of creating a deacon or acolyte without the supreme pontiff, nor should he be in any doubt at all that he will immediately be deprived of his priestly rank and of holy communion if he has deemed that something pertaining particularly to the episcopal ministry should be carried out on his own initiative. Let us decide what needs to be done if a transgression of this kind has been approved by the granting of his bishop; his bishop himself will not be free from the charge of connivance and from being punished, if he has neglected to point out that the priest was acting in an unbridled manner. 18 Canon 8 of the Council of Chalcedon stipulates that martyrs’ shrines and the clerics in charge of them are under the jurisdiction of the bishop in each city: see Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. *91. 19 Sc. the newly baptised.



Decretals

7. We have decided that deacons too should observe a proper measure, and we do not permit them to attempt anything that is counted as going beyond the contents of the Fathers’ canons. They should add absolutely nothing to their ministry from those duties that antiquity has appropriately decreed for minor orders. Let them not dare to baptise without a bishop or a priest, unless extreme necessity forces them, except perhaps for the duties mentioned above that have long been established: very often this is granted to lay Christians too. 8. Nor are deacons to take their seats in the priests’ area when the divine mysteries are being celebrated or church management of any kind is being discussed.20 They may not have the right of carrying out the distribution of the sacred body while a pontiff or a priest is present, but only in their absence.21 Let us also greatly exert ourselves to safeguard what has been decreed by the venerable ordinances and, without any prejudice to them, let us permit what seems to require alleviation, for the sake, it may be, of some brief necessity. 9. Since we wish that nothing opposed to the saving respect of the rules should be rashly allowed to us too, and because the apostolic see strives to hold with faithful and dedicated resolve to all these things which, by God’s grace, have been fixed by the canons of the Fathers, it is most shameful to oppose one of the pontiffs or of the orders who follow the observance which he observes the see of blessed Peter is both following and teaching. And let it be well agreed that the whole body of the church is in accord in this observance, which it perceives is held in esteem in that place where the Lord established the sovereignty of the entire church. Scripture says: ‘Set love in order in me’ (Song 2:4), and again ‘Let everything be done with order’ (1 Cor 14:40), and once more the Psalmist declares: ‘Walk around Sion and encircle her, count her towers, turn your hearts to her strength, and measure out her ramparts, that you may tell the next generation that this is God, our God for eternity, and it is he who will rule us forever’ (Ps 47 (48):13-15). It is beyond doubt that the one who is related to be at the top of ecclesiastical offices, and to whose strength hearts are to be turned to good works, the ramparts to which have been measured out, must be proclaimed as our God and ruler of the entire Christian people. Let nobody think that there is any diminution to his own person, because he loses nothing by the perfec20 Canon 18 of the Council of Nicaea stipulates that deacons should not be seated among the presbyters. See Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 15. 21 Thiel, p. 366 n. 55, notes that this is evidence of the practice of reserving the sacrament after communion.



TRANSLATION

tion of one rampart, and by appropriately holding onto it. What has been bestowed by a heavenly dispensation he has granted to us in like manner, both to make God knowable and to be a ruler. For even if some concession is made concerning the length of time, it is compensated by the character and activity of the adherent; if he is already supported by his way of life, which had to be taken into consideration because of his advanced age, as long as no pretences sneak in, which – however excellent he is – rightly show him to be a person unworthy of the insignia of the clerical office. Even if concessions sometimes need to be made, which, if the authenticity of everything else is established, do not of themselves have the power to do harm, there are things that need greatly to be guarded against, which cannot be accepted without obvious stain. But if a consideration of events or times compels, or regard for a quick arrangement excuses those very things which are believed to have been granted at different times without detriment, how much more should the things that neither any pressure nor practicality for the church obtains by force be lessened in any way? 10. Let nobody think that he has any liberty to baptise randomly at any time of the year except at the Easter feast and the reverent rite (sacramentum) of Pentecost, excepting the onset of very serious ill-health, where it is to be feared that, as the danger of the illness increases, the sick person, overtaken by death, might perhaps depart without the saving cure.22 11. Let them also not dare to engage in the ordinations of priests and deacons, except at fixed times and on fixed days, that is: let them know that they are to solemnise them during the fast of the fourth month, the seventh and tenth, but also at the beginning of Lent, and on the day in the middle of Lent, during the fast of Saturday, towards evening. It is of no use at all to promote either a priest or a deacon ahead of those who have been appointed before them. 12. By no means let them put the sacred veil on dedicated virgins, save either on Epiphany day or in the white days of Easter, 23 or on the feast-days of the apostles, unless perhaps, just as we said about baptism, they have been overcome by serious ill-health; lest they pass from the 22 In fact, Canon 13 of the Council of Nicaea stipulates: “Concerning the departing [sc. dying], the ancient canon law is still to be maintained, namely that those who are departing are not to be deprived of their last, most necessary viaticum”; Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. *12. See Glossary. 23 Sc. during the week after Easter (in albis), when the newly baptised wore their white baptismal clothing.



Decretals

world without this gift, it should not be denied to those who pray earnestly for it. 13. But let none of the pontiffs expect to veil widows, because what is not ordered by divine authority, nor warranted by the formulation of the canons, should not be arrogated in any way. Thus they should accept the church’s protection in such a way that nothing illicit is committed. 14. There is also a general assumption regarding a complaint that is to be avoided, whereby almost everyone pleads that slaves and originarii everywhere, who are fleeing the lawful possession of their owners under the guise of a religious way of life, either take themselves off to monasteries or are admitted indiscriminately to servitude in the church, with the connivance too of leaders. This ruin must be removed in all cases lest either, by giving it a Christian name, outside ideas seem to be spread about or public discipline undermined: especially since it is not appropriate for the rank of the clerical ministry itself to be blackened by this entanglement, and forced by the status and condition of those fighting with it to be blamed, or (heaven forbid!) regarded as liable. When these events have properly been forbidden through a punctilious interdict, any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any of those who are known to be in charge of monasteries, who are keeping people of this kind with them and not returning them to their protectors, or who have considered that these people should be directed to the service of the church or to religious congregations, except perhaps if by the decision of the owners in written evidence they were previously absolved or that they left by a legal transaction, should be in no doubt that they are endangering their own position and communion, if a truthful complaint from somebody should arraign us about this matter. Indeed it should be guarded against with great effort,24 according to the blessed apostle, lest the faith and discipline of the Lord be defamed (1 Tim 6:1). 15. It has come about as a consequence that we think the facts related to us in a report sent to us lately from the districts of Picenum should be not overlooked, that is, that very many of the clergy are intent on dishonourable business-dealings and filthy profiteering.25 They hear with no shame that Gospel reading by which the Lord himself is said to have driven out the traders from the temple by beating them with whips (cf. This does not seem to pertain to the scriptural citation that follows. Clerical usury is condemned by Canon 17 of Nicaea: see Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. 14; and by Pope Leo I, ep. 4.3, Wurm, p. 91. We note that Leo’s letter was also addressed to the clergy of Picenum, as well as of Catania, Etruria and “all the provinces”. 24 25



TRANSLATION

Matt 21:12; Jn 2:15), nor do they recall the words of the apostle in which he said: “Nobody fighting for God entangles himself in civilian business” (2 Tim 2:4). They also pretend to turn a deaf ear to the Psalmist David as he sings: “Because I have not known business, I shall enter into the sovereignty of the Lord” (Ps 70:15-16). Accordingly, let them know that they are either to refrain from unworthy pursuits of this kind and that there is to be a cessation from every inclination or desire for business of whatever kind, or that they will soon be forced to keep away from clerical offices in whatever rank they are appointed: the house of the Lord is a house of prayer and must be so and be said to be so, lest instead it become a business office and, even more, a den of thieves (Lk 19:46). 16. We have taught that illiterate people too and those who have suffered the amputation of some body part are in no respect to approach the service of the church. Together the ancient tradition and the olden formulation of the apostolic see do not admit this, for the one who lacks education cannot be fit for sacred offices, and legal injunctions have decreed absolutely that nothing blemished should be offered to God (cf. Lev 21:18; Deut 17:1). And so for the rest, such cases should be avoided by all means, and nobody like that be accepted into the clergy. But if some like that were previously accepted through the personal thoughtlessness or carelessness of those presiding, they should continue in the ranks to which they have been appointed, but so as never to secure advancement, and they should regard it sufficient that this much is permitted them through an excess of compassion. 17. But concerning those who have castrated themselves, the canons of the Fathers have clearly set down what is to be followed.26 Let it suffice that their contents should be imparted. For they say that those who have perpetrated such deeds should be excluded from clerical office as soon as they have been discovered. It is appropriate for us to observe this in every way, because the law agrees that is not for anyone to make a resolution beyond what a well-remembered formulation has decreed. 18. We have also discovered that, since all discretion has been removed, those implicated in horrible crimes not only do not have the Canon 1 of the Council of Nicaea (Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. *6) stipulates that those who have castrated themselves should be suspended from the clergy, whereas those who have undergone surgery by physicians or been castrated by barbarians may be admitted to, and remain in, the clergy. A case of accidental castration is the subject of frg. 9, concerning a priest who wounded his nether regions when jumping a fence trying to escape a barbarian attack. The priest appealed against his deposition, and the pope ruled that, since the accident had happened several years after his ordination, he should be restored to office. 26



Decretals

necessary repentance for their atrocious deeds, but also without any subsequent reform at all seek the office of the divine ministry. Moreover, there are even some, established in their own positions although guilty of serious misdoings, who are not rejected, although the apostle too cries out: “Do not lay hands hastily on anyone and do not participate in another person’s sins” (1 Tim 5:22), and the venerable ordinances of the elders declare that even if they perhaps came in unawares, both those who previously sinned should be rejected when they are discovered, and transgressors who have forgotten the holy resolve of their sacred calling, should be removed without hesitation. 19. We have even been discovering continually that certain unlawful acts have made their appearance, such that it is allowed to handle the inviolable ministries with demonic and similarly unrestrained passions.27 If for those engaged in this work any emergency of their own should arise, who of the faithful can have confidence in his own salvation when he has perceived that the very ministers who look after people are plagued by a disaster of such proportions? And so of necessity they must be removed, lest a scandal arise for any of the weaker, for whom Christ died. Finally, if, for example,28 divine law in no way permits someone with a bodily deformity or disability to touch holy things, how much more is it inappropriate for those who administer the heavenly gift when their mind has been affected, which is worse? 20. It has come to our attention that certain men indiscreetly keep company with holy virgins, and after their dedication to God commit filthy acts of incest and sacrilege with them. It is fair that these men should immediately be thrust away from holy communion, and not accepted at all unless through public and approved penance, while solace (viaticum) should certainly not be denied them as they pass from this world, provided, however that they have done penance. 21. Now concerning the fact that widows are not to be veiled with any blessing, we have conducted an extensive discussion above. If a widow of her own volition, through a change of mind, has spurned the 27 Demonic passions may refer to the passions of lust, avarice, jealousy or anger, or even to the partaking of mind-altering substances such as alcohol. Epilepsy was also considered a form of demonic possession, as in frg. 8, Thiel, pp. 487-488, on helping a church whose bishop had collapsed (elisus) allegedly from frequent attacks by the devil. Bishops Rusticus and Fortunatus were commanded to investigate whether the bishop ever fell down at home or in public, and to see to this matter within thirty days because swift action was necessary. 28 This is the legal use of the word fortassis/fortasse, as opposed to other occasions when it can be translated as “perhaps”, “in all probability”, or equivalent.



TRANSLATION

chaste state that she promised in her original marriage, the nature of the satisfaction with which she should please God will be a risky matter for her. For just as if she had perhaps not been able to remain chaste, she was in no way forbidden to marry, according to the apostle (cf. 1 Cor 7:9), so after considering it within herself she should have kept the vow of modesty she made to God. But for our part we should set no trap for such women, but only put before them exhortations regarding the eternal prize and the punishments of divine justice, so that both our conscience may be acquitted and they, by their own effort, render an account to God on their own behalf. One should take heed of what the blessed apostle testifies concerning their way of life and their actions (cf. 1 Tim 5:9).We are going to pass over a more extensive treatment of this lest we be regarded as not so much discouraging as chastising the sensibilities of the unsteady sex. 22. Just as it is allowed for seculars to enter second marriages, so after these marriages nobody is permitted to advance to the college of clerics.29 For it is one thing for room to be conceded for human frailty in general; the life of those dedicated to the service of divine affairs should be another. 23. Any deserter who has thought of transferring from his own church to another for no manifest reasons and has been indiscreetly received and given advancement, will himself not escape the ordinances of the revered canons, which have fixed what is to be observed in the case of presumptuous people of this kind; nor will the one who receives and advances him escape.30 24. Concerning monks and lay persons, there has been a rather extensive explanation in the first part of this injunction: what has been granted because of the exigencies of events or times has been granted to this extent that, in the event that it is proved not to be a question of any exigency, only the ancient arrangement should be observed. But those who it has been agreed are unworthy of their offices, because they have traded their sacred rank for a price, should be kept at a distance as convicted men, which is not without danger for one who ratifies such a

29 Only the once-married could be advanced to the clerical state, and priests and bishops had to “keep their wives as if they did not have them”, to quote Leo I’s answer to Question 3 in ep. 167, addressed to Rusticus, bishop of Narbonne, PL 54, 1204A; trans. Neil, Leo the Great, p. 142. 30 Legislated for in Canon 20 of the Council of Chalcedon; Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. *96.



Decretals

crime, because the condemnation of Simon embraces both the giver and receiver equally, as the sacred reading testifies (cf. Acts 8:18-21). 25. Concerning the consecration of holy places, although this was summarily covered above, it is obvious to us too that none should take it upon themselves to consecrate churches or oratories without the permission of the apostolic see. Nevertheless, we have been shaken by the more than abominable disclosure that people are related to have audaciously inaugurated buildings with sacred processions in some name or other of the deceased,31 and, so it is said, not all of them were believers. Because these actions are as repulsive as they are hard, such that our ears can hardly bear it, if in truth the sympathy for Christianity is firm and fixed in those regions, it is both the case that these complaints are more serious and are proven by the deeds that have come to pass. Just as among the names that lie behind this atrocious act there is not one against which a due verdict can be handed down, so when it has been uncovered by clear documentation, he will in no way escape the vengeance that the heinousness of so great a crime demands. 26. No less have we heard with impatience that such a disregard has come upon divine affairs that women are encouraged to minister at the sacred altars, and that they openly perform everything that has been assigned only to the service of the male sex, to which they do not correspond. But of all the offences which we have reprimanded individually, every impeachment and charge of the guilty comes back to those bishops who either commit these crimes or who indicate that they countenance base aberrations, by publicising those who commit them as little as possible. However, those who are already called by the name of ‘bishop’, who are striving to subvert the religious office assigned to them, in such a way that they are slipping into evil and worldly ways – they, without any respect for the Christian rule, are chasing a headlong fall. It is written: The one who despises the smallest things will fall little by little (Eccli 19:1).32 What should we think of such people as these, who, involved in huge and manifold quantities of evil, have brought about an enormous mess by their various proddings, which seem not only to overwhelm them but also to inflict a fatal ruination on churches everywhere, if it is 31 As in the case of Magetia: see ep. 33, translated in Section 8 below. Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, p. 168, notes that normally it was forbidden to bury bodies in established churches, or to consecrate a chapel on a burial site. 32 The same citation is used in Gelasius, ep. 12.5, Thiel, p. 353, immediately following Jam 2:10, For whoever offends in one point is guilty of all. See our translation in Section 1 above.



TRANSLATION

not cured? Let not only those who have dared to perform these deeds, but also those who up to the present have remained silent about what they knew, be in no doubt that they are putting themselves in danger of losing their own rank, if they do not hasten with as much speed as they can muster to heal lethal wounds with the appropriate medication. For by what custom should those who have so far neglected the injunctions of the pontiffs’ vigilance hold on to the rights of pontiffs, so that instead they are working against the house of God, over which they preside? And as much as they can before God, unless they have arranged it by an agreement, so let them consider what they deserve, since with detestable energy they are pursuing contrary goals, and as if this rule by which the churches should be governed were more important, so whatever is inimical to ecclesiastical regulations is perpetrated. And if a single one of the pontiffs had knowledge of the canons, he should have held on to them with inviolate care, and if perchance he did not know them, in his ignorance he should have freely consulted. No excuse helps those in error more, because, not knowing, he declared that he was observing what he knew, nor in his ignorance did he make a point of knowing what he was doing. 27. It is appropriate, moreover, that four portions be made both from the income and the gifts of the faithful, as the ability of each church permits, and as was decreed reasonable a short while ago.33 Of these, one belongs to the pontiff, the second to the clerics, the third to the poor, the fourth is to be used for church fabric. In these matters, just as it concerns the bishop to pay the entire sum I have mentioned to the ministers of the church, so the clergy must know that they are not arrogantly to seek anything beyond what has been assigned to them. But let the obvious restoration of the holy places inform us that these funds that have been allocated to church buildings were truly ear-marked for this work, because, if the sacred buildings have been defrauded, it is unlawful for the leader to turn to his personal profit the expenses that were set aside for them. Notwithstanding, let him be seen to have verifiably dispensed that portion assigned to the poor as much as possible for godly reasons; in accordance, however, with what is written: So that they may see your good works, and give glory to your Father, who is in heaven (Matt 5:16),

Simplicius, ep. 1.2, Thiel, pp. 176-177 (Jaffé 570), from 475. Gelasius refers to the same four-fold division in ep. 17 of the same year, 15 May; Thiel, pp. 381-382 (Jaffé 637); frg. 20, Thiel, pp. 494-495 (Jaffé 710); frg. 23, Thiel, pp. 496-497 (Jaffé 741); and frg. 28, Thiel, pp. 499-500 (Jaffé 738). The fragments cannot be dated. 33



Decretals

that it should also be declared by personal testimony and not be kept silent about when he publicly proclaims his good name. 28. Accordingly, let none of the clergy be confident of escaping this offence in the future if, in the matters we have drawn up that are to be followed vigorously, he should see a bishop or priest or deacon overstepping the mark, has not made a point of bringing it to our attention34 immediately, as long as the votes of assent have been procured properly, so that the transgressor’s punishment may prohibit others from offending. Indeed by all means each single pontiff will be the destroyer35 of his own rank and office if he thinks that these matters are to be kept concealed from any of the clergy or from the hearing of the whole church. Dated the fifth Ides of March, during the consulship of Asterius and Praesidius, viri clarissimi.36

Letter 4237 Or a decretal on the subject of accepting and not accepting books, which was written by Pope Gelasius with seventy very learned bishops38 in the apostolic see of the city of Rome.39

Lit. “our ears”. Lat. elisor, not in dictionaries. 36 11 March 494. 37 Text in Thiel, pp. 454-471. 38 The number 70 is highly symbolic and resonant of the seventy who translated the books of the Septuagint into Greek in 70 days. This suspicion is confirmed by the fact that only forty-six bishops were present at the Roman synod convened to absolve Misenus (see ep. 30 in Section 3). 39 Athanasius of Alexandria’s ep. 39, his paschal letter for the year 367, limited the canon to twenty-two Old Testament books and twenty-seven New Testament books. See Canones in causa Apiarii 24, ed. by C. Munier, Concilia Africae a. 345-a. 525 (CCSL, 149), Turnhout, 1974, p. 108; D. Brakke, “Canon Formulation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt. Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter”, in Harvard Theological Review, 87 (1994), pp.  395-419; idem, “A New Fragment of Athanasius’ Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon”, in Harvard Theological Review, 103 (2010), pp. 47-66; C. Markschies, “Haupteinleitung”, in Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1, Evangelien und Verwandtes, 1, ed. by C. Markschies, J. Schröter with A. Heiser, Tübingen, 2012, pp. 1-180 (72-73). 34 35



TRANSLATION

Chapter 1 1. After the Scriptures of the prophets and the evangelists and the apostles, on which the catholic church, by the grace of God, is founded, we have considered that it should be made known that, although there is one bridal chamber of Christ for the universal catholic church which is spread throughout the world, the church of Rome has nonetheless been given precedence, since the rest of the churches have not been established by any synodical decrees, whereas Rome obtained the primacy by the saying of our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel: “You are Peter”, he says, “and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you have bound on earth will be bound also in heaven, and whatever you have loosed on earth will be loosed also in heaven” (Matt 16:18). Added to that is the company of the most blessed apostle Paul, the chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), who after suffering was crowned40 on one and the same day (not on a different day, as the heretics say nonsensically41) with Peter in the city of Rome under the Caesar Nero. Together they consecrated the holy church of Rome, mentioned above, to Christ the Lord, and by their presence there and their venerable triumph they gave it precedence among all the other cities in the whole world. Therefore, the church of Rome, the see of the apostle Peter, is first, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph 5:27). The second see was consecrated in Alexandria in the name of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and the evangelist. He was directed by the apostle Peter to Egypt, preached the word of truth and achieved a glorious martyrdom. The third see of the same most blessed apostle Peter is given honour at Antioch, because he lived there before he went to Rome, and it was there for the first time that the name of Christians as a new race appeared (cf. Acts 11:26).42 Sc. with the martyr’s crown. Some Christians believed that Peter and Paul died on the same day, 29 June, but not in the same year. See Thiel, p. 455 n. 7. G. Lønstrup notes the efforts of Pope Damasus (366-384) to build up the cult of Rome’s founding saints, with the celebration of their dies natalis on 29 June becoming synonymous with the foundation of the Roman church. In Gaul the saints’ deaths were celebrated on 22 February; in the eastern church on 28 December, according to a martyrology of 411. See G. Lønstrup, “Constructing Myths: The Foundation of Roma Christiana on 29 June”, in Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, 33 (2008), pp. 27-64 (41). 42 Once again Gelasius ignores the provision of the canons for the see of Constantinople to be the second in importance after Rome. Here he does so tacitly on the basis that there was no ancient apostolic connection with the eastern capital. 40 41



Decretals

Chapter 2 2. And although nobody can lay another foundation apart from what has been laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor 3:11), nevertheless for the purpose of instruction the holy church, that is, the church of Rome, after those Scriptures of the Old or the New Testament which we accept according to the rule, does not forbid these writings too from being accepted, that is: The holy synod of Nicaea of three hundred and eighteen fathers, facilitated by Constantine, the greatest, Augustus.43 The holy synod of Ephesus, at which Nestorius was condemned with the agreement of the most blessed Pope Celestine, facilitated by Cyril, overseer of the see of Alexandria, and Bishop Arcadius, who was sent from Italy. The holy synod of Chalcedon, facilitated by Marcian Augustus and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, in which the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, together with Dioscorus and his accomplices, were condemned. Chapter 3 3. Likewise the works of blessed Caecilius Cyprian, martyr and bishop of Carthage. Likewise the works of blessed Gregory Nazianzen, bishop.44 Likewise the works of blessed Basil, bishop of Cappadocia. Likewise the works of blessed Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. Likewise the works of blessed John, bishop of Constantinople. Likewise the works of blessed Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria. Likewise the works of blessed Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. Likewise the works of blessed Hilary, bishop of Poitiers. Likewise the works of blessed Ambrose, bishop of Milan. Likewise the works of blessed Augustine, bishop of Hippo Regius. Likewise the works of blessed Jerome, the priest. Likewise the works of the most religious man, Prosper.45 43 A conspicuous omission from this list of ecumenical councils is the Council of Constantinople I (381), which promoted Constantinople to second place of honour after Rome, thereby advancing itself above Alexandria. The missing council does appear in some manuscripts which attribute the decretal to Hormisdas: Thiel, p. 456 n. 14; cf. Hormisdas, ep. 125.3, Thiel, p. 933. 44 The text reads “bishop of Nazianzus”, which Gregory was not. 45 Prosper Tiro, or Prosper of Aquitaine, was the author of a Chronicle (CPL 2257) and other theological works (CPL 516-528).



TRANSLATION

Likewise the letter of blessed Pope Leo, sent to Bishop Flavian of Constantinople: if anybody were to dispute its text down to one iota, and not to receive it as venerable in all respects, let him be anathema.46 Likewise decides that the works and treatises of all the orthodox Fathers, who have in no respect veered away from the fellowship of the holy church of Rome or withdrawn from its faith or preaching, but participated in communion with it, by the grace of God, to the last day of their life, are suitable to be read. Likewise the decretal letters, which the most blessed popes sent from the city of Rome at various times for the consideration of various Fathers, are to be received with reverence.47 4. Likewise the deeds of the holy martyrs who beam forth among their multiple and excruciating torments the amazing triumphs of their confessions. What catholic could doubt that they suffered those things and more in their struggles and did not bear all these things by their own strength but by the grace and help of God? But according to an ancient custom, by an unparalleled security measure in the church of Rome both those deeds whose authors’ names are totally unknown and are thought to be written by unbelievers or private persons, being unnecessary or less appropriate than the order of the matter was, are not read: like those of a certain Quiricius and Julitta, like those of George, and passions of others of this kind, compositions produced by the heretics. Therefore, these are not read in the holy church of Rome, as has been said, to prevent even a slight chance of derision from arising. However, for our part, we – together with the aforesaid church – reverence with all devotedness all the martyrs and their glorious struggles, which are known better to God than to human beings. Likewise we accept with all honour the lives of the Fathers, Paul, Antony, Hilarion, and all the hermits, those at least which the most blessed Jerome wrote.48 The famous ep. 28 or “Tome” of Leo I, which was accepted at Chalcedon in 451. Ed. Schwartz, ACO 2.2.1, pp. 24-33. Trans. Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 96-103. 47 Decretal letters up to Gelasius’ day included those of Siricius (two letters), Innocent (twenty-five or twenty-six letters), Zosimus (two letters), Boniface (three letters), Celestine (three letters), and Leo I (seventeen). On the letters of Innocent, Zosimus and Boniface, see G. D. Dunn, The Letters of Innocent, forthcoming. On the decretals of Leo, see Neil, Leo the Great, pp.  46-49. More generally on Roman decretals, see D. Jasper, “The Beginning of the Decretal Tradition”, in D. Jasper, H. Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages (History of Medieval Canon Law), Washington, DC, 2001, pp. 3-133; and L. Kéry, Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400-1140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature (History of Medieval Canon Law), Washington, DC, 1999. 48 These include CPL 617-619 (vitae of Paul, Hilarion and Malchus). 46



Decretals

Likewise we know that the acts of blessed Silvester,49 leader of the apostolic see, are read by many catholics, at least in the city of Rome, although the author’s name is unknown, and many churches follow suit, according to ancient usage. Likewise the composition about the finding of the Lord’s cross, and the other composition about the finding of the head of blessed John the Baptist are indeed recent accounts and several catholics read them. But although these works have come into the hands of catholics, let the verdict of blessed Paul the apostle lead the way: “Test everything, hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess 5:21). Likewise the devout man Rufinus published very many books of ecclesiastical work¸ and also translated several writings.50 But since the venerable Jerome censured him in some of his works on the subject of free will, we hold to the same sentiments as we know the aforementioned blessed Jerome holds to, and not only concerning Rufinus, but also about all those people whom the man I have mentioned frequently finds fault with because of his zeal for God and his scrupulosity in matters of faith. Likewise we accept as worthy of being read several works of Origen, which the most blessed man, Jerome, does not reject.51 But we say that all the rest should be disapproved, together with their author. Likewise the Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea and the books of the Ecclesiastical History by the same man:52 although in the first book of his account he was lukewarm and afterwards wrote one book praising and excusing Origen the schismatic, because he notes details that are relevant for instruction we do not say that his books are to be disapproved on every occasion. 49 Silvester I, bishop of Rome from 314 to 335, under Constantine the Great. For his Gesta, preserved in the Constitutum Constantini, see CPL 2235. 50 Rufinus of Aquileia or Tyrannius Rufinus (d. 411) translated works of Origen and others (including Eusebius of Caesarea’s Historia Ecclesiastica) from Greek into Latin (see CPL 198a-o; CPG 3495). His original works include Commentarius in symbolum apostolorum (CPL 196), HE, a continuation of Eusebius (see P. R. Amidon, The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books 10 and 11, Oxford, 1997), and several defences of his works against Jerome, with whom he became embroiled in a famous dispute over the orthodoxy of Origen’s works. For Jerome’s responses, see CPL 613-61. 51 See the preceding note, and M. Vessey, “Jerome and Rufinus”, in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, ed. by F. Young, L. Ayres and A. Louth, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 318-327. 52 CPL 198k, 2263; CPG 3494-95.



TRANSLATION

Likewise we extol highly the most learned man Orosius,53 because he narrated a history that was extremely indispensable to us against the false accusations of the pagans, and put it together with admirable conciseness. Likewise we esteem with extraordinary praise the work on Easter by the venerable man Sedulius, which he wrote in epic verses.54 Likewise we do not reject by any means the industrious work of Juvencus, but admire it.55 5. The other works, which are written or preached by heretics or schismatics, the catholic and apostolic church of Rome in no way accepts. Of these we have decided that a few that have come to our notice and are to be avoided by catholics should be appended. Chapter 4 A notice of apocryphal books which are not accepted.56 We declare that the synod of Arminium, which was convened by Constantius Caesar, son of Constantine Augustus, with the facilitation of the prefect Taurus, from that time on and now and forever is condemned.57 53 Paulus Orosius of Braga (d. after 418) wrote a providential history of the Roman people, Historiae adversus paganos (CPL 571) after the sieges of Rome in 408-410. He sought to defend Christians against pagan accusations that conversion to Christianity had weakened the empire, and especially the city of Rome, and left it open to attacks by the Gothic tribes. 54 Sedulius, a Christian poet of the mid-fifth century of Italian origin, wrote the Carmen paschale (CPL 1447). 55 Juvencus, a fourth-century Christian poet, was described by Jerome in De viris illustribus 84 as “a Spaniard of noble family and presbyter”. He translated the four Gospels almost literally in dactylic hexameter verses, a work called Evangeliorum libri (CPL 1385). 56 There is no distinction in what follows between apocryphal and heretical works. Unless otherwise stated, every apocryphal work also appears in Pope Hormisdas’ list of apocrypha (ep. 125). We are grateful to Sarah Gador-Whyte and Wendy Mayer for their assistance with the notes for chapters 4 and 5. 57 The Council of Arminium (modern Rimini on the Italian coast), held in 359 by the pro-Arian emperor Constantius II at the same time as the eastern Council of Seleucia. 400 bishops attended the western council, and the majority voted that Arianism should be condemned. The same outcome was achieved by the 160 bishops at the eastern council. However, the Arian leaders who were deposed by the councils, although a minority, won the favour of Constantius. Representatives of each council met at Nike and upheld an Arian creed, since each had been told that the other group accepted it. The Council of Arminium was rejected by Pope Liberius (352-366). See Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. by E. Ferguson, 2nd edn. New York, London, 1997, vol. 2, pp. 988-989, s.v. “Rimini/Seleucia, Councils of ” (F. W. Norris).



Decretals

6. The account of a journey in the name of the apostle Peter, which is called by the number 10 of the book of St Clement, is apocryphal.58 The exploits in the name of the apostle Andrew are apocryphal.59 The exploits in the name of the apostle Thomas are apocryphal.60 The exploits in the name of another apostle Peter are apocryphal.61 The exploits in the name of the apostle Philip are apocryphal.62 The gospel in the name of Matthias is apocryphal.63 The gospel in the name of the apostle Peter is apocryphal.64 This work, known as the Recognitiones, survives in the Ps-Clementine collection (CPG 1015.5). The standard edition is Die Pseudoklementinen 2, Rekognitionen in Rufins Übersetzung, ed. by B. Rehm, G. Strecker, 2nd edn. (GCS, 51), Berlin, 1994. It is believed to be based on an earlier work, perhaps one related to the Kerygma Petrae and the Praxeis Petrae. See “Clementines. Pseudo” (R. Trevijano). in Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. by A. Di Berardino, Cambridge, 1992, vol. 1, p. 179. 59 The Acts of Andrew, written in Greek, are perhaps first listed as apocryphal by Eusebius (HE 3.25.6). The text survives and has been edited by J.-M. Prieur, Acta Andreae, 2 vols. (Corpus Christianorum. Series Apocryphorum, 5-6) Turnhout, 1989. 60 The text is believed to have been written originally in Syriac. For translation and commentary, see A. F. J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text and Commentary, 2nd edn., Leiden, 2003. 61 There are various versions of the Acts of Peter. See The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, ed. by F. Bovon, A. Graham Brock, C. R. Matthews (Harvard Divinity School Studies), Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 39; J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford Scholarship Online, 1993, pp.  390-430 (10.1093/0198261829.001.0001; accessed 13 February, 2014). Many of the Greek and Latin versions were edited and published by R. A. Lipsius, M. Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1891-1903; repr. Hildesheim, 1990. 62 The Acts of Philip has been edited by F. Bovon, B. Bouvier, F. Amsler, Acta Philippi. Textus (Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum, 11), Turnhout, 1999. 63 Eusebius lists Matthias’ gospel as apocryphal (HE 3.25.6). The text does not appear to survive. Clement of Alexandria quotes from a text called the Traditions of Matthias (e.g. Stromateis 2.45.4), but Lührmann doubts that these fragments belonged to a gospel (D. Lührmann, Fragmente apokryph gewordener Evangelien in griechischer und lateinischer Sprache, Marburg, 2000, p. 140). 64 The text is fragmentary. The largest fragment survives in a fifth- or sixth-century parchment codex PCair 10759. See M. Vinzent, T. Nicklas, “Das Petrusevangelium”, in Antike christliche Apokryphen, ed. by Markschies, Schröter, pp. 683-695, with a German translation of the surviving fragments (pp. 691-695). An English translation and commentary is provided by P. Foster, The Gospel of Peter: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Commentary (Texts and Editions for New Testament Study, 4), Leiden, 2010, pp. 109-205 and 211-511. According to Eusebius (HE 6.12.1-6), the gospel of Peter was declared apocryphal at the end of the second century by Serapion of Antioch (cf. Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, p. 82). Foster, The Gospel of Peter, p. 114 accepts the argument for a sixth-century date of the Decretum Gelasianum, and suggests that it is perhaps likely that its author “did not have any firsthand knowledge of this text”, since its contents are not 58



TRANSLATION

The gospel in the name of James the Lesser is apocryphal.65 The gospel in the name of Barnabas is apocryphal.66 The gospels in the name of Thomas, which the Manichaeans use, are apocryphal.67 The gospel in the name of the apostle Bartholomew is apocryphal.68 The gospel in the name of the apostle Andrew is apocryphal.69 The gospels which Lucian falsified are apocryphal.70 The gospels which Hesychius falsified are apocryphal.71 The book about the infancy of the Saviour is apocryphal.72 The book about the birth of the Saviour and about Mary or the midwife is apocryphal.73 7. The book which is called The Shepherd is apocryphal.74 All the books which Leucius, the devil’s pupil, composed are apocryphal.75 discussed. In this respect, that its contents are not discussed, it is no different from any other work that is listed as apocryphal in the Decretum Gelasianum, so this is not a strong argument for the Gospel of Peter being unknown to the author of the Decretum. 65 This work, which is not the same as the Protoevangelium of James, is hard to identify. Two apocryphal apocalyptic texts have survived under the name of James (called the First and Second Apocalypses of James) as well as one letter (Epistula Iacobi Apocrypha), but no gospel is extant. 66 The text does not survive. 67 The gospel of Thomas survives in the Nag Hammadi Codex (NHC) II, 2, and in several papyrus fragments (POxy 1, POxy 654 and POxy 655). See S. L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated & Explained. Translation & Annotation, London, 2003. 68 This work is not extant. On two other works connected with the name Bartholomew, which may or may not have been related to his gospel, see Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, pp.99-104. Jerome mentions the gospel of Bartholomew in the preface to his commentary on Matthew. 69 This text does not survive. It is mentioned as apocryphal by Innocent I (ep. 1.3.7) and Augustine (Contr. advers. leg. et proph. 1.20). 70 This text is not extant. It is mentioned by Jerome in his preface to his translation of the New Testament as a work which he will pass over. 71 Jerome also mentions this apocryphal work in his preface to his translation of the New Testament. It does not appear to survive. 72 Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels, p.205, identifies this work as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for which see W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, trans. R. Wilson, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1991, vol.1, pp. 439-451. 73 Klauck, p.205, identifies this work as the Protoevangelium of James, for which see Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, pp. 421-439. 74 The Shepherd of Hermas (CPG 1052). 75 This and most of the following twenty gnostic or apocryphal works are not listed in CPL or CPG.



Decretals

The book which is called The Foundation is apocryphal. The book which is called The Treasure is apocryphal. The book about the daughters of Adam Leptogenesis is apocryphal. The book which is called The Exploits of Thecla and the apostle Paul is apocryphal.76 The book which is called after Nepos is apocryphal. The book of Proverbs which is written by the heretics and bears the name of St Sixtus is apocryphal. The revelation which is called after Thomas is apocryphal. The revelation which is called after Paul is apocryphal.77 The revelation which is called after Stephen is apocryphal. The book which is called Transitus, that is, the assumption of St Mary, is apocryphal.78 The book which is called The Repentance of Adam is apocryphal. The book about Og the giant,79 who is fictitiously said by the heretics to have fought with a dragon after the Flood, is apocryphal. The book which is called The Testament of Job is apocryphal. The book which is called The Repentance of Origen is apocryphal. The book which is called The Repentance of St Cyprian is apocryphal.80 The book which is called The Repentance of Jamna and Mambra is apocryphal. The book which is called Oracles is apocryphal.81 The book which is called The Sports of the Apostles is apocryphal. 76 The Acts of Paul and Thecla, which belongs to the genre of the ancient novel, is a work that drew from other circulating material and gained its current form some time during the second half of the second century. At the turn of the second century a version (the Acts of Paul?) was referred to by Tertullian, De baptismo 17. Regarding its date and authorship (which may in part have been female) see J. W. Barrier, The Acts of Paul and Thecla (WUNT, 2. Reihe, 270), Tübingen, 2009, pp. 22-24. Barrier (26-27) discusses whether it was the Acts of Paul and Thecla or the Acts of Paul that was condemned by Gelasius. 77 An Apocalypse of Paul survives in the Nag Hammadi Codex (NHC) V,2 (CPG 1191). 78 This work does not appear to survive. 79 Hormisdas, ep. 125.5, Thiel, p. 936, makes an uncharacteristically humourous emendation to “Eugenia the giant”. 80 This work is omitted in Hormisdas, ep. 125.5. 81 Presumably the Sybilline oracles (CPG 1352), which circulated widely. There were other oracle collections in circulation, however, including the prophecies of Montanists (see CPG 1325).



TRANSLATION

The book which is called The Canons of the Apostles is apocryphal.82 The book, The Physiologus, which is written by the heretics and bears the name of blessed Ambrose, is apocryphal. 8. The history of Eusebius of Pamphilus is apocryphal.83 The works of Tertullian are apocryphal.84 The works of Lactantius are apocryphal.85 The works of Africanus are apocryphal.86 The works of Posthumianus and Gallus are apocryphal.87 The works of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla are apocryphal.88 All the works of Faustus the Manichee are apocryphal.89 The works of Commodian are apocryphal.90 The works of the other Clement of Alexandria are apocryphal.91

82 There were a number of works titled Canones apostolorum in circulation in Latin at this period. See CPG 1739-1742. 83 Eusebius took the name of his teacher Pamphilus. The Life of Constantine, about which scholarly opinion both ancient and modern has been divided, seems to be meant here. 84 Tertullian’s late adherence to the sect of the Montanists before his death led to suspicion being cast upon all his works. See G. D. Dunn, Tertullian (The Early Church Fathers), London, New York, 2004, pp. 8-9. 85 Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius, a teacher of rhetoric and tutor to Constantine I’s son, Crispus, produced Christian apologetic works addressed to adherents of traditional Graeco-Roman religions and philosophical schools, such as his treatise De ira Dei (CPL 88). His Divine Institutes (CPL 85), which displays a pre-Nicene Christology and understanding of the divine economy, is an early attempt at systematising Christian theology. 86 Julius Africanus was suspected because of his millenarian ideas. 87 A probable reference to the Dialogues on monasticism and Martin of Tours by Sulpicius Severus (CPL 477), in which the interlocutors are Sulpicius’ friend Postumianus and an unnamed Gaul (gallus). The role of the Dialogues in the labelling of Priscillian as heretical is discussed by V. Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy, Berkeley, 1995, pp. 141-59. 88 A probable reference to the Dialogues on monasticism and Martin of Tours by Sulpicius Severus (CPL 477), in which the interlocutors are Sulpicius’ friend Postumianus and an unnamed Gaul (gallus). The role of the Dialogues in the labelling of Priscillian as heretical is discussed by V. Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy, Berkeley, 1995, pp. 141-59. 89 Fragments are preserved by Augustine in his treatise Contra Faustum Manichaeum (CPL 321, 726). 90 A Christian Latin poet writing in the mid-third century. Of his works there survive 80 acrostic poems or Instructiones (CPL 1470) and the Carmen apologeticum (CPL 1471). 91 The identity of this second Clement of Alexandria is uncertain.



Decretals

The works of Tascius Cyprian are apocryphal.92 The works of Arnobius are apocryphal.93 The works of Tyconius are apocryphal.94 The works of Cassian, the Gallic priest, are apocryphal.95 The works of Victorinus of Petovium are apocryphal.96 The works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul are apocryphal.97 The works of Frumentius the blind are apocryphal.98 The Cento on Christ, put together with verses from Vergil, is apocryphal.99 9. The letter of Jesus to King Abgar is apocryphal. The letter of Abgar to Jesus is apocryphal.100 One of the names of Cyprian of Carthage. Arnobius Sicca, a third- to fourth-century author, used many sources including oracles and magical papyri, but ignored Scripture and ecclesiastical authors. 94 The Liber regularum of Tyconius (CPL 709), a contemporary of Augustine’s in North Africa, offered an alternative approach to biblical exegesis, according to which the Scriptures were understood historically, as God’s revelation in human time, rather than philosophically: see A. D. Fitzgerald, ed., Augustine Through the Ages. An Encylopedia, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1999, pp. 853-855, s.v. “Tyconius”. (P. Fredriksen) 95 John Cassian (d. c. 435), whose major works, the Institutiones (CPL 513) and Collationes (CPL 512) were the result of his formulative experiences of eastern asceticism, found enthusiastic support among the “semi-Pelagians” of the monastery of Lérins, on whom see n. 97 below. His attempts to find a middle-ground between Augustine and Pelagius on questions of grace and predestination led to his condemnation in the West but not in the East, where Augustine’s influence was slight. See Fitzgerald, Augustine Through the Ages, pp. 133-135, s.v. “Cassian, John” (B. Ramsey). 96 For his genuine works, which include a commentary on Revelations, see CPL 79-80. 97 Faustus of Riez (455-480) entered the monastery of Lérins as a monk and was made abbot in 433. Around 458 Faustus was elevated as bishop of Rhegium (Provence) but was later banned by Arian Visigothic king Eurich (477-485). He participated in various synods and is considered a leading representative of southern Gallic “semiPelagianism”. His works include De Spiritu sancto (CPL 982); De gratia (CPL 961); De ratione fidei (CPL 964), ed. by A. Engelbrecht, Fausti Reiensis, praeter sermones pseudo-Eusebianos, opera, accedunt Ruricii epistulae (CSEL, 21), Vienna, 1891. 98 Cf. Rufinus, HE 10.9. In some accounts Frumentius, originally a Syrian monk, later missionary to the Ethiopians, was blind. 99 Written by Anicia Faltonia Proba (PLRE 2, p. 907, s.v. “Proba 3”) and evidencing a classical education (CPL 1480), this is one of the few surviving literary works written by a woman from late antiquity. See R. P. H. Green, “Proba’s Cento: Its Date, Purpose, and Reception”, in Classical Quarterly ns 45/2 (1995), pp. 551-563. 100 This is a Syrian work documenting the conversion of the people of Edessa, along with their king Abgar IX (179-214), by the disciple Addai, purportedly one of the seventy-two sent out by Christ. Abgar made a reply in the form of a verbal message, or, according to Eusebius, HE 1.13, a letter: a fifth-century Armenian version of 92 93



TRANSLATION

The Passion of Quiricus and Julitta is apocryphal. The Passion of George is apocryphal.101 The Scripture which is called The Reply of Solomon is apocryphal.102 All amulets which are not of angels (as they pretend they are), but are rather consecrated with the names of demons, are apocryphal. These things and things like them, which Simon Magus,103 Nicolas, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, also Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who were wanting in a similar error, also Montanus with his disgusting followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus, or the Manichee Faustus of Africa,104 Sabellius, Arius,105 Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatian, Sabbatius, Caelestius,106 Donatus, Eustathius, Jovinian, Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum, Caelestius,107 Maximian, Priscillian of Spain,108 Nestorius of Constantinople,109 Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, which survives with a French translation, ed. by L. Alishan, Lettre d’Abgar ou Histoire de la conversion des Édesséens par Laboubnia, écrivain contemporain des apôtres, Venice, 1868. 101 There is probably no historical basis for any of the events recorded in the earliest Greek legends of the soldier-saint George which come from the late fourth century, as K. Krumbacher established in Der heilige Georg in der griechische Überlieferung (Abhandlungen der bayerischen Akademie Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 25) Munich, 1911, p. 3. 102 Not listed in CPL or CPG. 103 On Simon Magus and the names which follow, several of which are out of chronological order and indicate an ignorance or lack of interest on Gelasius’ part, the reader can consult, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. by A. Di Berardino, 2 vols. Oxford, 1992, and A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”, ed. by A. Marjanen, P. Luomanen, Leiden–Boston, 2008. 104 Gelasius’ condemnation of Manicheism is treated in Part 1, Chapter 3. 105 On the condemnation of Arianism, see Part 1, Chapter 3. 106 This is probably meant to be Callistus, a follower of Sabellius: as in the emendation of Hormisdas, ep. 125, Thiel, p. 937. 107 On the condemnation of Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum and Caelestius, see Part 1, Chapter 3. 108 Priscillianists, following the death of their founder Priscillian, accused of crimes of magic at the end of the fourth century, reemerged in the Spanish province of Galicia in the mid-fifth century. Gelasius follows Leo I’s condemnation of them (cf. Leo I, ep. 15 to Turibius of Astorga). The sect was condemned finally at the Synod of Braga in 563. 109 Again, Gelasius follows Leo I’s lead, in his condemnation of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428-431), condemned at the Council of Ephesus (431) and Eutyches, archimandrite of Constantinople, who was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon (451), together with followers of Nestorius. These two figures were seen as the originators of complementary heresies on the theology of the natures and persons of Christ, with Nestorius advocating “two Sons” according to his detractors, and



Decretals

Eutyches, Peter and the other Peter (one of whom defiled Alexandria, the other Antioch), Acacius of Constantinople with his partners,110 as well as what all heresiarchs and their disciples or schismatics taught or wrote, whose names should not be preserved in the slightest  – these should not only be scorned, but also got rid of by every catholic and apostolic church in Rome, and we declare that, with their originators and the followers of the originators, they have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema.111

Eutyches erring towards one nature Christology (so-called “monophysitism”). Gelasius wrote his tract De duabus naturis (CPL 1673), ed. and Italian trans. by R. Ronzani, Lettera sulle due nature (Biblioteca patristica), Bologna, 2011, in an effort to counter both these heresies, which were at the heart of the Acacian schism. 110 On the condemnation of Acacius, Peter the Fuller of Alexandria, and Peter Mongus of Antioch, see Part 1, Chapter 3, “The Acacian schism”. 111 Genealogies of heresy, or heresiologies, commonly traced contemporary heresies back several generations, even centuries, in order to portray them as derivative and thereby downplay their originality.



SECTION 5: CLERICAL AND SOCIAL ABUSES

The eight letters translated below show how Gelasius dealt with clerical and social abuses, which in this period included extortionate interest rates, people-trafficking, indentured labour of free children and corruption in both the secular and ecclesiastical spheres. In these eight letters we find Gelasius directing bishops to investigate the claims of individuals against both laypersons and clergy. Concern for papal property consumed much of his attention. In Letter 17, Gelasius reminds the bishops of Sicily to administer the powers of the church according to canonical decrees; the thirty-year law1 should be upheld in the case of their occupation of those churches as for dioceses. Gelasius charged Bishop Geruntius of Valva with investigating whether the bishop of Potentia had stolen a sacred paten and turned it to his own private use, and asks for a report in Letter 7. In another letter, Gelasius ordered three bishops to examine the case of the plaintiff Festus, who claimed that Urbanus, the former bishop of Fulginiae (Foligno), took his estate from him. The bishops were told in Letter 20 to force the cleric Alexander to reveal what he knew about the matter, which probably gave them a mandate to extract information under torture if necessary. In Letter 3, Gelasius instructed two bishops to protect the priest Mark, of the monastery in the Lucian estate, who had complained that on the day of holy Easter he was thrown out of the church by his adversaries. The bishops should see to it that no harm was inflicted on the monastery of the estate. In Letter 14 he advised the bishop of Ostia to observe both the canons 1 For imperial edicts on the thirty-year law, or Tricennalis lex, see CTh. 4.14, pp. 194-196; Valentinian III’s novella 27, trans. Pharr, p. 538-539; cf. Nov. Val. 31; 35. See further Part 1, Chapter 2, n. 71, above.



TRANSLATION

of old and synodical decrees in matters of ordination. The priest Maro was not to be put before Laurentius because the canons forbade a junior to take precedence over a senior, even if he was the more popular candidate. Two letters concern abuses against laywomen, one by the victim’s family and the other by a deacon. Letter 40 entrusts John of Spoleto with the task of examining the case of the devout woman Olibula against the attacks of her sisters on her rightful claim to her parents’ estate. The letter of Gelasius to Secundinus concerns the reproof of a deacon accused of various charges and blamed for practising magic with or on a laywoman. Finally, in Letter 22*, Gelasius adjudicates the dispute between Faustus, the defensor of the church of Rome, and Eucharistus, who wants to reclaim the 63 solidi that he paid to Faustus to acquire the bishopric of Volterra.2 Contrary to what one might expect, the payment of an apparent bribe to secure a bishopric is not at issue here: what concerns Gelasius is that Eucharistus has no right to demand the return of his “bond”. In a study of the recruitment of clergy in fifth and sixth centuries, Huebner notes that charging of payments in return for clerical office became commonplace and eventually was sanctioned by Justinian.3 As Huebner rightly observes, “The clergy, therefore, should be regarded as an institution that was tightly interwoven with the secular social structure of later Roman society.”4

Letter 175 Pope Gelasius to the bishops of Sicily Gelasius, bishop of the church of Rome, to his most loved brother bishops, joined to him in one mind in the love of Christ, who are appointed in Sicily. 1. The authority of our leaders has made known that the powers of the bishops of the church are to have the control of its governance, in such a way, however, that they should pay the contributions of widows, 2 Cf. ep. 9* (Section 6 below), frg. 23 to archdeacon Justin and Faustus, ed. Thiel, pp. 496-497, and further discussion in Case-study 2 of Allen, Neil, Crisis Management, pp. 163-170. 3 S. R. Huebner, “Currencies of Power: The Venality of Offices in the Later Roman Empire”, in The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, ed. by A. Cain, N. Lenski, Aldershot, 2009, pp. 167-180 (175-176 n. 46). 4 Ibid., p. 179. 5 Text in Thiel, pp. 381-382.



Clerical and social abuses

wards, and the poor, as well as of clerics. We have also determined that these too are to be given what has been decided on up to now. Let the bishops lay claim to the rest for themselves, so that, as we said previously, they may be liberal givers to strangers and captives. 2. It is resolved that this too should be added, namely, that if (heaven forbid!) the powers of the church as well as of the dioceses be possessed by other bishops, they should by right lay claim for themselves what the thirty-year law has included, because the authority of our chief sons has thus made it known that beyond thirty years it is not permitted for anyone to appeal what the duration of the laws has excluded.6 Dated the Ides of May in the consulship of the viri clarissimi, Asterius and Praesidius.7

Letter 408 Blessed Pope Gelasius to John of Spoleto The devout woman Olibula has advised us in a pitiful request that she has been stripped of her possessions by her sisters, who, with no regard for her solitary life, divided up their parents’ estate solely among themselves, supported by the help of their husbands. And because it is a concern of your office, dearest brother, to protect suitably such persons who persevere in their resolution with the soundness of a devoted mind, apply yourself to whatever negotiation is sought in the affair of the woman mentioned above, lest you allow her to suffer any oppression from her sisters or their husbands, so that, when she has received the share from her parents’ estate that is owing to her, she may serve God with a calm mind.

Fragment 169 Gelasius to Secundinus of Visinum10 We take it that the appalling wrongs of indecent acts are promptly adjudicated by the pronouncements of the ministers of the church, although for 8 9

Cf. Part 1, ch. 2, n. 7 above. 15 May 494. Text in Thiel, pp. 453-454. Text in Thiel, p. 492. 10 Perhaps Visentium in Tuscia Suburbicaria is meant. 6 7



TRANSLATION

the most part the processes avoid such acts of laypeople. Indeed an honest woman had become acquainted with a “good time”11 through her teacher, Paul the deacon; she not only supplied the information that she had been solicited for criminal acts but also had implicated her conscience in the condemned art of magical cursing. And so, brother, we have decided that since you are familiar with the case of the people mentioned above, if the aforementioned deacon is convicted of that wantonness,12 after he has been proven to have indecently solicited the woman in a discourteous manner, you should either bind the same man until the deeds that he has flaunted are subject to proof, or restrain him by means of a fitting correction.

Letter 3*13 To Bishops Justus14 and Probus15 The harm done to religion is proven, if things that are regarded as being against the regulations and ancient ordinances are regarded as being permitted. Indeed Mark, the priest of the monastery which is known to be established in the Lucian estate, has lamented to us in a petitory claim that the priests Romulus and Ticianus committed a serious assault on him and on the church. He maintains that, after he had summoned Moderatus, the lessee of the royal house, he was thrown out of the church on the most holy day of Easter when he had come to a procession. When they had broken into the sacristy of the oratory, they permitted the ministries to be served instead by the aforementioned lessee, a layman, while the priests pillaged his monastery. And so let the uncertain case that arose between the priests mentioned above be determined by your judgement, so that, by preserving the rules and allowing no presumption against the church’s rules, nothing is left to mere opinion. But searching through everything that has been intimated in the petitory claim, you should decide on what befits religion and justice. And let your father and our fellow-bishop Lucerinus the overseer know 11 Lat. tempus bonum, which we take as a quotation from the accusatory document at Gelasius’ disposal. 12 Lit. “that wantonness convicts the aforementioned deacon”. Variant reading: “Your Paternity convicts the aforementioned deacon”. 13 Text in Löwenfeld, p. 2 (Jaffé 631). 14 Of Larinum (Larino Vecchio) in Samnium. 15 According to Löwenfeld, p. 2 n. 3, bishop of a city in Apulia.



Clerical and social abuses

that either he should go to the monastery according to custom so that the clerics in the same places should be unable to contrive any harm, or he should know to stay away from a meeting in that place.

Letter 7*16 To Bishop Geruntius of Valva17 The awful act of execrable sacrilege in the petitory claim so shocked us that we would have had a case of such moment sent to our see, had we not considered the length of the journey. But because bad weather restrained us from this course of action, the case of the sacred paten, which our sons, those acting for the vir spectabilis Peter, are complaining was removed by the pontiff of the city of Potentia,18 must be investigated by every means of enquiry. And if it is openly established by proof that the paten was removed from the holy places and used by the overseer for his own private purposes, you will send a report on that point. Through that report we may know clearly what happened, and to the extent that we are able to curb the harm to religion by a punishment worthy of God, Avus, the defensor of the church of Rome, shall carry out the process we have decided on. Our protection is assigned to Geruntius’ cleric, so that he does not suffer anything at the hands of his overseer on account of this holy and needful deposition of information.

Letter 14*19 To Bishop Bellator20 Not only the olden canons but also the synodical decrees that have been established recently21 comprise what should be observed Löwenfeld, p. 4 (Jaffé 648). Near Salerno. See Ewald, p. 513. 18 According to Löwenfeld, p. 4 n. 2, this town was in the diocese of Acheruntia in Apulia. 19 Text in Löwenfeld, p. 8 (Jaffé 662). 20 Of Ostia. 21 E.g. Gelasius, ep. 14.2-3 (11 March 494), where the clerical grades and the proper intervals between them are spelt out (translated in Section 4). Gelasius may have this in mind when he refers here to a synod that was held “recently”. 16 17



TRANSLATION

regarding the ordinations of different individuals. Nobody at all is allowed to go beyond what is permitted, because a violated ordinance always begets punishment. And so, dearest brother, we enjoin that the person you have ordered to go in the first place is to stay where he is, because it is not possible for a junior to be promoted before a senior. Therefore, if he is shown to you and to everyone to be so suitable that he is regarded as effective and vigorous in all his actions, entrust Maro with whatever needs to be carried out for the advantage of the church. The result will be that you both observe the canons in the case of Laurentius and keep Maro’s assiduity all the keener, just as recommended by everyone. Nor will the archdeacon have any pretext for this ordination, since the one to whom the honour is owed will not see it removed, while to the more useful one the orders will be seen to be impossible.

Letter 8*22 Gelasius to Bishops Respectus23 and Geruntius24 Shocked by the enormity of the complaints which the entire group of clergy brings against the bishop of Aufidana 25 with implacable lamentation, we had wanted to refer the sheer scale of such dealings to our see. But because of both the bad weather and the expense of bringing a large number of people and the difficulties of finding proofs (since any declaration might perhaps be missing, or the necessary witnesses), with an eye to the more practical we thought to appoint you as judges in our place, in preference to all others. When you have re-read the petitory claims in the presence of all concerned, you should weigh up the kinds of individual cases with all the fidelity and justice of integrity.

Text in Löwenfeld, p. 5 (Jaffé 649). Probably also of Valva (mod. Valve). See Löwenfeld, p. 5 n. 2. 24 As Löwenfeld notes (p. 5, n. 2), this is probably the same person as Gerontius, the addressee of ep. 7* (Jaffé 648). See also Ewald, p. 513 n. 6. 25 In Samnium. 22 23



Clerical and social abuses

Letter 20*26 To Bishops Cresconius,27 John,28 and Messala29 It is appropriate for a successor to keep safe the decisions of his predecessors inasmuch as they are lawful and just. So too should he correct them if they have been poorly done. Indeed, Festus has complained in a petitory presentation, which is contained in what follows: Urbanus, the overseer of the city of Fulginiae30 of devout remembrance, while still alive took away his estate in perpetuity. Festus charged him with frequent proceedings, as he asserts, and did not want to go to the judges to have the case heard. And so, dearest brothers, when you have examined the case, weighing it up under every propriety, if you recognise that the complaint of the plaintiff has substance through the declaration of proof, give judgement for his restitution as those who are mindful of the law. Force Alexander the cleric, too, to reveal in your enquiry what he remembers happened at the time, so that you may decide everything that should be settled according to legal order.

Letter 22*31 Synodal statement on the dispute between Faustus and Eucharistus Gelasius said in the synod: “We have become aware of the matter between Eucharistus before his condemnation (which is regarded as deserved because it was judicially ordained by our striking him) and Faustus, the defensor of the church of Rome, in which he was engaged. Indeed, Eucharistus insisted on getting back the 63 solidi that he gave him as payment when he came to seek the episcopate, when his life and behaviour ran contrary to holding the rank. He stated that these solidi were paid out by him to the aforementioned man when he had accepted a bond. Faustus reported that he had indeed accepted the solidi, but had counted them out to the people Eucharistus wanted, in accordance with 28 29 30 31 26 27

Text in Löwenfeld, p. 10 (Jaffé 717). From Tuder (Todi) in Umbria. From Spoletium (Spoleto) in Umbria. This name is supplied from other sources; see Löwenfeld, p. 10, note (e). Modern Foligno in Umbria. Text in Löwenfeld, pp. 11-12 (Jaffé 496).



TRANSLATION

his own will and disposition. When this was agreed and the method by which it was done was even recognised in our presence, and a firm reckoning was made clear to very many of the curiales of Volaterra who were also present, he settled that 31 solidi and two tremisses32 be paid out without dispute to his agent, and that 22 solidi and two tremisses be expended for the sustenance of the curiales whom he had procured for his bid for the episcopate, and for fodder for their animals, since his bid was long drawn out (he was unable even at a late stage to be elected to the pontificate because he had committed crimes of such magnitude that he was proven to be a parricide and by open disclosures, even by his own confession, a forger). In addition, nine solidi, which were regarded as the balance,33 were to be paid out of his own pocket to rebut a false charge, although it had been kept for a long time. And so, because it is agreed that every payment made by him and on his account should be imputed by all means to the same man, Faustus, the defensor of the church of Rome,34 will be free from this request for the sum of money, and totally absolved by us and our judgement: his claim, which, however, as long as it stays with Eucharistus will be empty and incapable of any force, must be returned to him without delay. After this judgement by our see let it neither be brought to judicial process nor assume any force by being presented a second time.

On the values of the solidus and tremis in this period, see the Glossary. This is an approximate rather than an exact calculation. 34 On this person, see PLRE 2, pp. 454-456, s.v. “Anicius Probus Faustus iunior Niger 9”. 32 33



SECTION 6: PAPAL INTERVENTION IN LEGAL CASES

Gelasius’ letters offer precious evidence of the workings of the papal tribunal, a special instance of the audientia episcopalis. A litigant’s capacity to obtain an episcopal hearing was limited by the criterion that both parties attend without coercion, as stipulated in a Novella of Valentinian III.1 Clergy were meant to bring their case before their own bishop, and were not allowed to appear in secular courts.2 Those doing penance were also forbidden to approach secular courts.3 In Rome it was common practice for the bishop to delegate judicial duties to other bishops to judge a law suit between clergy, as in several of the letters included here.4 In Letter 5* below, Gelasius assigns to Bishops Justus and Constantine the termination of the dispute between Anastasius, the defensor of the church of Rome, and his relative, Proba. He enjoins them to suspend Proba from communion if she tries to withdraw from the judicial case. 1 Nov. Val. 35; trans. Pharr, p. 545: in episcopal courts, bishops can judge cases between clerics or where both parties are willing but not otherwise; “since bishops do not have a court according to the laws, and they cannot have cognizance of cases except in religious matters, according to the divine imperial constitutions of Arcadius and Honorius” (CTh 16.11.1; 1.27.2; CJ 1.4.7). 2 Canon 9 of Chalcedon, “Against clerics going to a secular court; they are to bring their case before their own bishop”; ed., trans. Tanner, p. 91 and p. 91*, with pre-history of the verdict on p. 91* n.1. 3 Leo I, ep. 167 to Rusticus of Narbonne, Question 10; PL 54, 1199-1209; trans. Neil, Leo the Great, p. 144. 4 Pelagius I, ep. 22 to Bishops Vincent, Geminus and Constant (Jaffé 981); eds. Gassó, Batlle, pp. 67-69. Further evidence of the workings of the audientia episcopalis in the letters of Pelagius I is surveyed in Allen, Neil, Crisis Management, pp. 186191.



TRANSLATION

Bishops Respectus and Gerontius are appointed in his stead to decide the case between the entire clergy of Aufidana and their bishop, in Letter 8*. Unfortunately, the details of their case against the bishop are not specified. On another occasion, Gelasius appointed three bishops as judges between the archdeacon Faustinus and deacon Stephen, with the caustic remark: “We think it pointless to call litigants to our see when the causes of souls and the sole purpose of the complainant is words!”5 This is not to say that Roman bishops were heavily involved in face-toface mediation. As Taylor noted, “the proceedings of Gelasius’ tribunal were for the most part conducted by documents”.6 Gelasius wrote Letter 16 to Mercurius concerning a case under dispute, insisting that such a case could not be transferred to another person before a verdict had been brought down. In Letter 21 Gelasius sends orders to Bishop Siracusius to force the heirs of Bishop Zachaeus to return 62 pounds of silver to the church; if the inheritance is too small, it is to be assigned in its entirety to the church. This is another case of the pope trying to recover stolen church property.7 Similar examples of a Roman bishop trying to recover stolen sacred vessels appear in the letters of Pelagius I (556-561).8 In a return to the matter of the would-be bishop of Volterra, Eucharistus, and the defensor Faustus,9 Gelasius writes Letter 9* to the comes (or teia),10 urging him to stay out of ecclesiastical cases. He rejects the objection of the comes that Faustus was previously a friend of Eucharistus. Gelasius made a similar plea to Theodoric in regard to two renegade priests who had sought to have their case heard by the royal court. On at least three occasions Pope Gelasius protested successfully to Theodoric against those who had gone to the royal courts unlawfully while concealing their status as clerics.11 In a tantalisingly brief fragment, he 5 Ep. 6* to Bishops Victor, Serenus and Melior, Löwenfeld, pp. 3-4 (end of 494 or the beg. 495). 6 Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 321. 7 Cf. ep. 17 in Section 5 above. 8 Ep. 82 to Severus, bishop of Camerina (Umbria) (Jaffé 966), eds. Gassó, Batlle, pp. 200-202 (end of March 559 to 3 March 561). 9 Cf. ep. 22* in Section 5 above. 10 On the possible senses of the Gothic term zeja, which we take to be the same word as teia, see Part 1, Chapter 2 and n. 4; cf. the Glossary under “zeja”. 11 Frg. 11 (Jaffé 723), Thiel, p. 489; frg. 13 (Jaffé 743); Thiel, p. 490, and ep. 46 (Jaffé 721); Ewald, pp. 521-522. Cf. Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 322 n. 40.



Papal intervention in legal cases

points out to Theodoric that, since the king has ordained that the laws of Roman princes should govern human affairs, he should want them to do so all the more in reverence to blessed Peter.12

Letter 5*13 Gelasius to Bishops Justus14 and Constantine15 Anastasius, the defensor of the church of Rome, is known from a petitory order from the prefects to have brought forth a case in his business against his relative, Proba.16 We have entrusted him by our recommendation to Your Love that you follow up his case, so that if he were to require you help, or say that your comfort would be of benefit to him, you would exert yourself to summon him immediately out of a consideration for justice. Likewise we add this, that if his aforementioned opponent should perchance try to withdraw from the judicial case that has been imposed, and achieves this, lest the case be brought to an end through her absence, let her be aware that she is suspended from communion for as long as she thinks to withdraw herself from the said case.

Letter 16*17 To Mercurius18 Because the matter is being decided in a dispute, it cannot on any account be transferred to another person as long as the one to whom it Frg. 12; Thiel, pp. 489-490: ‘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.’ 13 Text in Löwenfeld, p. 3 (Jaffé 645). 14 From Larinum (Larino Vecchio), according to Ewald, p. 509 (epp. 2** and 3**), and p. 512 n. 1. 15 From Capua, according to Ewald, p. 512 n. 1. 16 If this is the mother of Juliana and daughter of Olybrius, consul in 491, and Irene, she is a relative of Emperor Anastasius I. See The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire vol. 3B, A.D. 527-641, ed. by J. R. Martindale, Cambridge, 1992, p. 1058, s.v. “Proba 1”. 17 Text in Löwenfeld, p. 9 (Jaffé 691). 18 See Ewald, p. 562, on the authenticity of this letter (ep. 72**). 12



TRANSLATION

is owing instead can be acknowledged legally by a judicial debate of the known facts. Nor is anyone permitted to exact payments from the same matter, but once the same matter is placed on the same footing in which it is regarded as constituted, as was said today, let anybody who thinks that something could be due to him set in motion a juridical examination.

Letter 21*19 To Bishop Siracusius Without any delay, as it was agreed, force the heirs of the overseer Zachaeus20 to return the 62 pounds of silver which he spent, seeing that the church, on recovering its ministries, cannot go without its own furnishings. But if they have pleaded that a reduced inheritance is perhaps less suitable for restoring the ministries, if all possibilities have been refused it is appropriate for you to desist from demanding retribution from them, which you know should be directed to the church by way of compensation.

Letter 9*21 Gelasius to the comes (teia)22 If Eucharistus’ conscience is clear, either he should not have come here alone earlier, when his accuser was detained by ill-health, or else, after his accuser came here, he should have stayed here instead, while he could immediately prove his innocence very clearly, when his accuser had been very clearly disproved. We, however, preserving justice in his case – although we understand from his subterfuges that he is avoiding a hearing in which he could deceive us completely – have sent the defensor Anastasius23 with instructions that if Eucharistus believes he can be cleansed, Text in Löwenfeld, p. 11 (Jaffé 718). Of uncertain location; Ewald, p.  520 n.  3, suggests Venafra (Venafrum) in Campania. 21 Text in Löwenfeld, pp. 5-6 (Jaffé 650). 22 On the Gothic teia in the region of Volterra, a city in the modern Italian province of Pisa, see the Glossary and Part 1, Chapter 2, n. 4 23 The same man as in ep. 5* (Jaffé 645), translated above. 19

20



Papal intervention in legal cases

he should make haste to be examined by us, where, unimpeded by the charges of his accuser, as is appropriate, he may stay in freedom with us. If he does not do this, let him know that he has confessed a guilty conscience. Further: your statement that Eucharistus should not refer the words of his accuser Faustus to me because he praised him before, would be all the more credible of one who was more truly able to recognise his crime through that very familiarity. This is shown to be so true that he should in no way presume to come in order to convict Faustus. Of course, if he were sure that his conscience were free from Faustus’ charges, he should also have done nothing that he ordered. Further: Your Nobility says that some relatives or other of Faustus were already convicted there; so much the more confidently should Eucharistus have hurried here, so that he could convict Faustus too like his relations on the charge of making up lies, as has often been said. For Faustus’ relatives did not launch a complaint before us against Eucharistus, but Faustus, now that he is here, is accusing him. Therefore, it is not our business if he convicts those who did not mention him in our presence, or who now pretend even that they came to accuse Eucharistus, unless in the course of our examination he were to convict Faustus, who persists in his accusation. I do not know why it seemed proper to Your Nobility to harm me, while you (pl.) think that the case should be removed from our jurisdiction and transferred to bishops appointed within the province for the sake of Eucharistus’ whim and that of his allies. That could not be done by any reckoning whatever. Further:24 We impress upon Your Nobility more and more to see fit to keep away from ecclesiastical cases and affairs and, when all disturbance has ceased, to allow the rule to be observed. In particular, since there is no doubt that you belong to another communion,25 you should not allow your person to become involved in affairs that are not your business, no matter your intention, lest you force us, as we said above, to refer all this to the lord, my son the emperor, by sending a report. Since he in his wisdom does not wish to run counter to ecclesiastical cases in any regard, it is fair that whoever lives in his empire should imitate what the distinguished emperor does, lest he be regarded as reaching beyond his wishes. This section is supplied by Ewald, p. 514, (d). Sc. that of the Arians, on whom see Part 1, Chapter 3 above.

24 25



SECTION 7: MURDERS OF BISHOPS

The four letters presented in this section concern a double murder in Squillace, a diocese in Calabria. In the first (ep. 36), Bishop John, later appointed by Gelasius as visitator to Squillace – probably to be identified with John of Sora,1 a city of Latium – is commanded to depose the archdeacon Asellus. Asellus had ensured his own election by allowing his bishop, who had suffered a fall, to be trampled in a riot. The unfortunate bishop, who suffered falls quite frequently, is not named, but may be identifiable with the subject of Fragment 8, who had frequent falls, allegedly the result of attacks by the devil.2 The bishop of Squillace’s death is a “murder” only in a metaphorical sense. It seems that the people had consequently raided the church and seized its goods (perhaps recovering property stolen from them by their bishop). Apparently at this point only one death had occurred. In the next letter (ep. 37), a second bishop of Squillace has been killed “by the sword”, or perhaps there were two separate deaths, although curiously neither of the victims is named. Gelasius strips the church of Squillace of the right of having its own pastor after the slaughter of two of its bishops, and promises them a visitation. He absolutely forbids the division of the most holy rite of the Eucharist, which he says has been attempted by some out of superstition. This last charge concerns a reluctance to partake of the eucharistic cup, a practice which was common to the Manichean sect, as both Augustine and Leo

The addressee of ep. 33; cf. Section 8 below. Frg. 8, Thiel, pp. 487-488. Bishops Rusticus and Fortunatus were appointed to investigate this bishop’s case within 30 days. 1 2



TRANSLATION

the Great inform us.3 Gelasius then deprives the priest Celestine of his position and of communion because he was charged with being an accessory to the murder of his bishop, to whom he was also related (ep. 38). It is apparent from Letter 38 to Philip and Cassiodorus, senator and author of the Variae, that Gelasius is not quite convinced of Celestine’s involvement in the crime of murder, and he says the priest will be welcomed back to communion after his penance of one year is completed. In Letter 39 addressed to Majoricus and John, the two bishops he appointed to look into the matter, as well as Serenus,4 Gelasius seems to be more convinced of Celestine’s guilt. Not only did he stand accused of murdering his bishop, but he even offered communion to the people in place of the deceased, against the orders of the apostolic see. Gelasius decrees that the “adherents of Dionysius”, who inflicted damage on the church of Vibo, near Squillace, are to be kept indefinitely from sacred communion, and that the priest who admitted them to it against the pontiff’s judgement should be expelled from his office. It is unclear whether these people are called “adherents of Dionysius” because they acted in a frenzy, or in a spirit of irony because they are in fact abstainers from wine, in the manner of the Manicheans, or whether they were guilty of some other act which has damaged the church, and are literally followers of a priest called Dionysius. The laypersons who were guilty of these crimes were to be handed over to state authorities: “so that those who attacked both laws and were restrained by both should offer an example to themselves as well as to others of what discipline inevitably demands”. The clergy on the other hand were to be dealt with by episcopal courts, with the appointed bishops Majoricus and John bringing evidence against them by their report. The determination of the bishop of Rome that clergy who were guilty of civil crimes be kept out of secular courts has continuing resonance today.

3 Augustine, De moribus Manichaeorum, 13.27, ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), Vienna, 1992, p. 11; Leo I, serm. 42.5 (1st edition, a. 444 ce): ‘ita in sacramentorum communione se temperant, ut interdum, quo tutius lateant, ore indigno Christi corpus accipiant, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinent’. (ed. Chavasse, pp. 247-248). On Gelasius’ persecution of Manichees in Rome, see Part 1, Chapter 3. 4 Possibly Serenus of Nola, who had sought justice from Theodoric ( frgs. 11 and 12) concerning the injuries and attacks directed against him by two priests from Nola, Felix and Peter; see Part 1, Chapter 1 above.



Murders of bishops

Letter 365 Gelasius to Bishop John The audacious actions of the impious Asellus, who used to fulfil the role of archdeacon, have unsettled us. For before others he should have guarded the church when the pontiff was mortally wounded by a severe fall, and ensured that nothing was removed from the bishop’s residence. But he both allowed the bishop to be killed in the ensuing riot (although he should have been saved to bear witness whether he performed these actions of his own free will or was cast headlong by an attack from someone), and, because the same man is said to have been the heir of the leader who was killed, the church’s property should have been requisitioned from him first. Who would not understand clearly, especially from the fact that was said to have suffered this quite often, the extent to which he did not betray his accomplices, and the power of the church, once disregarded, was most easily liable to plundering? For it is said that an incision was found in the episcopal book,6 and the good man Asellus, worthy of his rank (this had never been attempted), before a report about his aberration was brought to the attention of the apostolic see according to the method of antiquity, had coerced the ministers of the church to force a decree to be published in his regard. What Christian could doubt how intolerable this evil act is? Although it is customary even on the natural death of a pontiff that, before everything, his passing is announced, the visitation of an appropriate person be considered, and in that way the substitution of another priest is arranged, this man was the only one to take thought for his own preferment so soon after the murder of the bishop of his religion, rather than seek to report what had happened. Even if what is happening outside escapes attention, still he does not shake off suspicion from his conscience of having designs on power by canvassing in such a way the newly-vacated position of the deceased. In the meantime, to stop anyone from ever daring to seize power (which before him nobody has dared to do), by our authority he is removed from the office that he was holding, until there is a fuller consideration of what we decide should be regulated permanently in the case of such a person. If, of course, Asellus Text in Thiel, pp. 449-450. Meaning that the name of the dead bishop had disappeared from the records or the diptychs, on which see the Glossary. 5 6



TRANSLATION

is convicted by a law of the church, he should by every means be forced to reform his ways.7

Letter 378 Gelasius to Bishops Majoricus and John 1. The double slaughter of the pontiffs of Squillace9 has so confounded us by the atrocity of the horrible crime that the ordinance following our deliberation was undecided for a long time, while we both renounced bringing in an overseer where there were precedents of parricide,10 and judged that one way or another the church should not so be left abandoned. On that account, just as now rejecting sacrilegious usage and custom, we have reckoned that the interests of religion should be consulted to the degree that the positions in the parishes be governed by priests appointed from the outside. This sacrilegious custom has taught those living there to kill their pastors with the sword, an unheard of wrongdoing which has never occurred at all even in any of the provinces that are afflicted by the continual and varied attacks of war.11 Let that city be discovered which, in the absence of persecution, overthrows its leaders in order to minister the Christian faith to itself. Therefore, it should be attended to that in that place the deadly ruin be cured by the suspension of their own overseers, and that in this way at least the occasion for such madness be removed, if in the absence of a firm person that violence could have been perpetrated there. In this way, provided it does not have people to vent its rage on, either that city stands off through a suspension of this kind, or does not provide ominous infections for others who imitate it. Therefore, let it go without the bishop’s resources that have been expended on it from elsewhere, because it stained with a cruel outpouring of blood the sacred office According to Ewald, p. 522 n. 48 (a), the second part of ep. 3 (see the following translation), regarding communion under both species, should be placed here. 8 Text in Thiel, pp. 450-452. 9 On this town in the province of Calabria in southern Italy, see the introduction to this Section. Cassiodorus built his monastery Vivarium near this seaside town. Cf. ep. 38 below. 10 See Section 2, Letter 1.14, n. 48, on the accusation of parricide. 11 Calabria had been spared the Ostrogothic incursion; according to Procopius, Gothic Wars 1.15.3, at the beginning of the Gothic wars, there were no Goths in Calabria and Apulia: see Moorhead, Theoderic in Italy, p. 69. 7



Murders of bishops

that had been placed in its bosom; because in both cases it is to be struck with this punishment, namely, whether it commits this crime by its own instigation or because it is spurred on by violent passions from outside. Therefore, in this situation let Your Love offer the service of a visitation to the appointed church, and whether it is appropriate or likewise if it is not, in proportion as the nature and the cause of the events should demand, bring back the divine ministries to the ingrates, lest when we shun weeds we should be regarded as overlooking the Lord’s harvest. 2. We have ascertained, moreover, that certain people in that region, after they have taken only a piece of the sacred body, abstain from the blood in the sacred cup.12 Because without doubt these people are taught to commit this by some superstition or other, let them either take the sacrament in its entirety, or stay away from it in its entirety: because the division of one and the same mystery cannot happen without serious sacrilege, one should be on one’s guard lest such a plague in its stealthy approach lead many to agree to evil.

Letter 3813 Pope Gelasius to Philip and Cassiodorus14 The case of Celestine is such that I do not reckon you do not know about it too. If indeed he has been found guilty of being accessory to the murder of his relative and bishop,15 as far as is shown by the contents of the proceedings, by the judgement of all he is in no way considered worthy of his position at the altar, and communion is forbidden to him for one year because of such a hateful crime, insofar as, by performing appropriate penance, he attends to the steep descent pertaining to a crime of such magnitude. But even if he were not ordered in the least to do so by us, with greater consideration for the sacrament of the divine body he should have come back to it with a mind that has been cleansed. We now 12 As mentioned in the introduction to this section, the Manichees also took communion only under one kind. 13 Text in Thiel, p. 452. 14 Ewald, p. 518, n. 1, and Thiel, p. 42, believe that this is the historical writer who came from Squillace. 15 Thiel, p. 452 n. 1, suggests that this is one of the murdered bishops treated in epp. 36 and 37.



TRANSLATION

think, however, that the period of penance is either complete or almost concluded. After that, there is no doubt that the faculty of communion lies open to him, so that both the verdict of the synod can be left off and it be of more benefit to him, let him be able to be made clean by making greater amends.

Letter 3916 Pope Gelasius to Bishops Majoricus, Serenus,17 and John 1. When human laws have been trampled on with uncivil heedlessness, and respect for religion has been cast out, those who either strive to trample on the privileges of the church or in any place at all pounce on what is spent on the poor do not agree to be silent, even when they have been warned and charged with an iniquity of this kind, or to repair the damage they have inflicted on divine affairs. They are to be deservedly deprived of participation in the divine gift, so that they are deprived of receiving what they held in contempt through their daring acts of sacrilege. 2. On that account, the adherents of Dionysius – who, as the text of your report shows, have not only disturbed the rights of the church of Vibo,18 but have also refused to make recompense for what they wickedly perpetrate – are to be kept from access to holy communion until they learn to confess with a pious heart that which is suitable for divine worship. Whatever might be enacted against them by the laws of the state is not in the least to be neglected, so that those who attacked both laws and were restrained by both should offer an example to themselves as well as to others of what discipline inevitably demands. 3. Indeed Celestine, the priest of our brother and co-bishop Serenus , who, in breaking out against the judgement of the pontiff and against the orders of the apostolic see, took it upon himself to administer holy communion to the aforementioned men, although he was not in a position to overlook the verdict of his own bishop, is expelled instantly from his ecclesiastical office, so that none of the ministers of the church may seek to oppose the ordinances of the pontiff.

Text in Thiel, p. 453. Visitators of Squillace: see Thiel, p. 42, and ep. 37. 18 Vibo Hipponum or Vibo Valentia in Bruttium, near Squillace. 16 17



SECTION 8: UPPER AND LOWER CLASSES

This section shows Gelasius’ efforts on behalf of wealthy landowners whose slaves or bondsmen have been ordained against their owners’ will. While Leo I (440-461) was unequivocal in ruling that no enslaved or obligated person could be ordained,1 Gelasius seems to have taken a more flexible approach to such ordinations post factum. In Letter 20 Gelasius wants the men who have been ordained against the will of their owner Amandinus, a certain vir illustris, to be returned, in such a way, however, that they should remain priests in the same rank with a loss of property, or they should carry out the role of deacon, or be returned of their own accord. Gelasius makes a similar decision about two slaves of Placidia, femina illustris, who have been ordained. He adds that the slave Septimus should be given back by the priest Genitor (ep. 21). A similar decree is made about two bondsmen (originarii) belonging to the distinguished and noble lady Maxima who have been ordained deacons (ep. 22). In Letter 23, Gelasius assigns two clerics who have requested their freedom to be examined by Bishops Crispinus and Sabinus according to divine and civil law. A woman who was heir of the man who manumitted them was reclaiming them as her slaves. Gelasius entrusts the aforementioned clerics to the comes (or Gothic zeja) to pursue the case (ep. 24). In Letter 4* Gelasius orders Bishop Felix to discuss with Claudius the case of certain people under obligation to the latter, who have been advanced to the clergy. Gelasius’ basic intent in these letters is to defend the property rights of slave-owners. In the last letter, we find Gelasius taking an aggressive stance against a householder who had challenged papal endorsement of a forced marriage between a young girl, whose Leo I, ep. 4.1, ed. Wurm, p. 85, ll. 3-10.

1



TRANSLATION

protector was the Campanian count Hostilius, to a cleric or church official (homo ecclesiae) who had probably abducted her (ep. 73**).2 In Letter 4* it seems that Hostilius had also annoyed Gelasius by encouraging the ordination of clergy of low social status.3 Gelasius commands that the clerics who assisted the comes Hostilius against the church should be deprived of their office and of communion. In the second part of this section, we see how Gelasius was willing to bend the rules to accommodate the wealthy in regard to the running of private foundations on their estates. In Letter 33, John of Sora is told that he should allow the divine office to be celebrated in the oratory of the admirable woman Magetia in the name of the dead, but public attendance and procession should cease. Gelasius allows a certain church to be consecrated in honour of St Vitus4 because of a previous endowment, in such a way, however, that the donor has no personal rights except access for a procession (ep.34). On the same condition, Gelasius permits a church to be consecrated in honour of Sts Michael the archangel and Mark the confessor (ep. 35). Sessa rightly interprets these three letters (epp. 33-35) in terms of the bishop’s desire to keep a measure of control over household religious cults on private estates, while accommodating the wishes of the aristocrats who were his most powerful constituents.5 They reinforce the two decretals on new foundations in Letter 14, namely, that new basilicas should be dedicated by bishops on the order of the pope (ch. 4) and that no basilica that is built may be dedicated in the name of the deceased (ch. 25). 6

Text in Ewald, pp. 562-563. This letter is discussed by Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 136-137 and 210-211. 3 Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, p. 137, n. 51. 4 St Vitus was burnt to death in a boiling cauldron at the age of 12. In Italy, he was the patron saint of actors; of hare-hunting and tar-making in Finland. His feast in the Roman calendar is 15 June. 5 Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 166-170. Sessa tempers the “strong” interpretation of L. Pietri, “Évergetisme chrétien et foundations privées dans l’Italie de l’antiquité tardive”, in Humana Sapit, ed. by J.-M. Carrié, R. Lizzi Testa, Turnhout, 2002, pp. 253-263, by putting the claims of bishops of Rome to dictate the terms of household religion in the context of imperial bids to regulate religious practices across the empire, which regulation gradually increased over the fifth and sixth centuries. 6 Cf. Section 4 above. 2



Upper and lower classes

Letter 207 Gelasius to Bishops Martyrius and Justus8 In both the ancient rules and in the recent interpretation of the synod it has been expressed that persons subject to the heavenly army should not be girded with the soldier’s belt.9 But I do not know whether you are seized by ignorance or impulse such that hardly any bishop can be regarded as a stranger (extorris) to this accusation. For the frequent complaint of very many people screams at us, so that it could be thought that in this region10 absolutely nothing had been established. Indeed, the managers of our son Amandinus, the vir illustris, are making the serious complaint that some of the men obligated to him by law are still clerics, and others have now been ordained deacons. You (sg.) should not have accepted persons like this, not only after that present rule, which it is agreed was carried out by the assembly of so many pontiffs with universal assent to its most beneficial provisions. Also, if perhaps they had previously been accepted into the divine cult through ignorance, you should have got rid of them straightaway, and, when you had stripped them of their religious privilege, forced them back into their owners’ possession with a fair warning. And so, dearest brother, return without delay those men whom the aforementioned managers have proven were kept in clerical offices, when they have been examined and shown to be under obligation by the protected method of the laws. Thus if one of them is now found to be a priest, let him remain in the same rank with a loss of property only, but if he is a deacon let him either carry out that role, or if he does not have that role, let him give himself up. As for the remainder of the offices, let them know that nobody, if convicted, can be defended by the fact that they are under obligation. To the extent that this order is observed, neither the rights of the owners nor their privileges should be disturbed on any account. Text in Thiel, pp. 386-388. Both were present at the first synod of Rome under Symmachus. The former was bishop of Acheruntia (Apulia), the latter of Tarracina (Campania): Thiel, p. 386; Ewald, p. 514 n. 3, is not so sure about Justus. 9 The military waist-belt or cingulum, “usually decorative and noisy” (according to OCD, 3rd edn., p. 174 s.v. “arms and armour, Roman” [J. Coulston]) defined the soldier’s status. On ordination as a means of evading military service, either just begun or about to begin, see CTh 7.20.12, Krüger, Mommsen, Meyer, vol. 1, p. 354 (January 30, 400). 10 Sc. in the western part of the empire. 7 8



TRANSLATION

Letter 2111 Gelasius to Bishops Herculentius, Stephen,12 and Justus Indeed a frequent and consistent complaint screams at us concerning these pontiffs, who, with no thought either for the ancient regulations or the decisions recently arranged by us, do not restrain persons who are obligated and bound by possessions from taking the belt of clerical office.13 Recently, indeed, the managers of Placidia, the femina illustris, have complained through the presentation of a plaintiff, to the effect that Sabinus, from the city of Marcellianum or Consilinum, taking advantage of the absence of the owner, advanced to the rank of priest Antiochus, the legal slave of his mistress, and honoured his brother Leontius with the privilege of clerical office. And so, dearest brothers, by our authority we delegate to you the enquiry that has been thrown up between the aforementioned managers and those who are being rescued from an extreme situation; and when every aspect of the truth has been examined, if in fact it should not be possible to water down the damage that has been inflicted on them by means of opposition to justice, by all means give back to the cleric Leontius the necessity of following his relations, whose defined rank does not protect him by law, so that he can follow the inevitability of the enquiry. But because Antiochus cannot at present be restored on account of his priesthood, if he wishes to move to his own church in the office which he has, it should not be restored to him, as it were, but he should hold it for the celebration of the mysteries. Further:14 It is suitable for our brother and fellow-bishop Reparatus to send across his priest Genitor to your judicial process without any excuse, so that when the slave Septimus, who is to be returned, is presented by him, if there was nothing that was to be rejected regarding his free birth or that manifested he was seeking to be under obligation and in every respect encumbered, he should be returned with his property, as the provisions of the laws demand.

Text in Thiel, p. 388. According to Ewald, p. 33 n. 1, the former was probably bishop of Potentia (in Lucania or Picenum; cf. n. 33 below) and the latter perhaps of Naples. 13 An analogy with the military belt (cingula) of the soldier. 14 This final section is found in ep. 10* in Löwenfeld’s collection (p. 6) but clearly belongs here. 11

12



Upper and lower classes

Letter 2215 Gelasius to Bishops Rufinus and Aprilis16 Who would say that the laws of princes or the rules of Fathers or the chastisements of the present time should be treated lightly, unless he reckons that a transgression of such magnitude would pass him by with impunity? Indeed the managers of our daughter, the distinguished and noble lady Maxima, have complained to us by means of a petitory notification that, contrary to the constitutions stated above and in the face of the earlier objection of the bishop of Lucera,17 Silvester and Candidus, her originarii, have been ordained deacons. Accordingly, dearest brothers, you will know that the aberrations in stepping out of line to this degree must be investigated more keenly than usual; and, if it is established that the accusation is supported by the truth, those who have been created deacons illegitimately in the face of the earlier objection are to be removed – immediately – from the sacred ranks.

Letter 2318 Pope Gelasius to Bishops Crispinus and Sabinus Silvester and Faustinian, clerics of the church of Grumentum,19 have complained to us in a pitiful letter of notification that the freedom their master gave them through the goodness of his heart has been oppressively rejected by his heirs, and that, although they have occupied clerical office almost from the cradle, and even while the man who freed them was still alive, they were no less established in the same state, it is forbidden to employ the slave class for the divine mysteries. If the truth should be in conformity with their petition, let the inheritance be removed by law from those who proceeded against what the father and instigator of the deed had done because they are unworthy, and let it not be lawful for them to start out against the judgement of the 17 18 19 15

16

Text in Thiel, p. 389. Bishops of Nucerina (Campania) and Canosa or Canusium (Apulia), respectively. Or Luceria, in Apulia. Text in Thiel, pp. 389-390. In Lucania.



TRANSLATION

instigator in order to seize the inheritance. And so, dearest brothers, since Silvester and Faustinian complain that they have also been oppressed by the archdeacon of the said church, who promised them that, because of their absence, they would obtain a limited verdict, although every procedure had been trampled on, and he thought, contrary to divine and state laws, that his own district court could be withheld from the arraigned men; in your judgement, let whoever he is who harms a cleric come forward, so that the laws of the church which the princes of old have supported by their continual ordinances not be denied to clerics who have been attacked.

Letter 2420 Gelasius to the comes zeja21 It must always be pleasing to Christians to provide what is demanded by their rank, because it is not appropriate for God’s servants to withhold a good work. Accordingly, Silvester and Faustinian, who profess to be clerics from their cradles, are complaining that they are violently oppressed by Theodora because they assert that, while they are originarii and unrestricted by the obligations imposed by the instigator of their original situation, they are again abandoned to a fate that is the worst servitude. They also assert that, although they were held bound by the clerical belt, by the authority of the emperor they were summoned against the laws of the state by the archdeacon of the city of Grumentum.22 Yet it is agreed that the person who arraigns the heavenly army should busy himself only with his own district court. And so, beloved son, having delivered my greetings I entrust to you the aforementioned clerics, so that if their adversary has made light of attending the judicial process of their representatives,23 they should be defended by the protection of Your Sublimity, so that neither any theft nor violent force contrary to the laws be inflicted on them: the one who avoids judgement seems to distrust justice. Text in Thiel, pp. 390-391. See the Glossary, s.v. “zeja”. Cf. PLRE 2, p. 1057, s.v. “Teia”, where three letters of Gelasius to this addressee are mistakenly adduced. 22 Mod. Saponara in Lucania. 23 As appears from the addressees of the previous letter, these delegates are the bishops Crispinus and Sabinus. 20 21



Upper and lower classes

Letter 4*24 Gelasius to Bishop Felix Claudius, the vir spectabilis and our son, maintains that persons under a definite obligation to him by law have been received into the clergy. He seeks to have them restored to him without delay according to the ordinances of the laws and the princes. And so, dearest brother, if the probable sequence of events in the petition is acknowledged in your verdict, it is appropriate for you to make a determination with their owner once the tenor of the decrees has been protected, to the extent that you explain, according to the rule pertaining to rank, the situation of every single one of those who are suitable. Suspend from their order and from communion also those clerics who it is established offered assistance to the comes Hostilius25 against the church, lest the evil that has been done spring up anew through the milder punishment of impunity.

Letter 3326 Pope Gelasius to Bishop John of Sora27 It is firm and indeed settled by our orders that nobody should think of paying for a public procession in a church or oratory which has not been singled out for dedication by permission of our see, to prevent the founders from attacking the statutory rules by clandestine filching.28 But because the spectabilis femina Magetia, through a petitory claim, has put forward for consideration the fact that she has consigned the remains of her family to her own grounds – dearest brother, from your respect for human feeling, because it does not dishonour the previous rules with regard to funerals and Text in Löwenfeld, pp. 2-3. PLRE 2, p. 572: see also Ewald, ep. 8**, pp. 511-512 and ep. 73**, pp. 562-563. 26 Text in Thiel, p. 448. 27 In Latium. 28 The requirement that a written petition (petitorium or petitio) be sent to the Roman bishop by those who wished to have consecrated a private estate church was relatively new in the time of Gelasius: Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 166167. Gelasius’ decretal letter of 494 shows that this requirement was often not observed by founders or their local bishops, who performed consecrations without papal permission (see ep. 14.4 in Section 4 above). Masses were limited to one for the consecration, and public processions and visits to the burial place were outlawed. 24 25



TRANSLATION

burials, change the excellent ministries with regard to the solemnities only as they are contained in the petitory notification, so that the divine office be celebrated solely in the name of the dead, when public attendance and procession have ceased. Signed on the Ides of April (13 April, 494 or 495).

Letter 3429 Pope Gelasius to Bishop Senecio We embrace the devotion of the dutiful purpose with which the honourable Senilius is said, in the matter of Vivia,30 to have founded in his own right a church that he wishes to have consecrated in his name in honour of St Vitus the confessor. Therefore, dearest brother, if you are in no doubt that the church belongs to your diocese, it is appropriate for it to be dedicated according to custom, once the due endowment has been collected for the first time, the one which the donor of the aforementioned gift testifies he has intended for the ministers of the church. He will know beyond doubt that apart from access for a procession,31 which is due to every Christian, he is to have no personal rights there. Dated thirteenth Kalends of August (18 July 495 or 496).

Letter 3532 Gelasius to Herculentius, bishop of Potentia33 By a petitory claim Trigetius has advised us in his own matter, called that of Sextilian,34 that he has founded a basilica of Saints Michael the Text in Thiel, pp. 448-449. This is presumably a place-name of indeterminate location. It could be identified with Valva, the see of Bishop Geruntius, recipient of ep. 7*; cf. Section 5 and Section 7, n. 15 above. 31 There is obviously a discrepancy between the forbidding of procession in the previous letter and allowing it here and in the following letter. Pietri, “Evergetisme”, pp. 259-261, points to this as an example of Gelasius’ willingness to bend the rules to suit his petitioners. 32 Text in Thiel, p. 449. 33 There are two places of this name, one in Lucania and the other in Picenum; cf. n. 12 above. 34 Cf. the previous letter “the matter of Vivia”. 29

30



Upper and lower classes

archangel and Mark the confessor for his own devotion. And so, dearest brother, if it belongs to your parish, bestow a blessing with due veneration on the basilica I have spoken of. However, the founder will know that he may lay claim to nothing from this basilica except access for a procession, which is due to all Christians in common.

Fragment 3635 Gelasius to Queen Heraleuva36 I hastened to send Peter the defensor of the church to petition my lord, your most excellent son the king , with my letters, to feed the poor.37 Upon his return, I did not cease also to greet your Highness, beseeching you to deign to help the case of the poor for your salvation and the increase of your prosperity. Dated the fifth Kalends of March (25 February, 493-496?).

Text in Thiel, p. 502. Cf. Gelasius, ep. 46** to Heraleuva, Ewald, p. 521, on the priests Felix and Peter of Nola, who had unlawfully appealed to Theodoric as if they were laypersons. On Hereleuva (Erelieva), the Gothic concubine of Theodoric’s father Theodemer and a convert to catholicism, who took the name of Eusebia at her baptism, see Moorhead, Theoderic in Italy, pp. 11-12 and 89-90. 37 The poor here are presumably those who had been displaced or otherwise affected by barbarian invasions. 35

36



SECTION 9: DISPLACED PERSONS

Displacement of persons – even across boundaries separating the provinces of the later Roman empire, or what today we would call “countries” – operated in a local context, not a global one. The movement of large volumes of people away from trouble-spots was inevitable when border controls were non-existent, and people could pass unhindered (except by marauding bandits, pirates and/or slave-traders) from one province to another on foot, on horseback, or by boat. Our epistolary sources contain no record of any regular services being provided by the local, provincial or imperial government, although ad hoc assistance, such as donation of funds for buying ransoms, and gifts of food, money and clothing, were probably available on occasion to Roman citizens.1 By the fifth century, much of this civic activity passed to the responsibility of bishops, as these four letters of Gelasius, two complete and two fragmentary, show. The first of the letters translated below, Letter 9, concerns religious persecution and exile. Religious persecution of catholics in the East during the Acacian schism is a frequent theme in Gelasius’ letters.2 Less frequently mentioned were the Vandal persecutions of Nicenes and other non-Arians, including Manichees, in North Africa, especially in the province of Africa consularis, where the majority of Geiseric’s people settled after the fall of Carthage in 439. One such victim of circumstance was the African bishop Succonius, who fled his homeland to avoid the persecutions of the Vandals led by 1 See B. Neil, P. Allen, “Displaced Peoples: Reflections from Late Antiquity on a Contemporary Crisis”, in Pacifica, 24.1 (2011), pp. 29-42. 2 See epp. 1 and 27 in Section 2 above.



TRANSLATION

Huneric. In a letter to this exiled bishop, Gelasius relates a disturbing rumour that Succonius has taken communion with the Acacians in Constantinople, and urges him to reform as quickly as possible. Succonius’ real exile, according to Gelasius, is his separation from the catholic faith; his real danger lies in joining with the Acacian heretics. The second letter, Letter 13, deals with Italian prisoners-of-war in Gaul. These were taken captive during the civil war between Odovacer and Theodoric (492-493). Such conflicts usually acted as catalysts for other types of crisis, including poverty, food shortages,3 epidemic disease, all of which warranted intervention on the part of bishops. While Gelasius sometimes mentions captives in general, as in Letter 17 where he directs the bishops of Sicily to distribute church funds to the needy (widows, orphans, paupers, and clerics), and offer the remainder as largesse to travellers and captives,4 this is one of two letters in his corpus that deals with a specific case of ransoming captives.The other is the perplexing Fragment 13, which seems to indicate that the bishop of Nola had ransomed barbarians and been punished for it by his own clergy. Written on 25  January 494, Letter 13 praises the extent to which Rusticus, bishop of Lyon (494-501) has borne persecution over the affair of Acacius, in which he took Rome’s part. Gelasius recommends to him Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia (466-496), and requests information about the opinions of the Gallic bishops regarding the Acacian schism. Epiphanius has journeyed to Lyon to ransom captives from his own diocese of Pavia. Gelasius refers to the tribute paid by Bishop Aeonius of Arles and the bishop of Lyon, and asks him to keep up his support for Rome. This anticipates Pelagius I’s request for revenues from the papal estates in Gaul from Sapaudus of Arles at the end of 556.5 Gelasius complains that he himself has suffered persecution for his stance on Acacius. In the context of his reference to the “straitened circumstances” of the Roman people, it seems that Constantinople had imposed sanctions on Rome as punishment for its bishops’ condemnation of Acacius. These sanctions may have included the imperial grain supply. Adding to the stress on scanty resources was the influx of people into Rome from Ennodius mentions a severe famine that occurred at the time of the arrival of Theodoric in Italy, circa 489 or 490: see D. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Empire: A Systematic Survey of Subsistence Crises and Epidemics (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 9), Burlington, VT, 2004, pp. 246-247, nr. 75. 4 Ep. 17.1, Thiel, p. 382. See Section 5 above. 5 Pelagius I, ep. 4 to Sapaudus (Jaffé 943), Gassó, Batlle, pp. 11-13. 3



Displaced persons

northern Italy, mentioned in Fragment 35 to Firmina. The papal estates (praedia), which were an essential source of food for the people of Rome, had been ravaged through a century of incursions by “barbarians”: Attila in the sieges of 408-410; Geiseric in the 450s, especially in northern Italy; and the Goths after 476. Gelasius hints that some Roman elites, of which Firmina was perhaps one, had profited from the chaos and landgrabs, when he writes that the estates were “stolen either by barbarians or by Romans”.6 Our final document, Fragment 45, concerns a slave called Judas who no longer wanted to serve a Jewish master, and fled to a church, claiming that he had been a Christian since infancy. As we saw in Section 8, it is the slave owner’s rights that are Gelasius’ primary concern.

Letter 97 Pope Gelasius to Bishop Succonius of Africa, who is appointed in Constantinople 1. Since public opinion speaks very often of the constancy and ardent teaching of Your Love in Christ, it cannot be stated with how much joy we rejoiced in the Lord because by divine grace he had prepared a vessel of choice (Acts 9:15) that was to be extremely beneficial in time of war; and surrounding you with all our prayers we followed you closely, as it were, with the complete affection of our heart while you were absent. But struck by a sudden unfortunate rumour, we confess, we are beginning to collapse in dismay, and we have been at a loss for a long time as to whether we should write to Your Charity on this subject. For pain was holding us back from speaking, our affection for Christ not permitting us to keep quiet. As we vacillate between these options, divine knowledge wins, because we are taught by the whole body of Scripture to admonish with an unfettered love those who have been overtaken by deceitful temptations. 2. Common talk first conveyed that in parts of the East Your Love had communicated with opponents of the truth, then a report from very many people that could not be rejected brought this to light. So that you 6 ‘[…] si praedia, quae vel a barbaris vel a Romanis inconvenienter invasa sunt’. Thiel, p. 502. See translation of Fragment 35 below. 7 Text in Thiel, pp. 339-341.



TRANSLATION

do not accuse us of having believed this heedlessly, if it is untrue (as we pray), pardon the duty of care that we have in your regard; if it is true, please accept with patience the wholesome blows of the friends who reprove you, you who have submitted to the harmful kisses of fawning friends (cf. Prov 27:6). Is it really the case that you, most beloved and dearest, were able to accept the fellowship of those opposed to the regulation of the catholics, and does the crime, which incredibly was able to take your thoughts by surprise, find in you such a great success? Is it really the case that you chose to obtain the enjoyment of the present time rather than to be afflicted with God’s people? The spirit is befuddled, the wounded mind gives in, sad hearts are weak, nor, however, can lamentation be found that is equal to the extent of the grief. Are you not the one who, having spurned the threats of kings and disregarded the fatal laws of the raging barbarians, put aside all at once your native land, the powers and privileges of the priestly rank so that you would be entitled to receive them in Christ in perpetuity? 3. What, therefore, shall we do now? You have tarnished glory, you have violated the confession of faith, you have precluded victory; as much as the confidence and favour of your name increased in the eyes of the apostolic see, to the same extent now a woeful confusion has come about. It is the case that you did not realise that, at one and the same time no less in the East than in Africa, the Antichrist, rehearsing with his two horns (cf. Apoc 13:11), was trying to do away with Jesus? The former say that he is God in such a way that he is not God, and the latter proclaim that he is a human being in such a way that they try to negate his humanity. Among such deadly dangers, what use is it to have avoided the precipice, if one falls back into the abyss? Did the fact that not only the perpetrators of these deeds but also those who were accessory to the perpetrators were resolved to be subject to a similar condemnation not come to your attention? It is terrible for you if a crime of such magnitude escaped your attention! It is even more terrible for you if it did not, and it was committed! For if nothing else, this one thing could have helped Your Love to obviate these events: not to have become involved in communion with those with whom blessed Peter8 refused communion. But since we all observe you are full of the Scriptures and strong in catholic education, as much as we do not have an outlet for consolation, to that extent we have decided after deliberation that you willingly sought alliances with traitors. The apostle Peter, represented in the person of Felix III.

8



Displaced persons

4. Who will thus give water for our head and a fountain of tears for our eyes (Jer 9:1)? Now, truly, contact with your Fathers has vanished, but now exile is endured: the former is the cause of salvation, the latter of ruin. Nor for our part do we idly bandy about all these charges only against you: since, according to the apostle, all members may both rejoice in the glory of any member at all (1 Cor 12:26), every connection is also shaken violently by the dislocation of any part of the body. And for our part, indeed, because of the affection that we owe to you, we have considered that we should convey to Your Prudence the torment in our innermost being. The extent to which you refuse to be extricated from these snares will be a matter of concern for your conscience. Nor in either case will our harvest be empty, if (which we beg with ardent desire) either we may manifest our joy at the reinstatement of your salvation and good name, or (heaven forbid!) you should despise what we have written, we should be regarded as not in the least having failed a brother in need of help.

Letter 139 Gelasius to his most beloved brother Rusticus10 1. Among the hurricanes of troubles that assail us and the afflictions of various attacks from which we are almost sinking, your love, fondest brother, has furnished us with great comfort. For what event could be more consolatory than the sight of most loving brothers taking pity on each other and bearing part of the burden, brothers in whom no very slight share of blessing has been bestowed? Blessed be God, who disposes your feelings11 towards us in such a way that not only do you feel our sufferings, but also show the sort of pity you have towards love in your compassionate heart by paying the holy tribute.12 Also you add conversations of the sweetest consolation that are of especial assistance between friends! But we shall not tire Your Love by writing; as far as possible we have kept it short.13 Our brother and fellow-bishop

Text in Thiel, pp. 358-359. Bishop of Lyon. See Thiel, p. 359, n.1. 11 Lit. “breasts”. 12 This refers to the tax sent from the diocese of Lyon to the apostolic see. Cf. the introduction to this Section. 13 Epistolary future perfect. 9

10



TRANSLATION

Aeonius14 knows how useful the subsidy was that both he and you sent to us. But our brother Epiphanius, who is bound for your territories to relieve and recover the people of his race, will inform Your Brotherliness ( fraternitatem tuam) of the extent to which we are bearing persecution for the affair of the most impious Acacius. Still, we are not weakening, and among so many pressures our spirit does not give in, or our enthusiasm slacken, or our apprehension topple us. But although we are uncertain and in straightened circumstances, we trust in him who will grant success together with the trial, and, if for a time he allows us to be depressed, he will not permit us to be oppressed. 2. Make sure, dearest brother, that the attachment you and your people have to us – or rather to the apostolic see – does not cease. For those who are established on the rock will be raised up with the rock.15 Help our brother Epiphanius and let him feel that you love me; and when he gets back to his territory Your Love should write what you, as well as our brothers and fellow-bishops who have been appointed throughout Gaul, are resolved on concerning the case of the most impious Acacius. May God keep you safe, dearest brother! Dated the eighth Kalends of February (25  January 494), while the viri clarissimi Asterius and Praesidius were consuls.

Fragment 3516 Gelasius to the noblewoman Firmina But it would most certainly redound to the total of your reward if the estates17 which have been stolen either by barbarians or by Romans, to our disadvantage, were to be handed back by your arrangement for the feeding of the poor. Such a multitude has converged on Rome from Bishop of Arles c. 485-501/502. Gelasius refers to Christ’s designation of Peter as the rock on which the church is to be built (cf. Matt 16:16 + par.) and advocates Rusticus’ continuing allegiance to the church of Rome. 16 Thiel, pp. 501-502. 17 Estates or farms (praedia) were donated to generate revenue for the church. Cf. ep. 4** to the deacon Corvinus, Ewald, p. 510, on the Roman praedia in the province of Picenum. On the spiritual benefit of property benefactions to the church, see C. Sotinel, “Le don chrétien et ses retombées sur l’économie dans l’antiquité tardive”, in Économie et religion dans l'antiquité tardive. Antiquité Tardive: Revue internationale d' histoire et d'archéologie (IVe-VIIIe s.),14 (2006), pp. 105-116. 14 15



Displaced persons

diverse provinces that have been laid waste by the carnage of war, that we are hardly able to satisfy it, with God as our witness. Therefore see how great would be your good works if the estates, which each bestowed for the good of his own soul,18 are handed back to the blessed apostle Peter, and released by your assistance, second to God. I ask that you would deign to receive with a gracious heart the gift of this blessing,19 which I have sent out of affection.

Fragment 4320 Gelasius to Bishops Siracusius, Constantius and Laurence Judas, who was of Jewish faith, a slave of independent status, which he claimed to have brought a few years ago,21 has now undertaken to flee to the church in Venefra,22 because, he claims, he was recently marked with the sign of circumcision,23 by the aforesaid master from infancy, although he has been a Christian since childhood. Therefore, Your Solicitude should carefully investigate the truth of the matter from each side, lest his religion seem to be defiled, and lest the slave is attempting to deny the rights of his legitimate master, by lying about this objection.

18 Bequests by the faithful were protected from alienation by the canons. Gelasius’ promise of spiritual reward in return for material donations to the church, or “redemptive almsgiving”, was an accepted doctrine by the fifth century: see B. Neil, “Models of Gift Giving in the Preaching of Leo the Great”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 18.2 (2010), pp. 225-259 (240-244); B. Ramsey, “Almsgiving in the Latin Church: The Late Fourth and Fifth Centuries”, in Theological Studies, 43 (1982), pp. 226-259. 19 The benedictionis eulogiae were gifts of bread or other food which were blessed and sent by priests and bishops from the fourth century as a sign of communion and spiritual friendship (Thiel, p. 502 n. 35). See also D. Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy: Christian Gifts and Material ‘Blessings’ in Late Antiquity”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 14.3 (2006), pp. 329-77, on the use of such blessings (eulogiai) in monastic contexts. Leo’s blessing is a far cry from the monastic usage which Caner, “Towards a Miraculous Economy”, p.  434, called “possibly […] the first attested instance of a pure, disinterested gift – deliberately defined as such – in Western history”. 20 Thiel, pp. 506-507. 21 Lat. manicipium juris sui. Judas seems to have paid for his own manumission. 22 Venafra (Venafrum) in Campania; cf. Ewald, p. 520 n. 3. 23 On the circumcision of slaves by Jews, cf. Constitutio Sirmondiana 4; CTh 5.910; trans. Pharr, p. 479. By the end of the sixth century, Jews were forbidden to own Christian slaves, in Italy at least: Gregory I, Reg. 2.45; ed. by D. Norberg (CCSL, 140), p. 137; Reg. 4.21; ibid., p. 239; Serfass, “Slavery and Pope Gregory”, p. 99.



SECTION 10: AGAINST PAGAN PRACTICES

The Letter against Andromachus has been treated at length in Part 1,1 along with the question of its authenticity. The manuscripts do not attribute it to Gelasius, so some scholars, such as Duval, have assumed it came from his predecessor Felix III.2 However, as McLynn points out, the attribution of the work to Gelasius “has been questioned, but not decisively challenged”.3 The celebration of the Lupercalia, a fertility rite that involved the noblemen and women of the city, perhaps being represented in some sort of violent farce by paid actors, seems to have been alive and well in Gelasius’ day. The questionable morals of these rites were pointed out by Gelasius, whose own morals had been questioned after his acquittal of a Roman priest on charges of sexual immorality that seem to have been well-founded. This affair seems to have taken place only recently before the composition of Tract 6 on the Lupercalia. The tract is ostensibly addressed to the urban prefect Andromachus,4 who seems to have led the criticism of the pope, but is really addressed to all the Roman senate, who wanted the continuation of this rite that had been practised on the Palatine Hill since before the times of Romulus and Remus, in the account of Livy, a festival which was still being observed in his own day (282-219 bce).5 It had been instituted by Evander See Part 1, Chapter 2. Duval, “Des Lupercales”, p. 222. 3 McLynn, “Crying Wolf ”, p. 162. 4 See PLRE 2, p. 89, s.v. “Andromachus 3”. Gelasius, ep. 10, translated in Section 2, also refers to an Andromachus, who may be the same person; cf. Part 2, Section 2, n. 68 above. 5 Livy, Ab urbe condita libri, 1.5, ed. and trans. B. O. Foster et al., History of Rome. Books I and II with an English Translation (Loeb Classical Library 114), Har1 2



TRANSLATION

to relieve the infertility of the women of Arcadia. The rite is also mentioned in Augustine’s De civitate Dei, and in the Calendar of Polemius Silvius, for 448/449.6 Duval was the first to highlight the changed appearance of the same pagan festival in the first book of Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De ceremoniis.7 By the tenth century the February festival had become a moveable one, also known as the Butchers Festival and occurring just before the start of Lent, and was celebrated by races at the Hippodrome.8 It had become fully Christianised, and was the precursor of the Carnevale (“farewell to meat”). At the end of the fifth century, however, its pagan origins were still very much alive, and Gelasius was at pains to argue that they had no place in a Christian society.9 Had they ever saved ancient Rome from the ruin of plague, flood or famine in the past, he asks? If not, why continue to celebrate them? If they were really devised as a guarantee against the sterility of the women of Rome, as Livy claimed, then those same women ought not to have conceived during the times when the rites were suspended. Gelasius is forced to admit that his predecessors had let the rites continue (ch. 29), as for example during the “civil frenzy” of Emperor Anthemius and his rival, the general Ricimer, but he defends them by saying they had perhaps tried to get rid of the superstition but had been forced to prioritise their efforts against greater threats to people’s spiritual health. We can see no evidence in the text for a Christianisation of the rite, so that in the third century it came to represent purification vard, MA; London, 1919. 6 De civ. Dei 18.12.27; Corpus Inscriptionum Latinorum 12.259. For the prologue to the Christian calendar of Polemius Silvius, ed. by T. Mommsen (MGH), Berlin, 1892, pp. 518-519, see M. R. Salzman, On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity, Berkeley, 1991. Salzman (p. 16 and n. 49) suggests that the calendar of Polemius Silvius, unlike the calendar of 354, was not intended for practical use, accepting the argument of E. Dulabahn, “The Laterculus of Polemius Silvius”, Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1986, that the calendar was created for use in the Roman school setting. Nevertheless, Salzmann (p. 241) is convinced that the Lupercalia was actually celebrated in 495, citing as evidence this tract of Gelasius. 7 Duval, “Des Lupercales”, p. 231; De ceremoniis, 1.82, ed. by A. Vogt, Le livre des Cérémonies, Livre 1 (Collection Byzantine, Les Belles Lettres), Paris, 1939, p. 166; trans. by A. Moffatt, M. Tall, The Book of Ceremonies (Byzantina Australiensia, 18), Canberra, 2012, vol. 1, p. 364. Duval, “Des Lupercales”, pp. 243-260, places this “pamphlet” in the pontificate of Felix III rather than Gelasius, and prior to 489. 8 Duval, “Des Lupercales”, p. 227. 9 See Section 10, “Letter against Andromachus”, Chapters 13 and 25a.



Against pagan practices

from sin and the public penance of women, rather than the ritual flagellation of Roman matrons to increase their fertility.10 The text is preserved only in the Collectio Avellana, where it appears as Letter 100.11 We have followed Pomarès’ edition of the text.12

Letter against Andromachus (Tract 6) Of the same Pope Gelasius against Andromachus and the other Romans who are resolved that the Lupercalia should be celebrated according to ancient custom.13 1. There are some who sit at home knowing neither what they are talking about nor on what subjects they are making declarations (cf. 1 Tim 1:7), who make a point of judging others, while they do not judge themselves. They want to accuse before they know and to teach rather than to learn, and without discussing matters or looking into causes or thinking over the reason behind the situation, they rashly pour out and hastily vomit forth whatever comes into their mouths. They judge without putting forward any assertion of the truth, but, denouncing what they are ignorant of through a zeal for bad logic, they have reached the point where they strive to tear apart by their nasty purpose even what has been done properly. If they had any sense, they would not have completely thrown overboard a verdict, but by prior examination of the facts deduced what needed to be said. 2. Truly, because they accuse us of being sluggish in judging the faults that should be curbed in the church, let them also suitably learn from us that there is not only a sin of carnal adultery which should be both examined and duly punished, but there is a kind of fornication and adultery that is far worse, which in any Christian (because every Christian is 10 Salzman, On Roman Time, p. 241; Cf. Duval, “Des Lupercales”, p. 244, who makes it clear that the pope (whether Felix or Gelasius) was fighting a losing battle in that the pagans were resolved to proceed against his interdiction, and he could only try to dissuade Christians in Rome from participating also. 11 Guenther, Collectio Avellana, pp. 453-464. Pomarès, Lettre contre les Lupercales, adopted the paragraph divisions in the CSEL text. 12 Pomarès, Lettre contre les Lupercales. The document is also edited as Tract 6 by Thiel, pp. 598-607. Thiel separated out six letters as tractatus on account of their length and their concern with a single polemical subject. 13 The title of the work Against the Lupercalia is not part of the original text of Gelasius.



TRANSLATION

a member of the church) should be suitably avenged. For the severity of the crime of sacrilege is more serious to the extent that the fornication of the soul is worse than that of the body: for through the fornication of the soul one departs from union with God himself and passes over to impure spirits by a kind of spiritual adultery (cf. 1 Cor 6:16-17). 3. But how does a person not fall back into that state who, although wanting to be regarded as a Christian and professing and declaring that he is, still publicly and officially14 does not shrink, avoid, fear to proclaim that sickness comes about because the demons are not worshipped and the god of February15 is not propitiated, namely, the god from whom he has discovered these absurdities? How is the person who has rushed into these pagan blasphemies not a transgressor? How may he not be considered guilty of sacrilege who, having renounced the providence and power of the one God that he has confessed, is seduced into monstrous superstitions and empty imaginings? 4. According to the apostle, it is far worse and justly to be condemned to abandon the truth that one has confessed than not to have believed in it at all (cf. 2 Pet 2:20-21). For although the imaginings which he produces are ridiculous, nevertheless his attachment to them and his intention are an object of accusation, and his profession and proclamation are justly to be condemned; and accordingly let anyone who wants to bring a prompt verdict of condemnation against another recognise that he is condemning his own self in judging another. 5. Should the pontiff punish those who commit bodily adultery and not punish those who carry out sacrilege, that is, spiritual fornication and adultery? Did not the Lord himself, when an adulterous woman had been brought to him, say to her accusers: ‘If one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her’ (Jn 8:7)? He does not say: “If one of you is not an adulterer in the same way”, but: If one of you is without sin: therefore, whatever the sin by which one is fettered, let nobody dare to throw a stone at a person who has committed a different sin. Then, as they are leaving because of their guilty consciences, the Saviour of the world adds: ‘Woman, where are your accusers? Nobody has condemned you, and I shall not condemn you either. But go, now do not sin any more’ (Jn 8:10-11). You try to possess and are possessed, to push and are pushed, to fetter and are fettered; you demand an examination On the formal legal term, palam[…] publice, see the Glossary. Deus Februarius, the god of the month in which the Lupercalia were celebrated. See Thiel, p. 599. 14 15



Against pagan practices

by the pontiff and you demand punishment: remember that the same sentence should be brought against every crime. 6. Surely even human laws do not say that a guilty person cannot act against a guilty person?16 Do you see a speck in your brother’s eye and not see a log in your own (Matt 7:3)? Do you who accuse adulterers yourself commit adultery and, being a spiritual adulterer, reproach those who commit adultery in the flesh? Yes, you, a man who is scrupulous, of proper age, religious, are demanding a judgement. You do not want someone to sin in the church, you wish the sinner to be examined and incur a fitting punishment: whatever you allege about another, you are forced to apply to yourself as well. For you do this lest accusations be made about the pontiff’s negligence, lest the church be blemished. Therefore, there should be no care and severity lacking on the part of the pontiff regarding all acts of wrongdoing, and in all things as well the good name of the church should be cleared. 7. But you may perhaps say you are a layperson, he is a minister of the church, and with that purpose you make his crime more serious. You are telling the truth and I cannot deny it myself: he should be examined with more care the closer he is, and he is the more culpable in that he was appointed to the ministry, and should not in the least have committed these crimes. Look, there is no lack of due severity: he will be heard and, if he is proven guilty, he will be sentenced fittingly to punishment. Come now, what do you want for yourself? Is it that because you are not among the sacred ministry you are among the holy people? Are you ignorant of the fact that you are a member of the supreme pontiff? Are you ignorant of the fact that the entire church is called a priesthood (cf. 1 Pet 2:5)? 8. Ultimately, if the one who, after advancing to the ministry of the church, commits a fault is guilty, are you too not guilty, who after professing the truth return to debased and perverted and pagan and devilish images, which you have declared you have renounced?17

For legislation against this concept, see Digest. 48.1.5; CTh 9.1.12; CJ 9.1.19. This is a reference to baptismal renunciations, where in the pre-baptismal ceremonies the candidates for baptism promised to renounce pagan and satanic images. See further Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, p. 763. This was already an important part of the Roman liturgy of baptism in the time of Leo Magnus, cf. Leo I, serm. 41.2. Compare Gelasius’ proscription of demonic images on amulets in ep. 42.9, translated in Section 4 above. 16 17



TRANSLATION

9. And so you too, after the blasphemies that you poured forth publicly and officially, must abstain by all means from the sacred body.18 You cannot take part in the Lord’s table and the table of demons,19 nor can you drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the demons; you cannot be the temple of God and the temple of the devil; light and darkness cannot come together in you. I should see whether you press and force wrongdoing to be punished in another person: you, however, are unable to turn aside from the weight of your crime, and to such an extent do you not suffer a crime that you also demonstrate what we should do to you as we take account of the facts. 10. Nonetheless, in these blasphemies of yours, for which you rightly deserve to be beaten, recognise clearly your naïveté, and that, as a certain person says: “You have the will to lie, you do not have the art to invent.”20 Then you may understand that your inclination is bad and your intention to apostasise is evil, so that the paraphernalia of that vacuous cult is absolutely no help to you at all, nor can you substantiate what you conceive in your heart and discharge from your mouth. 11. Tell me, when one reads time and time again in the Roman history of the orator Livy that, when plague broke out very often in this city, endless thousands of people perished, and it frequently came to the point where, in those warlike times, it was scarcely possible for an army to be raised – at that time was there no propitiation at all of your god Februarius, or was it the case that this cult too was of no avail whatsoever? Were the Lupercalia not celebrated at that time? For you are not about to say that at that time these sacred cults, which were reportedly introduced into Italy by Evander,21 before Romulus, had not yet begun. 12. But why were the Lupercalia established? In respect at least to his comments on that very superstition, Livy recounts this in his second decade:22 he mentions that they were not established to check illnesses but were occasioned, as it seems to him, because of the infertility of its women that obtained at that time. Accordingly, if for that very purpose this cult had some value, when it was suspended, then illness, against which the Lupercalia were not invented, would not have occurred, but Sc. eucharistic communion. Cf. Matt 6:24: you cannot serve both God and Mammon. 20 This appears to be a colloquial expression. 21 Livy, Hist. 1.5.1. 22 Ibid. Livy’s monumental work of 142 books was eventually divided up into “decades” or groups of ten books. Thus Gelasius is mistaken in attributing his information to the “second decade”; it should be the first. 18 19



Against pagan practices

the women on account of whose fertility they are agreed to have been invented should never have conceived. 13. What are you (pl.) going to say about the plague, the infertility, the incessant calamity of wars? Did these too come about because of the suppression of the Lupercalia? But if it was not to avoid these problems or to cure them that the Lupercalia were provided, why are you tormented by a disturbance without substance? What difference did the stumbling-block of the Lupercalia make to the annihilation of Tuscany, what difference to Emilia and the rest of the provinces in which there is hardly a human being left, consumed as they were by the severities of war, which were laid waste long before the Lupercalia were abolished? When Emperor Anthemius came to Rome,23 the Lupercalia were certainly celebrated, and yet a plague of such magnitude ensued that it could scarcely be withstood. Were the Lupercalia celebrated throughout Campania to cause illness and plague there when they were suppressed? 14. But you are going to say that everything is attached to Rome as to a head and that what did not happen there was prejudicial to the various provinces that belong to it. Why, then, before these provinces belonged to Rome did they flourish through their own resources, without the Lupercalia? Did the abolition of the Lupercalia cause the continual sterility of the land, or was it the wages of our sins, about which it was once said: “And whatever the Romans earned as wages, to lose their morals”?24 Surely it was the infertility of the women, which allegedly the establishment of the Lupercalia was to have removed, that should have manifested itself, not the infertility of the land, for the removal of which the Lupercalia were not established. What about the cause of infertility in Africa? In Gaul? 15. Is it the Lupercalia that brought this about, or our morals: acts of theft, homicide, adultery, injustice, iniquity, ambition, greed, perjury, false witness, oppression of the poor, attacking the cause of the good and protecting the cause of the bad, and in all matters an unheard of perversity: finally, above all, minds that lie to God, and acts of sacrilege and magic arts that make even pagans shudder? These are the things that make everything opposed and inimical to us, not the abolition of the Lupercalia, which was done for your salvation. 16. But what do you yourselves say, who defend the Lupercalia and declare what should be done? You yourselves deprecate them, you render Western Roman emperor from 467 to 472. Lucan, Pharsalia 2.313.

23

24



TRANSLATION

their cult and its celebration cheap and vulgar. If the scandal of the Lupercalia has had adverse effects on us, it is your fault because what you think is particularly advantageous for you, you believe should be celebrated with an extreme heedlessness in a cult and worship not far inferior to that which the ancestors of your profanity celebrated.25 For with them the noble men themselves used to run about, and the matrons were whipped on their naked body in public. Therefore, you yourselves were the first to engage in the Lupercalia; it would have been better to have done nothing than to have impaired their celebration. But the cult that is venerable and salutary for you (you think), you have brought down to cheap and vulgar persons, the worthless, and the lowest. 17. Therefore, if you truly confess that this sacred – or rather, execrable – rite is salutary for you, celebrate it yourselves in the manner of your ancestors, run around naked yourselves with a strap so that you carry out ritually the wanton acts of your salvation. If they are substantial, if they are divine, if they are salutary, if the integrity of your life depends on them, why are you ashamed to celebrate such rites by yourselves? If it is a matter of shame and disgrace, is what you yourselves confess is a disgrace so salutary and divine and profitable? Nobody professes a religion that he is ashamed of and completely avoids practising himself: let your very sheepishness teach you that it is a public crime, not salutary and not a worship of the divinity, about which no sane person is ashamed, but instruments of crooked acts about which your mind, in bearing witness against itself, is ashamed to fulfill what it declares should be done. 18. Indeed, why have your Dioscuri, 26 whose cult you have refused to give up, not in the least provided you with favourable seas, so that in winter-time ships could come here with grain, and the city not suffer in the least from food-shortages? Or is this going to happen in the days to come, in the summer? This is a blessing established by God,27 not by futilely persuading the Castors.

25 This is a difficult sentence and, as Pomarès, Lettre contre les Lupercales, p. 174 n. 3, remarks, the number of textual variants proves that scribes struggled with it. The meaning appears to be that the devotees of the Lupercalia, while exhibiting the same devotion as their predecessors, are more negligent than they were in celebrating the festival. 26 Lat. Castores. In classical mythology they were sons of Zeus, loosely construed as benign helpers of mortals in times of need, including at sea. See OCD, 3rd edn., p. 484, and Duval, “Des Lupercales”, pp. 256-258. 27 That is, the fact that during the summer months the sea was navigable, as opposed to the mare clausum policy during winter. Duval, “Des Lupercales”, p. 257.



Against pagan practices

19. Tell us, you who are neither Christians nor pagans, who are every-where traitors and nowhere believers, everywhere corrupt and nowhere upright, who cannot hold onto either because they are at variance with each other; tell us, I repeat, you supporters of the Lupercalia and in truth worthy defenders of such wantonness and of bawdy songs, worthy lords of madness who not without reason possess no sound head, well-fitted to this religion, which is celebrated by obscene and dissolute cries. You yourselves shall see what kind of salvation it affords you, this religion which advances such a great collapse and destruction of morals. 20. And it is not as you say, namely, that by doing this and making public the wrongdoing of an individual, spirits will rather both be deterred from committing such faults and reined in by shame, lest these things be sung aloud in public, when, as he says, “not so much to deter as to warn”28 spirits, these acts of wantonness seem good, and as another has said, “anger and passions, they take them from the crime”.29 When they have become so much more shameless after the crime has become public and their sheepishness has been exposed, nothing whatever remains to shame them, nor has one anything to fear if it be made public. No, being the kind he is, he now puts himself forward confidently, not by coercion but rather through a certain gladness, and so the celebration of the gods is the subject of songs, whatever the person. Yes, indeed, he is even sure that he is serving religion by supplying matter for the solemnities of the gods which cannot be revered except by songs about crimes. 21. So tell us, you who want a pagan rite, the origins of which you are unable to justify, you who have the intention of protecting a falsehood that you are unable to defend – what will you say about drought, hail, whirlwind, storms, and various disasters that come about as a result of the nature of our morals? Did all these things happen because of the suppression of the Lupercalia or were they inflicted as deserved retributions to punish our wicked morals? 22. But it is no wonder that people want these disasters to happen not by divine judgement but by an attack of their empty superstitions, those who, in order to cover up their crimes and misdeeds, allege that the authority of the sky uses the stars, and that it is fate that brings on error and the unavoidability of sinning, and that their acts of wrongdoing do not proceed from the stubbornness of their own heart, but depend on the sky for their originator. Explain, therefore, what evils were to be Cicero, De domo sua ad pontifices oratio 127. Juvenal, Sat. 6.285.

28 29



TRANSLATION

removed or what benefits were to be acquired by the establishment of your Lupercalia, and let us see what those benefits were that arose when the Lupercalia were celebrated, and what evils followed when the Lupercalia were seen to have been abolished. 23. Hold your ground firmly! For what disaster of yours would you say that these marvels were discovered, you worthies who celebrate a monster made of I do not know what mixture of beast and human being, whether it really saw the light of day or not?30 Was it to get rid of the plague? Look, to pass over earlier examples, before the Lupercalia were abolished in my time, there is no doubt that there was a serious plague that hit human beings and beasts, whether in the city or in the country.31 If you make claims about infertility, why did these phenomena happen in Africa or in the Gallic lands, where there never were any Lupercalia, nor, it is agreed, any abolition of them? Why currently is the East, which never celebrated the Lupercalia nor celebrates it now, luxuriant and abounding in riches of all sorts?32 24 a.33 Or are you saying that there where it was celebrated for several centuries and suddenly abolished, there it was harmful? Let us see then if in those times in which you say things were done and accomplished according to the rites and with a thorough devotedness, as it seems to you, no famine, no plague ever existed at all. But if, time after time, as a result of these disasters the point of extreme danger was reached, it is obvious that the Lupercalia were of no avail in removing these evils, even at that time, as I have said, when in your opinion they were celebrated with appropriate order. So for each of the exigencies on account of which you said the Lupercalia were provided, if it has been established that there was no cessation even for these, the confidence put in this remedy is found to be empty. 25a. At the time when the Lupercalia were celebrated, was Rome not captured by the Gallic lands and did she not, time after time, end Probably the god Pan is meant. This seems to refer to a plague in spring 467: see Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, p. 243, nr. 70. 32 Cf. evidence for an eastern equivalent of the Lupercalia in Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ Ceremonies, cited in Part  2, Section  10, n.  7 above. Against Gelasius’ statement here, the tenth-century source Patria Constantinoupoleos claims that there was a famine during the reign of Anastasius I (491-518). See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 247-248, nrs. 76-77. If this source is correct, the famine must have occurred after 496. 33 Collectio Avellana, ed. Guenther, preserves this order of paragraphs without (a). The same applies to the next paragraph, 25. 30 31



Against pagan practices

up in extreme circumstances? Did she not succumb to civil wars during these celebrations? Were there no more Lupercalia when Alaric sacked the city? And recently, in the civil frenzy of Anthemius and Ricimer,34 where were the Lupercalia? Why did they avail those people so very little? 24b. Nevertheless, why even at present do you not experience whether celebrations according to the rite have any value? In the manner of your ancestors, run around yourselves during these wanton events, so that you may be able more and more to provide for your salvation by celebrating more devotedly a matter that is divine and salutary for you – as you say! 25b. Really, if this is divine, if it is salutary for you, why do you not perform those rites personally yourselves, as your ancestors did? Why do you reduce the opportunities for your salvation? Why tarnish it, why crush it to death, why reduce it to whatever is cheap? What charge can you bring against us, when you yourselves trample on your remedies? 26. It is better not to try than to perform abusively. Really, if in their eyes your ancestors celebrated any sacred event defectively, they reckoned that it should be done anew. Why do you not restore by appropriate renewal what you have reduced to a defective cult by performing it through unworthy persons, so that you might carry out the opportunities for your salvation more fully and perfectly? Why are you ashamed to do this, if it is for your salvation? If it is divine, why is it a disgrace to have carried it out? 27. But you say that is only the image of the cult itself that should not be changed. If it is beneficial, if it is salutary, why is the image better in your eyes and not the reality itself? Or if in fact, when, according to you, religion was conducted with the complete rite, it was then of no benefit, why are you seeking the image of a reality that even of itself was of no benefit? 28. But you say that what has been done for so many centuries should not be cut off. Nonetheless, the superstition of paganism was openly practised for many years. Let sacrifice be offered in the temple of demons and pagan emptiness be celebrated on the Capitol! Why do you defend a detail and pass over the main points? If it is approved that very many kinds of empty cults in use for many centuries were abolished, why is it impossible to remove a detail that was practised for as long a The general Ricimer cooperated with the western emperor, Anthemius, prior to killing him in 472. See OCD, 3rd edn., p. 1317. 34



TRANSLATION

time as you like? If the regulation is made because of the times, charge your ancestors, who, although they did not avail themselves of that regulation at the time, showed that it was possible and obligatory for what was superfluous to be removed, when more numerous and important things were abolished. 29. But you say that the Lupercalia existed also in Christian times. But those other rites were also celebrated for a long period, during Christian times too. Is it because they were not abolished under the first leaders of the Christian religion that they should not have been removed at all by their successors? Many are the things which, harmful or worthless, have been suppressed by individual pontiffs at different times; for medicine does not cure all bodily frailties at the same time, but what it perceives threatens with greater danger, lest the bodily frame does not stand up to the medicine or else, because of our mortal condition, it cannot ward off everything at once. Query what it is you are doing and where it came from: if it is good, if it is divine, if it is wholesome, deservedly it should not have been abolished at whatever time; if it is neither wholesome nor divine, it is rather for you to show cause why what is agreed to be superstitious and empty is being abolished rather late, something that it is certainly clear is inappropriate for the profession of Christianity. 30. Finally, as far as I am concerned, no baptised person, no Christian may celebrate this rite, but only pagans, whose cult it is, may perform it. It is appropriate for me to declare that these rites are without doubt harmful and deadly for Christians. What do you have to accuse me of if I declare that what is scarcely inimical to those who profess it should be removed from those who have fellowship with the profession of Christianity? Let me for my part absolve my conscience: let those people who have neglected to obey just warnings look to it. 31. I have no doubt that my predecessors perhaps did this and tried in the presence of the emperors to have these rites removed, and because it is not agreed that they were listened to, while these ills endure up to today, so the imperial power itself failed, therefore too the name of Rome, in that the Lupercalia were not removed, even when it came down to an extreme situation. And so I now urge you to remove these rites, which I know have availed nothing, while I declare that they have instead been harmful, since they are opposed to the true religion. 32. Finally, if you think that an objection should be brought against the persons of my predecessors, each of us shall render an account of his administration, just as you ensure is done too in public offices. I do



Against pagan practices

not dare to accuse my predecessors of negligence because I believe rather that they probably tried to remove this crookedness, and that there were certain reasons and opposing wills that obstructed their intentions, just as you too are making up your mind that not even now do you want to desist from your senseless attempts.



GLOSSARY

antistes/antistites Translated by us as “overseer/s” (=bishop/s) apocrisiarius An office extant since the fifth century, institutionalised in law under the emperor Justinian I (527-565). A cleric functioning as the diplomatic representative or legate of a bishop or patriarch to the Byzantine imperial court; the permanent, resident representative of a bishop or patriarch in another see. femina clarissima/vir clarissimus/viri clarissimi Originally a title attached to a person of the highest senatorial and/ or imperial administrative rank. By the fifth century the title had become devalued and illustris commonly replaced it. A woman/man of high rank. comes

A highly placed imperial functionary; e.g. comes Justinian, the future emperor, in the letters of Hormisdas; comes Hostilius in the letters of Gelasius (see zeja below).

commonitorium A letter or document in letter-form that follows up another. A document similar to a libellus, produced by one bishop/patriarch for a council or another bishop/patriarch. curia

A municipal council, whose members are obligated to perform the duties of local government and collect taxes. Initially free to administer



Glossary

their own affairs, by the later empire they had become the instrument of central government responsible for the collection of imperial revenues, administered from Rome. The term also refers to the papal law court, a specialisation of the bishop’s court or audientia episcopalis. curialis/curiales A person/persons whose property and wealth made them eligible to serve on a curia. defensor (ecclesiae) An ecclesiastical counterpart to the defensor plebis/civitatis. An office instituted first in Rome (367-368) to act on behalf of the poor and clergy in legal cases. Also used to investigate abuses by clergy. diptychs A liturgical object formed of two tablets that recorded the names of persons living and dead for whom intercession would be made by the assembly during the initial part of the eucharistic liturgy. Excision/ suppression of a bishop’s name from the local diptychs indicated the rupture of diplomatic relations between sees for reasons of doctrine or discipline. discutere “to judge by examination”, implying the verdict of guilty which follows. illustris Originally the title of a third-ranking senator. From the mid-fourth century its meaning was elevated to an alternative designation to clarissimus or spectabilis. A person of high rank. libellus/libelli A brief tract/tracts that outlines a doctrinal position, delivered by legates from one bishop to another, or to a council or emperor. magister “master”; of senior rank, e.g. magister militum (military commander) munera Public benefactions required of curiales, e.g. public works, games and other spectacles.



GLOSSARY

obnoxius/obnoxitas Bonded labourer (male or female); bondsman/bondswoman. Could be translated as “person under obligation”. originarius A person of low status with legal obligation to serve another, equivalent to obnoxius or colonus; a bonded labourer by birth. palam publiceque “openly and publicly”. See Pomarès, SChr 65, p. 164 n. 3. petitorius/a/um The complainant or complaint/declaration in a private legal action. pontifex/pontifices Another name for bishop/s, translated by us as “pontiff/s”. praesul/praesules Another word for bishop/s, translated by us as “leader/s”. princeps “prince”; used sporadically and interchangeably with rex and imperator to designate the imperial ruler. purgare “to cleanse”, used for the atonement of clerical misconduct, usually by penance. sacra

Written statements by imperial parties, usually on matters of faith and doctrine; e.g. the sacra of Constantine VI and Irene issued at the seventh ecumenical council of 787. Whereas some scholars argue that sacra [epistola] is meant, it is clear that Gelasius regarded the word as a plural adjectival noun. See Thiel, p. 294, 18-19.

solidus/solidi Reintroduced by Constantine I in 312 CE, it was the standard gold coin of the Roman Empire, struck at the rate of 72 to a Roman pound of pure gold (approx. 4.5 gm). It varied little in weight or purity between the fourth and tenth centuries, and was minted in various locations, often in association with the emperor and his court. Also known in the Greek-speaking empire as the nomisma/nomismata.



Glossary

spectabilis/spectabiles “notable/notables”. Originally the title of second-ranking senators in the Roman empire, who were higher than an illustris but lower than a clarissimus. Like the latter title, in the later empire it became devalued and was replaced by illustris. A person of high rank. tenor

When a legal term, it is translated here as “tenor”, otherwise as “contents”. In its legal sense, an exact copy or transcript of a written instrument, e.g. a law.

tremis/tremisses A gold coin first issued in the eastern Roman Empire in the third century, equal to one third of a solidus. A Merovingian gold coin of the same name, also known as the triens, which is an imitation. viaticum The communion given to the dying as food for their journey, and considered essential for salvation. Canon 13 of the Council of Nicaea stipulated that persons about to die should not be deprived of the necessary viaticum. See Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1, p. *12. zeja

The Gothic equivalent of comes “count”; the recipient of ep. 24; also spelt teia (ep. 9*). See Taylor, “The Early Papacy at Work”, p. 325 n. 58.



SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY1

Primary sources Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum: ed., trans. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils; ed. Mansi; see Abbreviations. Agnellus, Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, ed. by D. M. Deliyannis (Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, 199), Turnhout, 2006. Augustine of Hippo, De moribus Manichaeorum, ed. by J. B. Bauer (CSEL, 90), Vienna, 1992. Augustine of Hippo, Epistulae, ed. by L. Carrozzi, Sant’ Agostino, Le lettere, Supplemento (1*-29*), (Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana, 23a), Rome, 1992. Codex encyclius, ed. E. Schwartz, ACO 2, part 5, Berlin, 1936, pp. 9-98. Collectio Avellana, ed. by O. Guenther, 2 vols. (CSEL, 35), Prague, Vienna, Leipzig, 1895. Collectio Dionysiana, ed. by H. Wurm, Studien und Texte zur Dekretalensammlung des Dionysius Exiguus (Kanonistische Studien und Texte, 16), Bonn, 1939; repr. Amsterdam, 1964. Collectio Veronensis, ed. E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse Abteilung NF, 10/4), Munich, 1934, pp. 1-160. Concilia Africae a. 345-a. 525, ed. by C. Munier (CCSL, 149), Turnhout, 1974. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Ceremoniis, ed. by A. Vogt, Le livre des Cérémonies, Livre 1, 2 tomes de texte, 2 tomes de commentaires (Collection Byzantine, Les Belles Lettres), Paris, 1939; trans. by A.

See also Abbreviations, pp. IX-XI above.

1



Bibliography

Moffatt, M. Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 2 vols. (Byzantina Australiensia, 18), Canberra, 2012. Constitutiones Sirmondianae: see CTh in Abbreviations. Decretales selectae ex antiquissimis Romanorum pontificium epistulis decretalibus praemissa introductione et disquisitione critice editae, ed. by H. Wurm, Apollinaris, 12 (1939), pp. 40-93. Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii, ed. by F. Vogel (MGH AA, 7), Berlin, 1885, pp. 84109. Epistulae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, see Thiel in Abbreviations. Gelasius, Adversus Andromachum, ed., trans. by G. Pomarès, Gélase Ier, Lettre contre les Lupercales et dix-huit Messes du Sacramentaire Léonien (SChr, 65), Paris, 1959. Gelasius, Epistula de duabus naturis, ed. and Italian trans. by R. Ronzani, Lettera sulle due nature (Biblioteca patristica), Bologna, 2011. Gelasius, Epistulae, ed. by Ewald, pp. 505-526; ed. by Thiel, pp. 287-510; ed. by Löwenfeld, pp. 1-12. See Abbreviations. Gelasius (?), Libri recipiendi et non recipiendi, ed. E. von Dobschütz (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 38), Leipzig, 1912. Gregorius I, Registrum epistolarum, ed. by D. Norberg (CCSL, 140 and 140A), Turnhout, 1982; trans. by J. R. C. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great (Mediaeval Sources in Translation, 40), 3 vols., Toronto, 2004. Gregorius Turensis, Historia Francorum, ed. by B. Krusch, W. Levison (Monumenta Germaniae historica scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, 1.1.2), Hannover, 1951. Innocentius I, Epistulae, ed. by G. D. Dunn, The Letters of Innocent I, forthcoming. Leo I, Epistulae, ed. by E. Schwartz, ACO, 2: Concilium universale Chalcedonense, vol. 2/1 and vol. 4, Berlin, 1932; ed. by C. Silva-Tarouca, TDST, 9, 15, 20, Rome, 1932, 1934, 1935; trans. by B. Neil, Leo the Great (The Early Church Fathers), London, New York, 2009. Leo I, Sermones, ed. by A. Chavasse (CCSL, 138 and 138A), Turnhout, 1973; ed. and trans. by E. Montanari, M. Naldini, Sermoni. Leone Magno, 2. Sermoni del Ciclo Natalizio (Biblioteca patristica, 31), Fiesole, 1998; ed. and trans. by H. G. Schipper, J. van Oort, St Leo the Great. Sermons and Letters against the Manicheans, selected fragments (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum series Latina, 1), Turnhout, 2000. Livy, Ab urbe condita libri, ed. and trans. B. O. Foster et al., History of Rome. Books I and II with an English Translation, (Loeb Classical Library, 467), Harvard, MA, London, 1919. Pelagius I, Epistulae, ed. by P. M. Gassó, C. M. Batlle, Pelagii I Papae epistulae quae supersunt (556-561) (Scripta et Documenta, 8), Montserrat,



Bibliography

1956; ed. by P. Ewald, “Die Papstbriefe der Britischen Sammlung 2.”, in Neues Archiv, 5 (1880), pp. 533-562. Prosper Tiro, Epitoma chronicon edita primum a. CCCXXXIII continuata ad a. CCCCLV ed. by T. Mommsen, Chronica minora saec. IV-VII, vol. 1 (MGH AA, 9), Berlin, 1892. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New York, 1947. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/ summa.i.html. Walahfrid Strabo, Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum, ed. and trans. by A. L. Harting-Correa, Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum. A Translation and Liturgical Commentary (Mittellateinische Studien und Texte, 19), Leiden, 1995.

Secondary sources Allen, P., Neil, B., Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410-590 CE). A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 121), Leiden, 2013. —,  Neil, B., Mayer, W., Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities (Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte, 28), Leipzig, 2009. Amory, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554 (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought), Cambridge, 1997. Anastos, M. V., “Constantinople and Rome: A Survey of the Relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches”, in Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome), ed. M. V. Anastos (Variorum Collected Studies Series, 717), Farnham, 2001, ch. VIII, pp. 1-19. Bagan, P. V., The Syntax of the Letters of Pope Gelasius I, Diss. Catholic University of America, Washington DC, 1945. Bautz, F. W., “Gelasius I.”, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, 2, ed. by F. W. Bautz, 18 vols., Hamm, 1990, pp. 197-199. Blaudeau, P., Le Siège de Rome et l’Orient (448-536). Étude géo-ecclésiologique (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 460), Rome, 2013. —,  Alexandrie et Constantinople (451-491). De l’histoire à la géo-ecclésiologie (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 327), Rome, 2006. —,  “Rome contre Alexandrie? L’interprétation pontificale de l’enjeu monophysite (de l’émergence de la controverse eutychienne au schisme acacien 448-484)”, in Adamantius, 12 (2006), pp. 140-216. —,  “Timothée Aelure et la direction ecclésiale de l’Empire post-chalcédonien”, in Revue des études byzantines, 54 (1996), pp. 107-133.



Bibliography

Brakke, D., “Canon Formulation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter”, in Harvard Theological Review, 87 (1994), pp. 395-419. —, “A New Fragment of Athanasius’ Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter: Heresy, Apocrypha, and the Canon”, in Harvard Theological Review, 87 (2010), pp. 47-66. Bratož, R., “Gelasio”, in Enciclopedia dei Papi, 1 (Rome, 2000), pp. 458-462. Browne, M., “The Three African Popes”, in The Western Journal of Black Studies, 22.1 (1998), pp. 57-70. Capelle, B., “L’oeuvre liturgique de S. Gélase”, in Journal of Theological Studies, 2 (1951), pp. 129-144. Caspar, E., Geschichte des Papsttums 2.Das Papsttum unter byzantinischer Herrschaft, Tübingen, 1933. Charanis, P., Church and State in the Later Roman Empire: The Religious Policy of Anastasius the First, 491-518, Madison, 1939. Cimma, M. R., L’Episcopalis audientia nelle costituzioni imperiali da Constantino a Giustiniano, Turin, 1989. Coustant, P., Epistolae romanorum pontificum, Paris, 1721; reprint Farnborough, 1967. de Gaiffier, B., “Un prologue hagiographique hostile au décret de Gélase?”, in Analecta Bollandiana, 82 (1964), pp. 341-353. Demacopoulos, G. E., The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity, Philadelphia, 2013. —,  “Are All Universalist Politics Local? Pope Gelasius’ International Ambition as a Tonic for Local Humiliation”, in The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, ed. by G. D. Dunn, Farnham, forthcoming. Dossey, L., “Judicial Violence and the Ecclesiastical Courts in Late Antique North Africa”, in Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, ed. by R. W. Mathisen, Oxford, 2001, pp. 98-114. Ducloux, A., Ad ecclesiam confugere. Naissance du droit d’asile dans les églises (IVe – milieu du Ve s.) (De l’archéologie à l’histoire), Paris, 1994. Dunn, G. D. ed., The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, Farnham, forthcoming. —,  “The Clerical cursus honorum in the Late Antique Roman Church”, in Patrologia Pacifica Tertia. Selected Papers Presented to the Asia-Pacific Early Christian Studies Society (Scrinium, 9), ed. by P. Allen, V. Baranov, B. Lourié, Piscataway, NJ, 2013, pp. 120-133. Duval, Y.-M., “Des Lupercales de Constantinople aux Lupercales de Rome”, in Revue des études latines 55 (1977), pp. 222-270. Dvornik, F., “Pope Gelasius and Emperor Anastasius Ι”, in Βyzantinische Ζeitschrift, 44 (1951), pp. 111-116. Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford Scholarship Online, 1993 (10.1093/0198261829.001.0001; accessed 13 February, 2014).



Bibliography

Enciclopedia dei Papi, 3 vols., Rome, 2000. Ensslin, W., “Auctoritas und potestas: Ζur Zweigewaltenlehre des Papstes Gelasius Ι.”, in Historisches Jahrbuch, 74 (1955), pp. 661-668. Ertl, N., “Diktatoren frühmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe”, in Archiv für Urkundenforschung, 1 (1937), pp. 56-132. Fransen, G., Les décrétales et les collections de décrétales, Turnhout, 1972, supplement 1985. Gallagher, C., Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium: A Comprehensive Study (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 8), Farnham, 2002. Garnsey, P., Humfress, C., Evolution of the Late Antique World, Cambridge, 2001. Gillett, A., Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411-533, (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, Fourth Series), Cambridge, 2003. —,  “Rome, Ravenna, and the Last Western Emperors”, in Papers of the British School at Rome, 69 (2001), pp. 131-167. Gmelin, U., “Auctoritas: Römischer Princeps und päpstlicher Primat”, in Geistige Grundlagen römischer Kirchenpolitik, ed. by U. Gmelin, G. Roethe, W. Pewesin, A. Reinke (Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, 11), Stuttgart, 1937, pp. 1-154. Green, W. M., “The Lupercalia in the Fifth Century”, in Classical Philology, 36 (1931), pp. 60-69. Grillmeier, A., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche. Bd. 2/1. Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Rezeption und Widerspruch (451-518), 2nd edn., Freiburg, Basel, Vienna, 1986. Trans. P. Allen, J. Cawte, Christ in Christian Tradition 2: From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604), part 1. Reception and Contradiction. The Development of the Discussion about Chalcedon from 451 to the Beginning of the Reign of Justinian, London, UK, Louisville, KY, 1987. Haacke, W., Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma. (Analecta Gregoriana, 20), Rome, 1939. Haarer, F. K., Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, ARCA (Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs, 46), Cambridge, 2006. Harries, J. D., “Resolving Disputes: The Frontiers of Law in Late Antiquity”, in Law, Society and Authority, ed. by R. W. Mathisen, Oxford, 2001, pp. 68-82. Hoeflich, M. H., “Gelasius I and Roman Law: One Further Word”, in Journal of Theological Studies ns, 26 (1975), pp. 114-119. Holleman, A. W. J., Pope Gelasius I and the Lupercalia, D. Litt. diss., Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, 1974.



Bibliography

Humfress, C., “Bishops and Law Courts in Late Antiquity: How (Not) to Make Sense of the Legal Evidence”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 19.3 (2011), pp. 375-400. —,  Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2007. Humphries, M., “Italy, A.D. 425-605”, in Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors A.D. 425-600, ed. by Av. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby (The Cambridge Ancient History, 14), Cambridge, 2000, pp. 525-551. Jasper, D., Fuhrmann, H., Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages (History of Medieval Canon Law), Washington DC, 2001. Jonkers, E. J., “Pope Gelasius and Civil Law”, in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, 20 (1952), pp. 335-339. Kéry, L., Canonical Collections of the Early Middle Ages (ca. 400-1140): A Bibliographical Guide to the Manuscripts and Literature (History of Medieval Canon Law), Washington, DC, 1999. Knabe, L., Die Gelasianische Zweigewaltentheorie bis zum Ende des Investiturstreits (Historische Studien, 292), Berlin, 1936. Koch, H., Gelasius im kirchen-politischen Dienste seiner Vorgänger, der Päpste Simplicius (468-483) und Felix ΙΙΙ. (483-492). Ein Beitrag zur Sprache des Papstes Gelasius I. (492-496) und früherer Papstbriefe (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, 6C), Munich, 1935. Kosinski, R., “Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch”, in Byzantinoslavica, 68/1-2 (2010), pp. 49-73. Lafferty, S. D. W., “Italy in the Twilight of the Empire: The Decline of Roman Law and Culture under Theodoric the Great (c. 493-526)”, in Canadian Journal of History/Annales canadiennes d’ histoire, 45.3 (2010), pp. 457-483. —,  “Law and Society in Ostrogothic Italy: Evidence from the Edictum Theoderici”, in Journal of Late Antiquity, 3.2 (2010), pp. 337-364. Lamoreaux, J., “Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity”, in Journal of Early Christian Studies, 3 (1995), pp. 143-167. Llewellyn, P., Rome in the Dark Ages, 2nd edn., London, 1993. Lombardi, F., Roma, chiese, conventi, chiostri. Progetto per un inventario 3131925, Rome, 1993. Maassen, F., Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande, bis zum Ausgange des Mittelalters, Graz, 1870, 2 vols. Markschies, C., “Haupteinleitung”, in Antike christliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, vol. 1, Evangelien und Verwandtes, 1, ed. by C. Markschies, J. Schröter, with A. Heiser, Tübingen, 2012, pp. 1-180. Mathisen, R. W., ed., Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity, Oxford, 2001.



Bibliography

McLynn, N., “Crying Wolf: The Pope and the Lupercalia”, in Journal of Roman Studies, 98 (2008), pp. 161-175. Meier, M., Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches, Stuttgart, 2009. Moorhead, J., Theoderic in Italy, Oxford, 1992. Moreau, D., “Non impar conciliorum extat auctoritas. L’origine de l’introduction des lettres pontificales dans le droit canonique”, in L’ étude des correspondances dans le monde romain de l’Antiquité classique à l’Antiquité tardive: Permanences et mutations, ed. by J. Desmulliez, C. Hoët-van Cauwenberghe, J.-C. Jolivet (Collection travaux et recherches), Lille, 2010, pp. 487-506. Neil, B., “The Letters of Gelasius I: A New Model of Crisis Management?” in The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, ed. by G. D. Dunn, Farnham, forthcoming. —,  “The Decretals of Gelasius I: Making Canon Law in Late Antiquity”, in Lex et religio in età tardoantica, XL Incontro de Studiosi dell’Antichità Cristiana (Roma, 10-12 maggio 2012) (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 135), Rome, 2013, pp. 657-668. —,  Leo the Great (The Early Church Fathers), London, New York, 2009. —,  Seventh-century Popes and Martyrs. The Political Hagiography of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (Studia Antiqua Australiensia, 2), Turnhout, 2006. Nelson, J. L., “Gelasius’ Doctrine of Responsibility. A Note”, in Journal of Theological Studies ns, 18.1 (1967), pp. 154-162. Noble, T. F. X., “Theodoric and the Papacy”, in Teodorico il Grande e i Goti d’Italia. Atti del XIII Congresso internazionale di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, Milan, 1990, ed. by O. Capitani, Spoleto, 1993, pp. 395-423. —,  “Literacy and the Papal Government in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages”, in The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, ed. by R. McKitterick, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 82-108. North, J. A., “Caesar at the Lupercalia”, in Journal of Roman Studies, 98 (2008), pp. 144-160. —,  McLynn, N., “Postscript to the Lupercalia: From Caesar to Andromachus”, in Journal of Roman Studies, 98 (2008), pp. 176-181. Noy, D., Foreigners at Rome: Citizens and Strangers, London, 2008. Pentiti, G. A., Spadoni Cerroni, M. C., Epistolari cristiani (secc. I-V). Repertorio bibliografico, parte seconda. Epistolari latini (secc. IV-V), Rome, 1990. Pietri, C., Roma christiana. Recherches sur l’ église de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixtus III (311-440), 2 vols., Rome, 1976. Pietrini, S., Religio e ius romanum nell’epistolario di Leone Magno (Materiali per una palingenesi delle costituzioni tardo-imperiali, 6) Milan, 2002.



Bibliography

Pollard, R. M., “A Cooperative Correspondence: The Letters of Gregory the Great”, in A Companion to Gregory the Great, ed. by B. Neil, M. Dal Santo, Leiden, 2013, pp. 291-312. Richards, J., The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476-752, London, New York, 1979. Salzman, M. R., On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity, Berkeley, 1991. Schwartz, E., Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma (Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophische-historische Klasse Abteilung NF, 10/4), Munich, 1934, pp. 1-160 (texts), pp. 161-303 (discussion). —, “Zum Decretum Gelasianum”, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 29 (1930), pp. 161-168. Selb, W., “Episcopalis audientia von der Zeit Konstantins bis Novelle XXXV Valentinians III”, in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 84 (1967), pp. 162-217. Sessa, K., The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antiquity: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere, Cambridge, 2012. Taylor, J., “The Early Papacy at Work: Gelasius I (492-496)”, in Journal of Religious History, 8 (1975), pp. 317-332. Teitler, H. C., Notarii and Exceptores: An Enquiry into Role and Significance of Shorthand Writers in the Imperial and Ecclesiastical Bureaucracy of the Roman Empire. From the Early Principate to c. 450 AD, Amsterdam, 1985. Ullmann, W., Gelasius I. (492-496): Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter (Päpste und Papsttum, 18), Stuttgart, 1981. —,  The Growth οf Papal Government in the Middle Ages, 2nd edn., London, 1962. —,  “Leo the First and the Theme of Papal Primacy”, in Journal of Theological Studies, 11 (1960), pp. 25-51. Ward-Perkins, B., The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford, 2006. Wickham, C., Framing the Early Middle Ages. Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800, Oxford, 2005. Wirbelauer, E., Zwei Päpste in Rom. Der Konflikt zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498-514), Studien und Texte (Quellen und Forschungen zur antiken Welt, 16), Munich, 1993. Wölfflin, E. V., “Der Papst Gelasius als Latinist”, in Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 12 (1902), pp. 1-10. Ziche, H. G., “Administrer le propriété de l’église: L’évêque comme clerc et comme entrepreneur”, in Économie et religion dans l’Antiquité tardive. Antiquité tardive: Revue internationale d’ histoire et d’archéologie (IVe-VIIIe s.), 14 (2006), pp. 69-78. Ziegler, A. Κ. “Pope Gelasius Ι and His Teaching on the Relation of Church and State”, in Catholic Historical Review, 27.2 (1941-1942), pp. 412-447.



INDICES

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

Old Testament Lev 21:18152 Deut 17:1152 1 Kgs 19:18108 Ps 13:1597n39 36:2797n39 47 (48):13-15 149 70:15-16152 Prov 27:6 76, 204 Song 2:4149 6:876 Eccli 19:1 76, 155 Is 6:10101 38:1-5103 66:1190 Jer 9:1205 Ezek 13:1089 18:32130

Amos 5:1597n39 Jonah 3:3, 4 102 Zech 1:297n40 Mal 3:797n40 New Testament Matt 5:16156 6:24214n19 7:3213 7:13108 7:14108 10:8148 10:2486 12:30119 12:3789 13:15100 16:16206n15 16:18 50n10, 114, 142, 158 16:18-19 10, 50 16:19 110, 136, 137 16:2596 18:18137 21:12152



Index of Biblical References

Lk Jn

Gal

17:34138 19:46152

2:1889 Eph 5:27158 Phil 2:679 1 Thess 5:21161 1 Tim 1:5 76, 89 1:7211 5:9154 5:22153 6:1151 2 Tim 2:4152 2:1975 Tit 3:10-11113 Heb 11:35101n46 Jam 2:10 76, 155n32 3:1189 1 Pet 2:5213 2 Pet 2:20-21212 Apoc 13:11 10, 204

2:15152 8:7212 8:10-11212 13:8135 Acts 1:15-20130 8:9-24145n13 8:18-21155 9:15 73, 158, 203 11:26158 Rom 1:23103 1:31103 1:32 77, 112 11:1101 11:5101 11:15101n46 11:17 101, 103 15:28135 1 Cor 3:11159 6:16-17212 7:9154 9:1673 12:26205 14:40149 2 Cor 4:773



INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Caspar, E. 5n1, 32, 32n5, 49,  49n3, 70 Cawte, J. 5n1 Chavasse, A. 21n22, 50n9, 186n3 Cimma, M. R. 24n40 Coustant, P. 35n19

Alberigo, E. xi Allen, P. 5n1, 9n19, 10n26,  14n45, 17, 17n1, 20n17, 21n21,  25n42, 30n81, 39n42, 146n17,  172n2, 179n4, 201n1 Amory, P. 7n10, 15n49, 28n59,  31n1, 31-32 Anastos, M. V. 5n1

Dal Santo, M. 51n27, 81n4 Davies, S. L. 164n67 Davis, R. x, 12n34, 16n53, 36n27,  62, 62n72, 71n8 de Gaiffier, B. 142, 142n7 Dekkers, E. ix Deliyannis, D. M. 56n40, 145n15 Demacopoulos, G. E. 5n1, 9, 9n21,  9n22, 48, 48n91, 51, 51n12,  70, 70n4, 70n6 Depeyrot, G. 29n66 Di Berardino, A. 163n58, 168n103 Dossey, L. 24n40 Duchesne, L. x Ducloux, A. 22n26, 22n29 Dulabahn, E. 47n86, 210n6 Dunn, G. D. 6n2, 20n17, 27n55,  51n12, 59n52, 146n17,  160n47, 166n84 Duval, Y.-M. 47n86, 62, 62n75, 209, 209n2, 210, 210n7, 210n8,  211n10, 216n26, 216n27

Bagan, P. V. 9-10 Batlle, C. M. 179n4, 180n8, 202n5 Bauer, J. B. 186n3 Bautz, F. W. 6n2 Blaudeau, P. 33n9, 33n13,  35n21, 36n23, 36n24,  37n28, 40n44, 40n51,  110n60, 125n86 Brakke, D. 157n39 Bratož, R. 7n11 Briel, M. 9n22, 9n23 Browne, M. 6n7 Buckland, W. W. 29n66 Cain, A. Cameron, Av. Caner, D. Capelle, B. Carrozzi, L.

172n3 16n52 207n19 62, 62n73, 62n74 24n41



Index of Modern Authors

Dvornik, F.

5n1, 49n3

Haacke, W. 41n52, 82n5 Haarer, F. K. 5n1, 40n48,  75n28, 79n39 Harries, J. D. 24n40 Harting-Correa, A. L. 62n71 Heather, P. 20n18, 98n41 Heiser, A. 157n39 Hoeflich, M. H. 50, 50n7 Holleman, A. W. J. 62n74 Hornblower, S. x Huebner, S. R. 172, 172n3 Humfress, C.24n40, 27n54, 27n55 Humphries, M. 16n52

Ekonomou, A. 109n54 Elliott, J. K. 163n61 Engelbrecht, A. 167n97 Ensslin, W. 5n1, 40n48, 49n3 Ertl, N. 8n13 Ewald, P. ix, x, 8, 8n17, 18n4,  26n48, 26n50, 28n59,  52n19, 57n43, 175n17,  176n24, 180n11, 181n14,  181n15, 181n16, 182n20,  183n24, 188n7, 189n14,  192n2, 193n8, 194n12,  197n25, 199n36, 206n17, 207n22

Jacques, F. 27n53 Jaffé, P. x, 18n4, 28n59,  31n1, 34n14, 34n15,  34n16, 52n19, 57n43,  127n3, 146n17, 156n33,  174n13, 175n16, 175n19,  176n22, 176n24, 177n26,  177n31n, 179n4, 180n8,  180n11, 181n13, 181n17,  182n19, 182n21m 181n23, 202n5 Janini, J. 46n82 Jasper, D. 58n47, 160n47 Jones, A. H. M. x Jonkers, E. J. 60n57

Ferguson, E. 143n10, 162n57, 213n17 Finn, R. D. 21n21 Fitzgerald, A. D. 167n94, 167n95 Foster, B. O. 209n5 Foster, P. 163n64 Frakes, R. M. 27n52 Frend, W. H. C. x, 33n9, 42,  42n64, 71n12, 75n28, 91n29,  96n37, 112n67, 125n87 Fuhrmann, H. 58n47, 160n47 Gador-Whyte, S. 162n56 Gallagher, C. 58n47, 58n48 Garnsey, P. 24n40 Gassó, P. M. 179n4, 180n8, 202n5 Geerard, M. ix Gillett, A. 15n47, 82n7 Giuliani, E. 13n41 Gmelin, U. 58n47 Green, R. P. H. 167n99 Green, W. M. 48n92 Grillmeier, A. 5n1, 33n11, 33n12 Guenther, O. 9, 9n20, 27n54,  35n18, 35n21, 40n51, 47n85,  128n4, 211n11, 218n33

Kaltenbrunner, F. x Kéry, L. 40n51, 160n47 Kinzig, W. 46n83 Klingshirn, W. 20n17 Knabe, L. 49n1 Koch, H. 7, 7n12, 81, 81n3 Kosinski, R. 34n17, 35n20, 35n21, 69n1 Krusch, B. 47n84 Krüger, P. ix, 83n9, 193n9



Index of Modern Authors

Lafferty, S. D. W. 15n49, 60n59,  60n60, 60n61, 61n62,  61n64, 61n66 Lamoreaux, J. 24n40 Lenski, N. 24n40, 29n66, 172n3 Lepelley, C. 20n17, 24n40 Levison, W. 47n84 Llewellyn, P. 13n44, 14n46 Lombardi, F. 14n46 Löwenfeld, S. ix, x, 8, 9n18,  18n4, 23n34, 26n49, 26n50,  30n76, 30n77, 52n15, 52n16,  52n17, 55n33, 55n34, 55n35,  56n36, 82n6, 174n13, 174n15,  175n16, 175n18, 175n19,  176n22, 176n23, 176n24,  177n26, 177n29, 177n31, 180n5, 181n13, 181n17, 182n19,  182n21, 194n14, 197n24

Moorhead, J. 7n9, 11n29, 13n40,  15n50, 47n90, 54n28,  188n11, 199n36 Moreau, D. 56n39, 57n42 Morris, J. x Müller, P. 29n66 Munier, C. 27n54, 157n39 Neil, B. 6n2, 7n8, 8n14, 9n19,  10n26, 14n45, 20n17, 21n21,  25n42, 30n81, 39n42, 44n68,  45n74, 46n81, 46n83, 54n27,  58n47, 59n52, 81n4, 93n32,  137n25, 141n4, 154n29, 160n46, 160n47, 172n2, 179n3,  179n4, 201n1, 207n18 Nelson, J. L. 27n54, 49, 50, 50n5 Noble, T. F. X. 11n30, 13n42,  15n50, 31, 32n2 Norberg, D. 13n43, 207n23 Noret, J. ix North, J. A. 47n87 Noy, D. 92n31

Maassen, F. 40n44 Mansi, G. D. x, 86n20 Markschies, C. 157n39, 163n64 Marrou, H.-I. 13n41 Martindale, J. R. x, 181n16 Mathisen, R. W. 24n40 Mayer, W. 17, 17n1, 21n21, 25n42,  30n81, 162n56 McLynn, N. 6n2, 47, 47n87,  47n88, 47n89,  47n90, 48, 48n91, 48n92,  70, 70n5, 209, 209n3 Meier, M. 75n28 Mews, C. 63n2 Meyer, P. M. ix, 83n9, 146n17, 193n9 Migne, J.-P. x Moffatt, A. 210n7 Mommsen , T. ix, x, 12n37,  21n22, 43n66, 71n8, 83n9,  146n17, 193n9, 210n6

Ocker, C.

42n65

Pavolini, C. 13n41 Pentiti, G. A. 8n15, 14n45 Pharr, C. ix, 22n26, 22n30,  24n38, 29n68, 30n71,  30n79, 46n77, 61n67, 146n17,  171n1, 179n1, 207n23 Pietri, C. 14n46 Pietri, L. 192n5, 198n31 Pietrini, S. 44n67 Pollard, R. M. 81n4 Pomarès, G. 9n23, 62, 62n74, 211,  211n11, 211n12, 216n25, 225 Purcell, N. 20n16 Raikas, K. Richards, J. Ronzani, R.



24n40 7n9 9n23, 169n109

Index of Modern Authors

Salzman, M. R. 210n6, 211n10 Sardella, T. 7n10 Schipper, H. G. 45n76, 46n77 Schmidt, J. 46n83 Schröter, J. 157n39, 163n64 Schwartz, E. ix, 9, 32n7, 41n53,  125n86, 142, 142n6, 160n46 Selb, W. 24n40 Serfass, A. 29n66, 30n80, 207n23 Sessa, K. 6n2, 7n10, 11n29,  16n53, 26n48, 26n51, 50,  50n6, 59n52, 61, 62n70, 72n13,  145n14, 155n31, 192, 192n2,  192n3, 192n5, 197n28 Spadoni Cerroni, M. C. 8n15, 14n45 Spawforth, P. x Stathakopoulos, D. 202n3,  218n31, 218n32 Straub, J. ix

Teitler, H. C. Thiel, A.

132n15 xi, et passim

Uhalde, K. Ullmann, W. 

24n40 5n1, 49, 49n4, 50, 50n9, 70

Van Oort, J. 45n76, 46n77 Vogel, C. x Vogt, A. 210n7 Volp, U. 46n83 Von Dobschütz, E. 9, 9n21 Ward-Perkins, B. 14n46, 16n52, 26n47 Whitby, M. 16n52 Wickham, C. 20n19 Wirbelauer, E. 7n10 Wölfflin, E. V. 10n24 Wurm, H. 25n45, 29n67,  151n25, 191n1

Tanner, N. xi, 30n71, 72n17,  83n9, 87n26, 148n18,  149n20, 150n22, 151n25,  152n26, 154n30, 179n2, 226 Taylor, J. 6n2, 18n4, 19n13,  49n2, 52, 52n14, 52n19,  57n43, 138n130, 180, 180n6,  180n11, 226

Ziche, H. G. Ziegler, A. Κ.



57n43 5n1

GENERAL INDEX

Agnellus of Verulana, deacon  27 Altinum  14, 44 Amandianus, nobleman  29, 41, 129 Anastasius, deacon  54n28, 61n69, 129, 129n8, 130-131 Anastasius, defensor  28, 28n60, 179, 181-182 Anastasius I, emp.  3, 6, 31, 38, 40-42, 46, 49, 69-70, 73, 75n28, 79n39, 109, 114n69, 181n16, 218n32 Anastasius I, pope  45 Anastasius II, pope  6n6, 42, 42n60, 58, 61, 72n17, 129n8 ep. 1 42n anathema  35-37, 39, 48n91, 87n25, 93, 97, 103, 131, 138, 142, 160, 169 Andreas, bp. of Thessaloniki  38, 40 Andromachus  9, 47-48, 62, 62n74, 113, 113n68, 209, 209n4, 211 see also Gelasius, tracts Anonymous of Ravenna  54n32 apocrisiarius  84, 223 apocrypha  10, 59, 142, 162-168 Apollinaris, heretic  35, 168 appeals  4, 11, 19, 24, 27, 36, 43, 51-53, 55, 63, 111, 152n26, 173, 199n36

abuses 24 clerical  26, 171-178, 224 social  25, 61, 171-178 Acacius, patriarch  3, 9n20, 31-42, 48, 63, 69-72, 78-79, 81-107, 109-113, 115n73, 117-118, 120, 122, 124-125, 131, 137n27, 138, 169, 169n110, 202, 206 Acacian schism  4, 6, 8, 11, 12n36, 15n48, 18, 18n10, 27, 27n56, 31, 31n1, 32-35, 3738, 40, 42, 45, 47, 64, 69-70, 71n10, 77n31, 77n32, 81, 81n1, 82n7, 95n35, 96n37, 99n43, 103n48, 106n51, 127, 127n2, 142, 169n109, 169n110, 201-202 actors  47-48, 192n4, 209 Adam Leptogenesis  165 Africa, North  16, 20, 20n17, 21n19, 27, 30-31, 98n41, 167n94, 201 bishops of  27, 30, 43, 60, 98n41 137n26, 201 councils of  58 see also synods Agapitus, pope  13, 36n23, 64 Agnellus of Ravenna Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis 56n40



General Index

appointments, clerical  4, 51, 53-56, 63, 141n3, 143, 146, 152 Aprilis, bp.  195 Apulia  23, 174n15, 175n18, 188n11, 193n8, 195n16, 195n17 Aquileia  14, 44, 59n52, 161n50 archdeacon  7, 11, 19, 52, 54, 58, 172n2, 176, 180, 185, 187, 196 archive  11-14, 72, 127-128, 138 aristocracy  14, 28, 43, 192 Arius  12, 31, 32, 35, 72, 168 Arianism  12n37, 31-32, 32n7, 72n15, 162n57, 168n105, Athanasius of Alexandria, patriarch  31, 60n55, 83, 83n10, 157n39, 159 Attila  14, 20, 203 audientia episcopalis, see bishop’s court Augustine of Hippo  6, 6n7, 24, 27-28, 30, 42-43, 44n67, 59, 159, 166n89, 167n94, 167n95, 185, 210 Contr. advers. leg. et proph. 164n69 De moribus Manichaeorum 186n3 letters  24n41, 27n53 Avus, defensor  26, 28, 28n60, 175

Caelestius  42-44, 168, 168n107 Caesarius of Arles, bp.  44n68 Calabria  23, 56, 185, 188n9, 188n11 Calendio, patriarch  69, 71n11, 82, 112, 112n67, 115-116 canon of scripture  10, 60, 60n55, 157n39 canons  13n39, 29, 51, 53, 55, 58, 72n17, 78, 78n34, 82, 110-114, 122, 132, 141, 144, 145, 147, 149, 151-152, 154, 156, 158n42, 171-172, 175-176, 207n18 Canon 9 of Chalcedon  179n2 Canon 13 of Nicaea  150n22, 226 Canon 17 of Nicaea  151n25 captives  3, 19, 20n17, 21-23, 173, 202 Cassiodorus  23n32, 186, 188n9, 189-190 church/es  4, 5n1, 8, 10-12, 14n45, 16-19, 21-23, 26-33, 37n31, 3946, 49, 51, 51n11, 54-60, 63-64, 69-71, 72n13, 74-76, 78-79, 79n38, 84, 86-91, 93, 96, 98-99, 101, 104, 106-108, 110-112, 114117, 121-123, 129-134, 136-138, 142, 144-147, 149-152, 153n27, 154-162, 169, 171-182, 185-190, 192, 194-199, 203, 206n15, 206n17, 207, 207n18, 211-213 St Agatha in Subura  32, 32n8 circumcision  22, 22n30, 30, 30n79, 207, 207n23 clarissimus/i  28n64, 128-131, 138139, 157, 173, 206, 223, 224, 226 class/es  3, 17-18, 43, 63, 191, 195 Clement of Alexandria  163n63, 166, 166n91 clergy  3, 11, 17-19, 22-23, 26-27, 29, 43-44, 45n74, 52-55, 59, 61-64, 70-72, 82, 84, 141, 141n3, 143144, 146n17, 151-152, 152n26,

Basiliscus, emp.  33-34, 86n21, 99, 99n43 Encyclical 34 Benedict II, pope  13 bishop’s court  24, 24n40, 24n41, 52, 61, 179n1, 186, 224 bonded labourer  225 Boniface II, pope  13, 44n68 Britain 44 Brumarius, nobleman  23 Bruttium  23, 56, 59, 141, 190n18 Byzantine court  53, 223



General Index

83n9, 85n19, 87, 87n26, 89, 92-94, 110-111, 117, 132n16, 142, 159, 168n109 Constantinople II (553)  9 Nicaea I (325)  31, 33, 36, 93, 93n32, 144n11, 159 Nicaea II (787)  132n16 local,  see synods count  17-18, 18n4, 26, 180, 182183, 191-192, 196, 197, 223,226 Crispinus, bp.  17n2, 191, 195, 196n23 curia  8, 72, 146-147, 223-224 curialis/es  55, 146n17, 178, 224

156-157, 171-172, 176, 179-180, 186, 191-192, 197, 202, 224 clerical misconduct,  see abuses, clerical Codex encyclius  33, 33n10 Codex Theodosianus  ix, 22n26, 22n29, 22n30, 27n52, 28n61, 30n71, 30n79, 61n67, 83n9, 146n17, 171n1, 179n1, 193n9, 207n23, 213n16 collectiones,  see letter collections commonitorium  50n10, 81-82, 109, 223 consiliarius  47, 54 Constantine, bp.  22n28, 179, 181 Constantine I, emp.  159, 161n49, 162, 166n85, 225 Constantine VI, emp.  132n16, 225 Constantine Porphyrogenitus De ceremoniis  210, 218n32 Constantinople  3, 7n11, 12n36, 27, 31-34, 36-38, 41n59, 42-43, 47, 51, 60, 63, 69, 71, 77n3179, 79n37, 79n38, 79n39, 82-83, 83n12, 85, 87n26, 109, 110n60, 111n62, 112, 127, 131, 138, 142, 158n42, 159-160, 168-169, 202-203 Constantius, bp.  22n30, 30n78, 207 Constantius II, emp.  31, 162, 162n57 Constitutiones Sirmondianae,  see Codex Theodosianus council/s, church  31, 34, 35n18, 36, 41, 42-43, 58, 61n68, 116, 121, 123, 127-128, 128n5, 132, 144n11, 162n57, 223-224 ecumenical  79n37, 83n12, 142, 159n43, 168n109, 225 see also canons Chalcedon (451)  12n36, 3233, 36, 69, 72n17, 77, 81,

Dacia  39, 40n49 Dalmatia  19, 28, 44-45, 57, 64 Dardania, bishops of  9, 31n1, 3940, 41n59, 56, 82, 115n73 deacon  7, 12n31, 25, 27-29, 28, 38-39, 52, 54-57, 61, 72, 81, 85, 127, 129-131, 143-145, 147-151, 157, 172, 174, 180, 191, 193, 195, 206n17 decretal/s  4, 12, 35, 51, 57-60, 63, 70, 141-169, 192, 197n28 defensor ecclesiae  9n19, 14n44, 19, 26-28, 36-37, 54, 55, 82, 146, 172, 175, 177-182, 199, 224 Demetrias Anicia, noblewoman  43 Diogenianus, nobleman  41, 129 Dioscorus, patriarch  33, 42, 77, 83n12, 85n19, 87, 87n25, 95n36, 131, 138, 159, 168 diptychs  37-38, 40, 42, 78n33, 79n35, 87n25, 121, 187n6, 224 displaced persons  3-4, 20-22, 144n12, 199n37, 201-207 Dulcius, defensor  9n19, 28, 55 Egypt, bishops of  39 Ennodius of Pavia  42, 202n3



General Index

Eucharistus  18n4, 52, 55, 55n33, 82, 172, 177-178, 180, 182-183 Euphemius, patriarch  39, 69, 110 Eusebius  59, 161, 166n83 Historia Ecclesiastica 161, 161n50, 163n59, 163n63, 163n64, 166, 167n100 Eutyches, archimandrite  12, 33, 35, 40, 42, 72, 77, 79n38, 117, 131-132, 138, 159, 168n109, 169

Firmina, noblewoman  21, 203, 206-207 Fortunatus, bp.  56n38, 153n27, 185n2 Fravitta, patriarch  7n11, 37, 69, 110n60, 125n86 games  79, 224 Gaul  15n50, 20n17, 31, 44, 47, 51, 106n51, 142, 158n41, 167, 202, 206, 215 Gelasius, pope  passim letters (not in translation here) ep. 3  39n42, 48n94, 110n60, 171, 188n7 ep. 7  40n44, 41n59, 111n64, 171 ep. 8  40n46, 40n47, 41n59 ep. 11 40n45 ep. 18  38n36, 40, 40n50, 41n59, 137n27 ep. 43  41, 41n59 ep. 73**  192, 197n25 fragments (not in translation here) frg. 3  9n19, 28n59 frg. 4  55, 55n32 frg. 5 54 frg. 11  23, 23n36, 52n19, 180n11 frg. 13  22n25, 23n37, 24n39, 52n19, 180n11, 202 frg.26 26 frg. 27  26 hearing of appeals  4, 51, 63 ‘lover of the poor’  18 management of property  3-4, 8, 10, 51, 56-57, 72n13 origins  5-8, 73n23 papal primacy  5, 49-51, 58, 69-70, 132, 142, 158 relations with the East38-42, 72-126

Faustus, magister and legate  50, 50n10, 73, 81-82, 109 Faustus, defensor  18n4, 19, 28, 28n60, 55, 82, 172, 177-178, 180, 183 Felix, bp.  30, 30n76, 128, 191, 197 Felix III, pope  3, 7, 7n9, 11, 14, 18, 27, 31, 35-39, 45, 47, 63, 81-82, 95n34, 109n57, 125n86, 127, 127n3, 132n17, 204n8, 209, 210n7, 211n10 excommunication of Acacius  32, 36, 69 letters  11n28, 35, 35n19, 35n21, 36n25, 36n26 ep. 7  36 ep. 9 39n41 ep. 11  34, 35n18, 37n28, 37n39, 39n42, 127, 127n3 ep. 12  37n30, 37n31 ep. 14  7n11 ep. 15  37n32 ep. 16  38n35 ep. 17  38n34 ep. 18  38n36, 38n37 Felix IV, pope  13, 56, 56n40 Felix, cleric of Nola  23-24, 186, 199n36 festival/s  4, 47-48, 209-210, 216n25 Fiesole 53



General Index

Historia Francorum 47n84

relations with the Ostrogoths  3, 38, 17, 180, 191, 196 tracts  8-9, 72 1. Gesta de nomine Acacii  8n16, 34, 35n18, 39, 39n40 2. De damnatione nominum Petri et Acacii 8n16 3. De duabus naturis 8n16, 9n23, 79n38, 169n109, 209, 210n6, 211-221 4. Tomus de anathematis vinculo 8n16 5. Dicta beatissimi Gelasii papae adversus Pelagianam haeresim  8n16, 45n73 6. Adversus Andromachum 8n16, 9, 9n23, 46-48, 70n5, 211-221 ‘two swords’ theory  3, 38n38, 49, 70

Henotikon, see Zeno, emp. Heraleuva 199 Herculentius of Potentia, bp.  30n73, 30n77, 194, 194n12, 198-199 heresy  4, 39, 43, 45, 77, 79n37, 79n38, 86, 90, 92, 98, 111, 117, 119, 122, 131, 169n111 Hesychius 164 Hormisdas, pope  6n6, 9n20, 12, 13n39, 32n2, 42, 46, 58, 60, 82n7, 142, 159n43, 162n56, 165n79, 165n80, 168n106, 223 Hostilius, comes  26, 26n48, 192, 197, 223 household/s  62, 191-192, 192n5 Huns 14 Illyricum Orientale  39-40, 56 Innocent I, pope  12, 27, 29, 29n67, 42-43, 45, 51, 58-59, 59n52, 61n68, 143n10, 146n17, 160n47 ep. 1 164n69 ep. 41  27 Ireland 44 Irene, emp.  132n16, 225

Gerontius, bp.  23n36, 25n43, 52, 55, 180 Geruntius of Valva, bp.  171, 175, 176, 198n30 Gesta de nomine Acacii,  see Gelasius, tracts gospel  10, 151, 158, 162n55, 163-164 see also apocrypha Goths  15, 17-18, 28, 31-32, 34, 49, 57, 60, 188n11, 203 Gregory I, pope  3, 7n9, 13-14, 16, 30, 32, 47, 54, 56, 56n39, 62-63, 63n2, 81n4, 128 letters  13n43, 30n80, 54n30, 63, 207n23 Reg. 3.19  32n8 Reg. 4.19  32n8 Gregory of Tours  46-47

Jerome  159-161, 161n50, 162n55, 164n68, 164n70, 164n71 Jews  10, 22, 22n30, 28, 30, 30n79, 101, 203, 207, 207n23 John I, pope  13, 64 John II, pope  13 John III, pope  13 John of Pisa, bp.  26 John of Sora, bp.  145n14, 185, 192, 197-198 John of Spoleto, bp.  25, 52n18, 61n65, 172, 173, 177



General Index

John Talaia, patriarch  35-36, 36n25, 71, 71n12, 82, 84, 84n17, 92n31, 100, 112, 112n66, 116, 116n77 Julian of Eclanum, bp.  42-43, 168, 168n107 justice  4, 18n5, 20, 24-26, 28n60, 52, 63, 99, 105, 137, 137n25, 154, 174, 176, 181, 182, 186n4, 194, 196 Justin I, emp.  42 Justinian I, emp.  57, 172, 223 Justus, bp.  23n33, 27n58, 29, 29n70, 30n73, 179, 193-194 Justus of Larinum, bp.  23, 174175, 181

168n109, 185-186, 191, 207n19, 213n17 homilies  21n22, 46n83, 51n13, 186n3, 213n17 serm. 2  50n9 serm. 19  44n67 letters  8, 24n38, 25n45, 29n67, 45n76, 51n11, 59n52, 93n32, 137n25, 137n26, 142, 151n25, 154n29, 160n46, 160n47, 179n3, 191n1 ep. 1  44, 45n74 ep. 2  44, 45n74 ep. 12  26n47 ep. 15  39n42, 168n108 letters ix, passim letter collections  6n5, 11, 13, 58, 58n47 Colbertinus codex  40 Avellana  9, 9n20, 11, 27n54, 35n18, 35n21, 39n40, 40, 40n45, 40n50, 40n51, 41, 47n85, 128n4, 211, 218n33 Britannica 8-9 Diessensis 40 Dionysiana  58, 58n47, 142 Dionysiana adaucta  40 Frisingensis 40 Pseudo-isidoriana  6n5, 40 Quesnelliana 40 Veronensis  32n7, 40n44, 41 Leucius 164 libellus/libelli  36n25, 39n43, 62n71, 127, 128n5, 223, 224 Liber Pontificalis  x, 6-7, 12, 12n31, 12n32, 12n34, 13n42, 13n43, 15, 15n51, 16n53, 18, 27n56, 32n3, 32n6, 32n8, 36, 36n27, 39, 39n43, 42n60, 45-46, 61-62, 63n1, 70, 71n7, 71n8, 72n16, 145n15, 146n17 Libya, bishops of  39 liturgy  37n33, 39, 63n2, 224

Laurence, bp.  22n30, 30n78, 128, 129, 207 Laurence, bp. (of Siena?)  27, 27n55 Laurentian schism  7n10, 42 law  3, 11, 22-23, 25, 25n46, 29n68, 50-52, 57-60, 74-75, 77, 79, 79n39, 86, 88, 90-91, 114, 118, 121-123, 141-142, 147-148, 150n22, 152-153, 173, 177, 181, 186, 188, 190-191, 193, 195-197, 204, 213, 223-224, 226 courts  24, 52, 179, 180, 186 see also bishop’s court legal action  25, 179, 225 thirty-year (tricennalis lex) 19, 19n15, 30, 30n71, 83, 171, 173 legate/s  11, 27, 36, 47, 50, 71n10, 81-82, 82n7, 95, 97-98, 109, 127, 130n99, 137n27, 224 see also apocrisiarius Leo, acolyte  32n8 Leo I, pope  8, 14, 17, 20, 21n21, 25, 25n45, 29-30, 33, 44, 44-46, 49-51, 57, 72n16, 81n4, 93, 129n9, 132n16, 137n25, 160,



General Index

Novella Valentiniana  29, 29n68, 30n71, 146n17, 171n1, 179, 179n1

Roman  51, 61-62, 63, 72n14, 213n17 Livy  209-210, 214, 214n21, 214n22 Lombards 13 Lucania  56, 59, 141, 194n12, 195n19, 196n22, 198n33 Lupercalia  3, 4, 8, 46-48, 62n74, 64, 70, 70n5, 113n68, 209, 210n6, 210n9, 211-221

Odovacer  15, 21, 31, 31n1, 34, 45, 47, 47n90, 202 Og the giant  165 Olibula, noblewoman  25, 52n18, 61n65, 172-173 ordination  3, 29-30, 37, 51n13, 54, 56, 59, 61, 61n63, 70, 72, 144, 146n17, 147, 150, 152n26, 172, 176, 191-192, 193n9 orphan/s  19, 22, 25, 202 Ostrogoth/s  3, 38, 188n11 overseers  74, 87, 92, 112, 115-116, 122-123, 148, 159, 174-175, 177, 182, 188, 223

magister militum  32n6, 224 Majoricus, bp.  23n31, 23n35, 186, 188-189, 190 managers  128, 139, 193-195 Mani 35 Manicheism  4, 6n6, 20, 39n42, 45-46, 71, 164, 168n104, 185, 186, 189n12, 201 Marcian, emp.  14, 159 Martyrius, bp.  22n28, 29, 29n70, 128, 193 Mary, mother of Jesus  164, 165 Maxima, noblewoman  29-30, 191, 195 Melania the Younger, noblewoman 43 Mercurius, bp.  128, 180, 181-182 Misenus of Cuma, legate  35-38, 41, 54n28, 71, 71n10, 82, 95n35, 103-107, 127-138, 157n38 monk/s  18, 36-38, 41, 54, 58, 93n32, 143-144, 154, 167n97, 167n98 munera  146n17, 224 murder  7, 23, 71, 71n11, 91n29, 185-190

pagan/s  3,-4, 8, 35, 46-48, 59, 6364, 70n5, 90, 98, 162, 162n53, 209-221 patriarch  3, 31-36, 43, 69-71, 71n11, 71n12, 79n37, 79n38, 83n10, 83n11, 83n12, 83n14, 83n15, 85n19, 87n25, 110n60, 111n63, 112n67, 115n75, 125n86, 168n109, 223 patrimonies  16, 19, 56-57, 63 Paul, apostle  51, 73, 135, 158, 158n41, 161, 165 Pelagius  42-44, 167n95, 168, 168n107 Pelagianism  4, 8, 42-45, 48, 64, 115n70, 167n95, 167n97 Pelagius I, pope  9, 9n19, 13, 64, 179n4, 180, 202, 202n5 Pelagius II, pope  14n45 penance  37n31, 39, 72, 98, 125, 127, 144, 146, 147, 153, 179, 186, 189-190, 211, 225 Pentapolis, bishops of  39

NagHammadi Codex  164n67, 165n77 Natalis, abbot  40, 41n59 Nepos  15, 165 Nola  23-24, 71n12, 186n4, 190, 199n36, 202



General Index

papal,  see patrimonies rental of  57, 128 Prosper Tiro  21n22, 43n66, 159n45 public works  224

persecution  3, 20, 45-46, 60, 64, 70, 71n9, 98n41, 106, 106n51, 120, 124, 186n3, 188, 201-202, 206 Peter, apostle  4, 10, 19, 21, 24, 48n91, 49, 50-51, 53, 102, 110, 114, 131, 132, 132n16, 135-136, 138, 142, 149, 158, 158n41, 163, 181, 204, 206n15, 207 Peter, cleric of Nola  23-24, 186n4, 199n36 Peter Mongus  34-42, 69, 71-72, 78, 83-99, 103, 111, 111n62, 111n64, 116-119, 123-125, 131, 133, 138, 169, 169n110 Peter the Fuller  34-35, 69, 69n1, 71n10, 71n11, 77, 111, 111n63, 112n65, 115n74, 120, 123-125, 131, 138, 169, 169n110 Philip, friend of Cassiodorus  186, 189-190 Placidia, noblewoman  29, 30, 191, 194 Polemius Silvius  47, 210, 210n6 polytheism 35 pontiff/s  19, 29, 39, 51, 53, 59, 70, 74, 86-88, 90, 93, 98, 100, 1-2, 110-111, 114, 116-121, 123-125, 147-149, 151, 156-157, 175, 186190, 193-194, 212-213, 220, 225 poor, the  17-19, 21, 26-29, 63, 70, 71, 145, 156, 173, 190, 199, 206, 215, 224 Potentinus, bp.  26 primacy, papal  5, 51, 58, 70, 70n3, 132, 137n28, 142, 158 prince  25, 53, 75, 79, 91, 105, 121, 181, 195-196, 197, 225 Probus, bp.  23, 129, 174-175 property  19, 26-30, 43, 46, 57, 60, 180, 185, 187, 191, 193-194, 206n17, 224 management of  3-4, 10, 16, 51, 57, 57n43

ransom/s  3, 19, 21-22, 201-202 rape 25-26 Ravenna  14-15, 32, 34, 53-54, 56, 56n38, 145 Respectus, bp.  52, 57n45, 176, 180 Ricimer, magister  32, 32n6, 47n90, 210, 219 Roman empire  15, 109n56, 162n53, 192n5, 193n10, 201, 224-226 Rome  passim bishops of  7-8, 14n45, 17, 1921, 30-31, 56, 58, 60, 63-64, 141, 192n5 church of  4, 12n35, 51, 110, 138, 142, 158-162, 172, 175, 177-179, 181, 206n15 churches of  58 city of  5-6, 15-17, 19, 45, 71, 129, 141, 157-162 liturgy of,  see liturgy, Roman synod of,  see synods Rufinus, bp.  27n58, 30n75, 195 Rusticus, bp.  56n38, 153n27, 185n2 Rusticus of Lyon, bp  202, 205206, 206n15 Rusticus of Narbonne, bp.  154n29, 179n3 Sabellius, heretic  35, 168, 168n106 Sabinus, bp.  17n2, 18n7, 19, 27n57, 191, 194, 195-196, 196n23 sacra  89, 225 Samnium  23, 174n14, 176n25 sanctuary 22 scrinium  3, 11, 13, 41n56, 73n19, 81, 81n4, 127-128 see also archive



General Index

scripture  59-60, 76, 101, 113, 149, 158-159, 167n93, 167n94, 168, 203-204 Secundinus of Visinum  172-174 senator  32n7, 47n85, 48, 64, 186, 224, 226 Senecio, bp.  198 Serapion of Antioch  163n64 Serenus of Nola, bp.  22-23, 23n35, 52n17, 129, 180n5, 186, 190 servant/s  3, 48, 73, 129-131, 196 Sicily  11, 19, 22, 54, 56, 59, 141, 171-173, 202 Silverius, pope  13 Simplicius, pope  3, 7, 18, 34-35, 36n25, 17n16, 81, 86n23, 111n64, 127n3, 145n15, 156n33 sin  34, 43, 101, 105, 107, 113, 153, 211-213, 215 Siracusius, bp.  22n30, 30n78, 180, 182, 207 Sixtus, notarius  12n35, 41n56 slave/s  3, 10, 14, 17, 19, 22, 22n29, 22n30, 28-30, 50, 57, 60, 144. 146, 151, 191, 194-195, 201, 203, 207, 207n23 slave-owner/s  3, 28-30, 144, 151, 191, 203 solidus  57, 57n41, 128, 178n32, 225, 226 spectacle/s 224 see also Lupercalia Spoleto  25, 52n18, 61n65172-173, 177n28 Squillace  23, 185-186, 188, 189n14, 190n17, 190n18 Stephen, bp.  23, 23n33, 30n73, 30n77, 58, 129, 194 Succonius of Africa, bp.  41n59, 60, 98n41, 201-205 Symmachus, pope  6n6, 7, 11, 16, 32n2, 42, 46, 46n78, 58, 193n8 ep. 13  42n61, 42n63

synods  9n20, 29, 35-36, 44, 44n68, 50, 55, 59, 71-72, 77, 82-83, 83n10, 83n11, 104, 112, 115-117, 119-124, 127, 131-138, 157n38, 168n108, 175n21, 170, 190 Arminium (359)  162, 162n57 Carthage (411)  43 Carthage (416)  43 Carthage (418)  43 Milevis (416)  43 Rome (485)  35n18, 37, 37n29, 39n42, 41, 54n28, 69, 127 Rome (499)  46n78, 54n28, 129n6, 129n7, 193n8 Seleucia (359)  162n57 Syria, bishops of  41, 41n59 tax  56, 146n17, 205n12, 223 Thebaid, bishops of  39 Thecla, saint  165, 165n76 Theodora, noblewoman  17, 29, 196 Theodore Lector Historia ecclesiastica 35n21, 36n23, 86n21 Theodoric  3, 15, 21, 23-24, 28, 32, 32n2, 38, 35, 37n90, 52, 57, 60, 64, 71, 142, 180-181, 186n4, 199, 199n36, 202, 202n3 Theodosius, emp.  14, 31, 43, 45 theopaschism 32n7 Thessaloniki  12n33, 38, 40, 42n62 Thomas Aquinas Summa theologica 25n46 Timothy Aelurus, patriarch  33-34, 42, 69, 71n11, 87, 87n25, 111, 111n63, 131, 138 Timothy Salofaciolus, patriarch  33-34, 69, 83 titular churches (tituli)  7, 26, 26n51 tremis/tremisses  55, 178, 226 Trisagion hymn  35, 35n21 Tutus, legate  27n56, 36-37, 82



General Index

Walahfrid Strabo  62 will  12, 29, 31, 43, 44n67, 44n68, 61, 74, 80, 84, 89-91, 96, 101, 108, 115-116, 121, 133, 135-136, 161, 178, 187, 191, 214, 221

Urbanus, bp. of Fulgina  26, 171, 177 usury  25, 25n45, 151n25 Valentinian III, emp.  14, 29, 30n71, 45, 171n1, 179 Valentinus, heretic  35, 168 Vandals  14, 16, 20, 20n18, 25, 60, 98n41, 201 Vetranio, bp.  38 viaticum  41, 130, 150n22, 153, 226 Vigilius, pope  8, 62, 137n26, 137n29 violence  17, 22-25, 79n39, 98-99, 101, 188 visitator  53-55, 185, 190n17 Vitalis of Tronto, legate  35-38, 82, 95n35, 103-107, 127, 130n99, 132, 134n9, 137, 137n27

Zachariah Historia ecclesiastica 36n23, 71n12, 86n21, 125n86 zeja,  see count Zeno, emp.  11, 15, 31, 33-35, 35n23, 36n25, 37, 37n32, 7071m 112n67, 125 Antencyclical 34 Henotikon  31, 70, 111n62, 112n67 Zosimus, pope  14n45, 43, 45, 58, 160n47

